Tell you what, I'll just call attention to it whenever I see it happen from now on.
I'm not making it up. If you really doubt that you do this, I just lost a little more respect for you, but will find the examples when I have time, maybe later on when I have a little more time to waste.
so i take the graph's word for it. I assume the graph didn't make itself up. I can also assume that there were figures and data on how it was put together. Is that to much to ask for? or do I take a biased source at it's word? Would you take a graph at face value if Moveon.org put it out?
you have no idea what your talking about so I suggest you either educate yourself or shut up and stop looking stupid.
Huckabee is done.
You don't want to attack me. I guess you can agree with the graph without any do entation to back it up. right? if you don't need any do entation other than a picture then you are a weak minded person whi is easliy convinced. my point to the idiot was that he should be able to back up a stupid graph. I asked him for it and he could not provide ANYTHING to back it up..you are an idiot as well.
Before you were content to cite the source dismissively. This is the first mention you make of do entation. (I take you've confirmed for yourself that there isn't any; my own cursory search yielded Sen. Judd Gregg's post hoc fact sheet and not much else.)
In fairness, you did not provide anything to refute it.
Because you acted like an arrogant bully, and I pointed it out? Easy, internet tough guy.
So I should take the RNC staffers at their word? Can you give me one source to verify the figures?
I asked for the facts and he has yet to provide one piece of do entation to back up the graph. Are you telling me that you would trust a graph from a biased source as accurate without anything to verify it?Before you were content to cite the source dismissively. This is the first mention you make of do entation. (I take you've confirmed for yourself that there isn't any; my own cursory search yielded Sen. Judd Gregg's post hoc fact sheet and not much else.)
In fairness, you did not provide anything to refute it.
Because you acted like an arrogant bully, and I pointed it out? Easy, internet tough guy.
You don't have to assume anything. If you don't want to take the graph's word for it then don't. Go look up the data for yourself. If you don't want people to believe what's on that graph then go find something that disproves it and post it here. The fact that you continue to avoid doing so only serves to suggest that the one thing that is too much to ask for is asking you to back up your own statements. So far the only thing that you've proven is that whoever made that graph was willing to put more effort into researching the subject than you are.
.......says the hypocrite who insists on disagreeing with the graph without any do entation to back you up. You fool.
More especially so since they are based on CBO estimates and assumptions.CBO does not provide cost estimates for more than ten years out; what issue do you take with the Republican SBC estimates?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblog...ost_of_rei.aspThe Senate Republicans' chart demonstrates that the total for all of these costs -- based on CBO projections for the bill's true first 10 years -- is $2.5 trillion. And costs would only skyrocket from there, as the chart's trajectory suggests. In the 5 years to follow (2024-28), spending on "expansions in insurance coverage" alone would be $1.7 trillion, making the bill's total costs in its real first 15 years well over $4 trillion -- based on CBO projections.
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-30-2009 at 02:59 PM.
You don't have to assume anything. If you don't want to take the graph's word for it then don't. Go look up the data for yourself. If you don't want people to believe what's on that graph then go find something that disproves it and post it here. The fact that you continue to avoid doing so only serves to suggest that the one thing that is too much to ask for is asking you to back up your own statements. So far the only thing that you've proven is that whoever made that graph was willing to put more effort into researching the subject than you are.
.......says the hypocrite who insists on disagreeing with the graph without any do entation to back you up. You fool.
so you don't know if the graph is correct either?
And I'm the fool..
We're still waiting on you to back up your claim. Put up or shut up you fool.so you don't know if the graph is correct either?
And I'm the fool..
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...5-trillion.phpThe underlying critique has a sliver of merit to it. Democrats did indeed diminish the cost over the first 10 years (2010-2019) by delaying the tax-and-benefit provisions for a until 2014, long after the bill becomes law. They felt as if they needed to push some key reforms down the road to keep the bill's CBO score from exceeding Obama's $900 billion top line. Hence Gregg's caveat "when fully implemented." But even if you were to start the clock in 2014, and stop it in 2024, the number $2.5 trillion seems to have been made up entirely out of whole cloth.
you guys are truly idiots..Where does this number--$2.5 trillion--come from? In this USA Today counterpoint, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), cites this article in The Hill. But the article in question simply quotes Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who seems to pull the number out of thin air. "When fully implemented, it will cost $2.5 trillion," McConnell said.
And where did McConnell get this idea?
A bit of digging suggests the number originated in a press release from Budget Committee ranking member Judd Gregg (R-NH), written the morning after the CBO unveiled its analysis. It reads "American taxpayers are about to see an unprecedented expansion of the federal government that will cost a staggering $2.5 trillion when fully implemented."
The underlying critique has a sliver of merit to it. Democrats did indeed diminish the cost over the first 10 years (2010-2019) by delaying the tax-and-benefit provisions for a until 2014, long after the bill becomes law. They felt as if they needed to push some key reforms down the road to keep the bill's CBO score from exceeding Obama's $900 billion top line. Hence Gregg's caveat "when fully implemented." But even if you were to start the clock in 2014, and stop it in 2024, the number $2.5 trillion seems to have been made up entirely out of whole cloth.
And, of course, this critique elides the fact that, whatever the federal responsibility for health care becomes as a result of this bill, the total package is projected to dramatically reduce the deficit in both the near and long terms.
I just did your homework for you, asshole. You think no one noticed?
Also, if you think that is an authoritative refutation, your own standards of veracity must be pretty weak.
Tell me, GGA, since this seems to be your hobby horse, what is the *reliable* projection of costs beyond 2019?
I see you're sticking with the personal insult card as opposed to actually lifiting a finger to find something in the way of supporting do netation. Threads that actually require conversation above a mud-slinging level keep going over your head. I think you'd be better off just sticking to the Sarah Palin threads.you guys are truly idiots..
I don't know or care at this point. So you can rest easy I will not be posting a naked graph and then ask everyone else to prove it wrong. Again idiot all I asked from the very beginining is what facts did he want me to disapprove. From what I know about projections is that they are long term guesses based on historical trends. Of course throw in the fact that the variables will always be changing so to claim that projections are facts is not correct. So now you are asking me for something that doesn't exists.. The CBO has provided do entation that projections are based on assumptions and trends..
and your better off defending fact-less graphs... nice job! I am not the one making false claims so you need to ask the person who posted the unverifiable pictures as facts..
I'm still waiting for the do entation on the original graph? Can you provide that?
Oh and thanks for proving me right...
This thread is ing priceless.
GGA, I've told you time and time again, you aren't good at your schtick......leave the witty side comments to Chump and Clambake, at least they look up from time to time.
What a cop out.
Perhaps it is naked because it is based on the CBO's own numbers and assumptions.
The Republican SBC projections are based on the same assumptions and trends, only extended a few years out.
Granting that medium and long term projections are more art than science, what exactly is your objection to some Republicans taking the CBO's own methodology and assumptions extending the analysis out a few years?
not explaining that the projections are just that. long term guesses..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
