Reply With Quote
If it's a false claim you should have no trouble disputing it. Yet for some reason you continuously insist on avoiding any attempt to do so.
hey john I am who I am... I don't need to look up when I don't make up a claim. Is it to much to ask for do entation to back up your claim?
If it's a false claim you should have no trouble disputing it. Yet for some reason you continuously insist on avoiding any attempt to do so.
You made the claim that the graph presents false information. That's a claim you still have yet to prove. And you've made it abundantely clear that asking you to back up your own claim is way too much to ask.
I never stated it was false.. nice try. Again, I asked for the 'facts' from the idiot who posted the graph. he told me to refute the 'facts' (graph) and I asked him more than once to lay out these so called facts. he never did.
The only person who is attempting to duck the issue is the one who posted the graph to begin with. Go back and re read the post. Where are the facts to back up the graph?
I'm not attempting to duck them. I'm just not going to argue with you. You are an idiot. There is no discussion with you. The facts are that the CBO came up with it, and not the RNC. You are going back to ignore.
The graph speaks for itself. This "show me the so-called facts" game you're playing is nothing more than an attempt by you to weasel out of having to admit that you are unable to produce any information that could be used to discredit it.
so you still can't provide anything to support the graph either? have you noticed the person who actually posted it has given up trying to find anything to back it up?
I tell you what let's simplify this for you.
If you have a statement that you are going to pass along as fact, shouldn't the party on the receiving end be allowed to view the supporting do entation to verify if it is a fact?
very simple question.
Or are we to go along with your current logic in that all you need to do is make a statement without do entation to back it up and then require someone else to disprove it. The best party of your thinking is that the receiving party must provide do entation to refute your original statement. The same one you don't have any do entation for to begin with..
I don't blame you for ducking it.
And for the record, I have no do ents to back up the FACT that I'm laughing at GGA and not with him.
Logic isn't your strong suit so we give you a pass.
Well I guess it's official. I have a graph!
Being an anti-anti-communist isn't the same as being pro-communist.
Similarly, attacking your essentially fallacious (ad hominem, association fallacy) and uninformative attack on SnC doesn't cons ute a defense of what he posted.
What he posted wasn't very strong, admittedly. But your own flames were at least as feeble. This is what I meant to draw attention to. Your subsequent remarks did very little to shore up the weak basis of your attack, and the silly strawman you're so proud of (I see you're posting it in other threads now) won't throw very many people off.
SnC's graph was at least based on CBO numbers and assumptions. Yours is based on pure partisan spite.
Nice work, GGA.
nah just proving a point. don't worry i won't lose any sleep over hurting your wittle feelings.SnC's graph was at least based on CBO numbers and assumptions. Yours is based on pure partisan spite.
Nice work, GGA.
Your weak bs didn't hurt me.
On four separate occasions winehole tried to explain to you where the numbers came from. See posts 35, 38, 44 and 49 for supporting do entation.
See posts 35, 38, 44 and 49 for supporting do entation.I tell you what let's simplify this for you.
If you have a statement that you are going to pass along as fact, shouldn't the party on the receiving end be allowed to view the supporting do entation to verify if it is a fact?
See posts 35, 38, 44 and 49 for supporting do entation.very simple question.
Or are we to go along with your current logic in that all you need to do is make a statement without do entation to back it up and then require someone else to disprove it. The best party of your thinking is that the receiving party must provide do entation to refute your original statement. The same one you don't have any do entation for to begin with..
There you go. It's all spelled out for you. Refute at your leisure. But I'm pretty sure we both already know that you're not going to bother.
you bore me
Predictable.
it's a matter of simple logic
Predictable.
Great. Let's have the syllogism.
Oh, absolutely. Predicting how you'll behave is most definitely a matter of simple logic.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/...op-6-trillion/ObamaCare’s Cost Could Top $6 Trillion
Posted by Michael F. Cannon
Congressional Democrats are using several budget gimmicks to disguise the cost of their health care overhaul, claiming the House and Senate bills would cost only (!) about $1 trillion over 10 years. Now that critics have begun to correct for those budget gimmicks, supporters of ObamaCare are firing back.
One gimmick makes the new en lement spending appear smaller by not opening the spigot until late in the official 10-year budget window (2010–2019). Correcting for that gimmick in the Senate version, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) estimates, “When all this new spending occurs” — i.e., from 2014 through 2023 — “this bill will cost $2.5 trillion over that ten-year period.”
Another gimmick pushes much of the legislation’s costs off the federal budget and onto the private sector by requiring individuals and employers to purchase health insurance. When the bills force somebody to pay $10,000 to the government, the Congressional Budget Office treats that as a tax. When the government then hands that $10,000 to private insurers, the CBO counts that as government spending. But when the bills achieve the exact same outcome by forcing somebody to pay $10,000 directly to a private insurance company, it appears nowhere in the official CBO cost estimates — neither as federal revenues nor federal spending. That’s a sharp departure from how the CBO treated similar mandates in the Clinton health plan. And it hides maybe 60 percent of the legislation’s total costs. When I correct for that gimmick, it brings total costs to roughly $2.5 trillion (i.e., $1 trillion/0.4).
Here’s where things get really ugly. TPMDC’s Brian Beutler calls “the” $2.5-trillion cost estimate a “doozy” of a “hysterical Republican whopper.” Not only is he incorrect, he doesn’t seem to realize that Gregg and I are correcting for different budget gimmicks; it’s just a coincidence that we happened to reach the same number.
When we correct for both gimmicks, counting both on- and off-budget costs over the first 10 years of implementation, the total cost of ObamaCare reaches — I’m so sorry about this — $6.25 trillion. That’s not a precise estimate. It’s just far closer to the truth than President Obama and congressional Democrats want the debate to be.
Beutler and other supporters of ObamaCare can react to this news in two ways. They can continue to deny the enormous cost of the legislation they support. Or they can question how President Obama’s health plan came to be so blessedly expensive, and how (and by whom) they were duped into thinking it wasn’t.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
