Difference between revisions of "User:Woozle/blog/2011-01-15 1138 Obamacare myth the fourth"
< User:Woozle | blog
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(title correction) |
(a source) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<let name=data index=User>Woozle</let> | <let name=data index=User>Woozle</let> | ||
<let name=data index=TopicsUser></let> | <let name=data index=TopicsUser></let> | ||
<let name=data index=TopicsGlobal>\Obamacare\propaganda\Obamacare myths\government</let> | <let name=data index=TopicsGlobal>\Obamacare\propaganda\Obamacare myths\government\math</let> | ||
<let name=data index=TextAbove>This is the mirror of [[User:Woozle/blog/2011-01-13 1110 Obamacare myth the first|Myth #1]], but it's worth examining in its own right because Republicans are seriously arguing that this is necessary to help reverse the deficit -- and '''people are believing them'''.</let> | <let name=data index=TextAbove>This is the mirror of [[User:Woozle/blog/2011-01-13 1110 Obamacare myth the first|Myth #1]], but it's worth examining in its own right because Republicans are seriously arguing that this is necessary to help reverse the deficit -- and '''people are believing them'''.</let> | ||
<let name=data index=TextBelow>Repealing Obamacare will ''cost'' in excess of $200 billion. | <let name=data index=TextBelow>Repealing Obamacare will ''cost'' in excess of $200 billion. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
This bit of information is brought to us by The Congressional Budget Office (CBO). We talked about them [[User:Woozle/blog/2011-01-13 1110 Obamacare myth the first|earlier]] because of their estimate that Obamacare would reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first decade and by $1.2 trillion in the second decade. | This bit of information is brought to us by The Congressional Budget Office (CBO). We talked about them [[User:Woozle/blog/2011-01-13 1110 Obamacare myth the first|earlier]] because of their estimate that Obamacare would reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first decade and by $1.2 trillion in the second decade. | ||
I should probably have mentioned that the CBO is a non-partisan agency; Republicans often cite and use their figures. | I should probably have mentioned that the CBO is a non-partisan agency; Republicans often cite and use their figures{{footnote|1}}. | ||
The $220b figure is based on expected losses of $770b, offset by savings of $540b. | The $220b figure is based on expected losses of $770b, offset by savings of $540b. | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
'''Minor point''': it seems they accept the accuracy of the CBO's numbers -- at least as far as the $770b losses. Their interpretation of those numbers is another matter. | '''Minor point''': it seems they accept the accuracy of the CBO's numbers -- at least as far as the $770b losses. Their interpretation of those numbers is another matter. | ||
'''Major point''': They are taking a $770b ''increase in the deficit'', labeling it as a ''reduction in the size of government'', and thereby ''declaring that to be a good thing''.{{footnote| | '''Major point''': They are taking a $770b ''increase in the deficit'', labeling it as a ''reduction in the size of government'', and thereby ''declaring that to be a good thing''.{{footnote|2}} | ||
In other words, '''an increase in the deficit is hailed as a good thing'''. As one commenter observed, this is part of why liberals have a hard time believing that conservatives are serious about reducing the deficit. | In other words, '''an increase in the deficit is hailed as a good thing'''. As one commenter observed, this is part of why liberals have a hard time believing that conservatives are serious about reducing the deficit. | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
If you don't believe the CBO's numbers, you need to explain ''why'' -- and remember that ''National Review'' apparently believes them. | If you don't believe the CBO's numbers, you need to explain ''why'' -- and remember that ''National Review'' apparently believes them. | ||
== | ==Footnotes== | ||
<small> | <small> | ||
{{footnote/target|1}}One commenter on that thread took it even further:<blockquote>$770b in taxes we won't need to pay, and $540b we won't need to spend. We save $1.31 trillion just by repealing Obamacare.</blockquote>(She even called this thinking "Democratic math", but didn't give any justification for this.) The fact that nobody pointed out the flaw in this logic makes me wonder if they possibly actually think that ''any flow of money to or from the government'' somehow increases the deficit... presumably because it means you're "spending money". | {{footnote/target|1}}"House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday he believes '''the CBO, a nonpartisan group long considered by both parties to be an impartial referee on budget matters''', was manipulated by Democrats to produce a false estimate of savings in the health care reform law." — [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/health-care-law-repeal-advanced-house-republicans/story?id=12565523 ABC News] (emphasis added) | ||
----- | |||
{{footnote/target|2}}One commenter on that thread took it even further:<blockquote>$770b in taxes we won't need to pay, and $540b we won't need to spend. We save $1.31 trillion just by repealing Obamacare.</blockquote>(She even called this thinking "Democratic math", but didn't give any justification for this.) The fact that nobody pointed out the flaw in this logic makes me wonder if they possibly actually think that ''any flow of money to or from the government'' somehow increases the deficit... presumably because it means you're "spending money". | |||
Was that statement a [[issuepedia:Poe's Law|Poe]], and understood as such by all other commenters, or is that really how they think? | Was that statement a [[issuepedia:Poe's Law|Poe]], and understood as such by all other commenters, or is that really how they think? | ||
Revision as of 17:34, 15 January 2011
FLAG VALUE=[including]