Krauthammer falsely suggests Senate bill won't reduce deficits after 2019
Echoing a false Republican talking point about the Senate health care reform bill, Charles Krauthammer stated on Fox News that if "you start in 2014 when the benefits kick in and you go out ten years, then the cost is not slightly under $1 trillion. It's $1.8 trillion or $2.5 trillion, which means it will blow an enormous hole in the deficit." However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the bill will continue to reduce deficits beyond the 10-year budget window that ends in 2019.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Krauthammer claimed Senate bill would "blow an enormous hole in the deficit"
From the December 21 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
KRAUTHAMMER: [I]t supposedly costs $850 billion over ten years. But 98 percent of the costs of the bill are in the last six years. So it's a trick. If you actually look at real ten years, you start in 2014 when the benefits kick in and you go out ten years, then the cost is not slightly under $1 trillion. It's $1.8 trillion or $2.5 trillion, which means it will blow an enormous hole in the deficit. And everybody knows this."
But CBO projected that deficit reductions would continue after 2019
CBO: Bill yields "a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion" over 10 years. From CBO's December 19 cost estimate of the Senate bill incorporating the manager's amendment:
CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act incorporating the manager's amendment would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $130 billion over the 2010-2019 period.
CBO expects bill to reduce deficit by more than $650 billion during decade after 2019. CBO also estimated on December 20 that the bill will continue to reduce the deficit beyond the 10-year budget window that ends in 2019 "with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP." As FoxNews.com itself reported in a different article about a previous CBO estimate of the original Senate bill, a deficit reduction of one-quarter percent of GDP amounts to "as much as $650 billion."
CBO: Bill "would probably continue to reduce budget deficits" after 2029. CBO also noted that it "has not extrapolated estimates further into the future, because the uncertainties surrounding them are magnified even more," but it said that "the legislation would probably continue to reduce budget deficits" beyond 2029. From CBO's cost estimate:
CBO has not extrapolated estimates further into the future, because the uncertainties surrounding them are magnified even more. However, in view of the projected net savings during the decade following the 10-year budget window, CBO anticipates that the legislation would probably continue to reduce budget deficits relative to those under current law in subsequent decades, assuming that all of its provisions would continue to be fully implemented. Pursuant to section 311 of S. Con. Res. 70, CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would not cause a net increase in deficits in excess of $5 billion in any of the four 10-year periods beginning after 2019.
Not just directly, but also through the compound effect of inattention to Afghanistan for the last five years of the Cheney-puppet regime.
Therefore, thou can shuteth thine lying piehole.
~
btw krauthammer did not create the false intelligence
btw krauthammer did not create the false intelligence
Krauthammer served as a catapult of the false intelligence.
While it is difficult to be more dishonest than Ledeen, it is difficult to be more wrong than Charles Krauthammer. Prior to the invasion, Krauthammer used his various media platformsâhis column at the Washington Post and his almost daily appearances on Fox Newsâto warn that Iraq was rapidly building up its WMD capabilities and that the U.S. risked running out of time if it did not invade immediately. He assured Americans that the war would pay for itself with oil revenues and that Iraqis would greet Americans as liberators.
Krauthammer deserves no credibility. This is also true of posters who defend his nonsense.
~
Hasn't anyone noticed yet that these guys hide behind the term "fiscal conservative" whenever it involves keeping the working class from having things that will improve their lives? I don't really understand how we can keep calling this place the greatest country on Earth when we're so far behind other countries when it come to social reform.
reporting from Murderland Ranch,
I'm Mookie von Zipper
MassMurderMedia
The only thing we can go on right now is a projection. Sometimes the CBO is pretty right on, and other times they aren't. They have underestimated and overestimated at different times.
But the CBO is all that one has to go on. It's better than the dishonest argument that Krauthammer pulled from his nether regions that doesn't talk about cost savings at all and deficit reduction. Talking about the cost of the bill and not talking about the cost savings is dishonest.
And that was MMFA's point.
Your post was a troll post trying to get people to talk about the CBO's track record. That's off topic and not relevant to this discussion, and a talking point we've debunked, like I said above.
Every citizen is qualified to make projection as many calculators have stat functions built in, and math formulas are easily available.
You are talking about credibility, which like power is given. I give MMfa and delldolly little and no credibility in order, and fully realize that the latter is a vicious hack who gives me zero credibility and only wants my address to deliver a molotov cocktail (molotov -- one of the few decent russians!!)
medicare sucks and so will this mess
The fact that I'm smarter than you and have more common sense than you make you feel bad? Too bad, so sad.
Educating people and explaining things they don't understand are a bad thing? Oh yeah, that's right, you're a righty, and people like you think that expert opinion is bunk, so no wonder you think me explaining stuff is a bad idea. Most people don't reject explanations. Thanks for showing us that you're bigoted against fully understanding stuff.
Of course not, if we come here and sign up for your class. But we haven't. So your forced lectures or mis-education is neither necessary nor relevant. State your opinions, defend them if you're able, and leave your frustrated teacher wanna-be antics to those who ask for it. Someday you will realize you aren't all that, I assume it originates from a incredible sense of insecurity, but we are not here to stroke your ego or soothe your psychological issues.
