Reply With Quote
Yeah. I have the unmitagted gall to ask for do entation to back up a picture.... I know you don't need do entation you just make stuff up.
I'm never going to let this thread die.
GGA has become a parody of himself now.
Yeah. I have the unmitagted gall to ask for do entation to back up a picture.... I know you don't need do entation you just make stuff up.
See posts 35, 38, 44 and 49 for supporting do entation.
I forgot to ask you, did you ever find where I said it was a false claim? I know you qucikly backtracked on that one. I'll wait for the response..if there isn't then I guess it's safe to assume that you mkae stuff up.
Care to offer any insight as to who/what you were referring to here?
Sure looks to me like you're suggesting that the "fact-less" graph is making false claims. But if not, here's your chance to set the record straight.
Also, you can see posts 35, 38, 44 and 49 for those facts you keep asking for.
I already answered the question you keep asking me. I answered the sources issue a while back.. now go run back and find it boy... I'll have a biscuit ready for you when you get back!
Do I need to go nack a reference your original post about the false claim? I can if you'd like?
Who were you referring to when you clearly stated "i'm not the one making false claims?"
Why won't you refute any of the data from posts 35, 38, 44 and 49?
Bottom line, the advertised ten year cost of HCR relies on the gimmick of phasing in the benefits in year five of the program. When one asks the question which ten year estimate gives a truer picture of the magnitude of the cost, there is no contest -- under 900 billion is an artificially low, politically driven figure. Even the TPM blurb GGA cited triumphantly as "proof" he is right admits as much.
Exactly. The program doesn't go away in 10 years. It just keeps getting bigger, and bigger, and bigger. Then one day down the road we end up with one more boondoggle like social security and medicare have become. The fact that the big bucks on the new health care boondoggle start kicking in around the same time that medicare says "we're broke" and social security tells the treasury "we need that money you borrowed from us back" should be something that people get deeply concerned over. The fact that no one in the current administration is even bothering to acknowledge that there is anything to be concerned about is troubling.
Back in the loving embrace of your favorite logical fallacy, I see.
I'm guessing here, but the above quote doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of the RNC chart...the sentence where you refer to DNC propoganda as something to bolster a position is an obvious ploy to paint the RNC graph as anything but true. It looks like your response is that the RNC graph is not true, or propoganda. Which is it?
I read a pretty good article in the Atlantic yesterday about how conservatives and liberals talk past each other on the deficit.
Basically, libs focus on cyclical deficits and minimize structural deficits, whereas conservatives tend to treat all deficits as if they were structural (except when they are in power).
I agree with McArdle that the deficit spending directly related to the economic downturn isn't too serious a problem, long term, even though I disagree about its efficacy.
OTOH the problem of structural deficits, when twinned with our debt load and unfunded social en lements, is as serious as the grave. While it seems to be true -- like you said -- that very few establishment Democrats are willing to acknowledge it publicly, I suppose the lip service given to the newly proposed commission to recommend tax increases and program cuts is such an acknowledgment. We'll see. The proof isn't in the pudding, but in the eating.
link
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