If you just remember that, you wouldn't rub so many, even some liberals here who have voiced their opinions of you, the wrong way.
And see, liberals think education is a good thing. You can be a sponge and soak up all that's available, or you can be dumb as a rock and not take in any of it - it's your choice. But I am not the problem then - you are for acting like I FORCE you to accept learning! That's laughably ridiculous!
I don't care if some people (on my side? like there's only one side that fights against distortions and omissions because our nation deserves a better, open debate?) are irked by constructive criticism. I'm not here to make friends on the anonymous internet!
If some people don't like it, they don't have to accept it.
You can continue to be as dumb as a rock if you want to. Be my guest. Continue to hemorrhage your credibility.
You can continue to look like a fool or you can wise up and realize your opinions may be welcome, but your self-created wisdom is your own.
I dont see where either of us is smarter, but for what it is worth I am in the 90th percentile at IUPUI and scored 32 on my act in 1987
what more do I need to do to make my family happy? If posters are unhappy, that is their failure to find happiness
as for the CBO, their track record is entirely on topic, since that's what media matters is hanging their hat on in accusing krauthammer of lying...
This is the same argument, only recycled, that they've used before.
They talk about the "cost" of this bill, and then never fairly compare that "cost" to the cost of doing nothing.
It's like saying that if I buy a car with better gas mileage, omigod, I'll spend $2000 in gas next year. Well, yeah, but if I continue using the less efficient car, I'll spend $3000, so the numbers we SHOULD be talking about is the $1000 savings, and not the $2000 cost.
That's what Republicans are doing here - they're dishonestly looking at the cost and not the cost savings.
Your analogy is interesting. Last soummer people bought more efficient car to save gas to the tune of 33%. If they drove a thousand miles a week at $4.5/gal they went from 50 gallons a month (at 20 mpg)to 33.3 gallons- a savings of 75.15 per month. in the majority of cases since the loan had negative equity, their car payment went UP about 200 a month. When gas prices crashed they still had the high payment.
that couldnt happen with government limited health care could it??
And my analogy still works. The loan for the car is irrelevant for the discussion - not everyone who buys a car has a loan. If you buy anything that costs you less than the alternative, it's unfair to look at simply the cost of that option without also looking at the cost of NOT choosing that option!
ok ignore the loan. If i bought a prius and pastured my suburban, i spent 20000 to save 75 dollars a month. 250 months later I break even....
The point is sometimes you buy somethiong with the illusion you are saving money and the reality is different as 4-5000 marion county residents who dumped SUVs are discovering.
And you want to claim that you have a high IQ? Really?
The analogy talked about the cost of gasoline driving a high mpg car vs driving a different car. It's not fair to simply talk about how much one is spending in gas - you have to talk about how much you would have been spending on gas on the previous car!
And that's what they're doing here.
If you save money by shopping at a lower cost grocery store, it's unfair to ONLY talk about how much you're spending at the grocery store now - you also have to talk about the savings you're getting over going to the previous grocery store!
This is not rocket science, and you want to claim that you were really smart 2 decades ago? Then you should have stopped doing drugs before you rotted your brain out!
My humble recommendation to the respondents here is to not even try to respond in kind to one another, but rather make your argument and let it go before you run out of logical retort and devolve into deeper fits of name calling than youâve already exhibited.
Do you really have to have a high IQ or an advanced degree to post an opinion? I think not and of all the truly intelligent persons that I know I doubt that a poll of them would yield a consensus on any subject much less one as misunderstood as the health care bills.
Regarding the grocery store analogy: If you were to shop at a lower priced store you must also consider the quality of the goods and not just the âsavingsâ.
Regardless of how much money you save poor care is still poor care and I do not see how the CBOâs figures can be relied upon when they take it as an article of faith that up to five hundred billion dollars is going to be trimmed from Medicare and they figure that âsavingsâ into the final computed result. If the government simply reduces Medicare benefits and applies the money to other health care issues I can see how it can be added to the computations, but if the âsavingsâ are illusory (in the form of fraud reduction for example) then it should not be added in.
Not only that, but significant reductions in Medicare would seem to naturally lead to a like reduction in the quality of the care available through Medicare.
So are we asking our seniors to accept less qualitative care while at the same time as we are forcing our younger healthy citizens to buy coverage that they do not want?
Who wins? Our government is making enormous changes for some proportion of about 93% of our population in the hope of insuring approx 7 - 8% of our population. Surely this could be done in a different/better way.
reread my posts. I did not post my IQ. I do not know my IQ and have only taken one IQ test in 1985 and those records were not identified by person. I refuse to take an IQ test ever again.
i do have a base cost and so do you-- you current insurance even if that is a zero for no insurance
I buy groceries on my block for a hundred dollars. I buy the same groceries at costco 25 miles away for 99 dollars for a total of $99 + 2.41 (gas) + 15.00 (time) + 25 x $.27 depreciation on my van for a total of 123.16. Hmm. Looks like a LOSS