Fox responds to CBO score of health care bill by portraying CBO as untrustworthy
Following the Congressional Budget Office's score of the health care reform reconciliation package, Fox News has attempted to portray the nonpartisan CBO as untrustworthy and unreliable. By contrast, after the CBO gave a "favorable" score to the GOP health care plan, Fox praised the office as "nonpartisan" and advanced false GOP claims about the CBO's findings.
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.
Fox News does damage control, attempts to portray CBO as untrustworthy and unreliable
Beck mocks CBO score of health care reform: "Well, that's a party in my pants." On the March 18 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck, Beck asked, "How would the CBO numbers even make any difference? You know, 'Only 900 and' -- what is it -- '$954 billion.' Ooh. Well, that's a party in my pants. Thank you for sending that one by. How does that make a difference?"
Doocy: "[C]an you really rely on the numbers that the Congressional Budget Office comes out with?" On the March 19 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy claimed, "Democrats say it will reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion over the first decade." After guest host Dana Perino responded by saying, "Well, but there are other members who say that it actually will cost $2.4 trillion over the 10 years once you add it all up," Doocy asked, "Because, can you really rely on the numbers that the Congressional Budget Office comes out with?"
Perino: "[C]an we trust these numbers?" Introducing an interview with Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) on the same edition of Fox & Friends, Perino said, "Nine hundred and forty billion dollars over the next decade. That's the preliminary price tag for the Democrats' health care bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It also says the plan will cut the federal deficit by $130 billion in that time, but can we trust these numbers?" Weiner said the score "came out really better than we thought it would. It was a great savings number, and so the deficit hawks now have things that they can point at and say, 'You know what? This really does save money." Perino then asked him, "But do you think ... that those numbers can be trusted later on?"
Johnson Jr.: "I don't expect or anticipate that their numbers are real." On the same edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade said that the "average person" would say, "[I]f a plan costs $940 billion, tell me how I'm saving 130 billion. So it doesn't make any sense." Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. then noted that Perino had asked, "Do we really trust these numbers?" and claimed that "if you read carefully the latest CBO things, they say, 'Well, we don't usually project out another 10 years.' And there's so many variables and so many wiggle words that I don't expect or anticipate that their numbers are real." He later said, "I think we're being spun."
Hannity calls CBO score "budgetary gimmicks and tricks." On the March 18 edition of Fox News' Hannity, host Sean Hannity called the CBO score of the health care bill reflected "budgetary gimmicks and tricks" and said that it is "[f]lat-out dishonest" that the score didn't contain separate legislation that cancels scheduled cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. After guest Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) claimed "the only way that [Democrats] pay for those additions is to reduce seniors' health care benefits on their Medicaid or raise taxes," Hannity responded, "[W]hy would the CBO not highlight this to give a truly educational, informational, you know, scoring of this to the American people?"
Hemmer asks Juan Williams "do you believe" the CBO long-range forecast. On the March 18 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Fox News contributor Juan Williams called the CBO score a "deal-maker" because it will "reassure those independents and, by extension, those Democrats that have been on the fence because they are deficit hawks" because of the deficit reduction. Co-host Bill Hemmer then said to Williams, "That's 20 years out. You've lived in Washington a long time. Do you believe that?"
Fox Nation headline: "CBO Score Called a 'Lie.' " On March 18, Fox Nation posted a National Review article under the headline "CBO Score Called a 'Lie.' " From Fox Nation:
By contrast, Fox News touted "favorable" CBO score of the GOP health care bill
Fox's Shively touted "favorable" CBO report on GOP health care bill and advanced false GOP claim that GOP plan would lower premiums more than Democrats' plan. On the November 5, 2009, edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, contributor Caroline Shively adopted the GOP spin by reporting, "Now, on the other side of the aisle, Republicans have gotten favorable reports from the Congressional Budget Office on the cost of their health care bill. GOP lawmakers say that means premiums for millions of families will be almost $5,000 lower under their plan, compared to the cheapest plan in the Democrats' exchange." In fact, the $5,000 difference Shively cited ignored premium caps in the House Democrats' plan. As Media Matters for America has noted, because the Democrats' health care bill provides premium caps on a sliding scale based on income, the lowest amount that a family would have to pay in premiums is significantly less than the GOP alternative.
America's Newsroom attributes Republican talking point to CBO. On the November 5 edition of America's Newsroom, host Martha McCallum claimed, "The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is saying that the Republican bill ... will carry lower costs for Americans. The CBO estimates that health insurance premiums would be nearly $5,000 cheaper under the Republican reforms than the Democratic ones." In fact, the CBO never made that claim. The comparison was based on calculations done by Republican members of the House Ways and Means Committee. From America's Newsroom:
Fox & Friends report obscures that GOP plan wouldn't cover uninsured, wouldn't significantly lower premiums, would reduce deficit less than Democrats' plan. Shively's Fox & Friends report ignored that the GOP plan would not cover most uninsured Americans. Shively also did not report that the CBO estimates indicate that House Democrats' bill lowers the deficit more than the GOP's proposal.
However, those that cling to these numbers as some sort of inarguable gospel and call anyone who questions them as anything more than, as Wesley says, a snapshot, are furthering their own agenda as well.
All governmental units, whether they be little cities or states or the federal gov't, have to use projections. All well-run businesses do too.
And the best estimates of future costs and future incomes are done by the most experienced predictors of future outcomes. People who use the most variables, who have the most experience, and who are nonpartisan - they aren't trying to cook the books, or be too pessimistic or optimistic.
The very best group to do that kind of job?
The CBO, of course. Among ALL groups that have ever tried to do those kinds of projections, the CBO is outstanding, top of the field, unsurpassed in their excellence and their nonpartisanship.
No one, however, clings to those numbers as inarguable gospel.
And Wesley the weasel has NEVER made a valid point about the CBO's numbers. He's been debunked countless times with his assertions.
The topic here, however, is how FoxNews is hypocritical.
Please stick to those points in reply, and don't follow this paid troll down the path he's trying to lead people on with his strawman arguments and baseless allegations about how we're too stupid to understand exactly what the numbers from the CBO mean.
The rest of us aren't stupid.
This is the same CBO that scored the first round of Bush tax cuts as ADDING $1.3 trillion to the debt, just so the rich could get richer. And Medicare Part D as ADDING $350 billion to the debt just so the insurance companies can make higher profits.
Don't remember any conservative outcry over those boondoggles.
No one suggested that we "need more of that", so that's just another one of your patented strawman arguments.
And it was that part of his post that was problematic.
He did the 'necessary' attack FoxNews, and then proceeded to try to use that initial reasonable comment to provide cover for the later deception and dishonesty.
So, the previous poster is right, the topic and point is NOT the validity of the CBO numbers. It's the hypocrisy of FoxNews. But you're trying to MAKE it about the CBO numbers being "essentially meaningless". They aren't, and it's not the topic in any case on this thread! It's a derailment attempt by you.
Please don't feed this troll.
But it's a nice try to try and shift the focus off the CBO numbers and on to Fox. I thought you said "the CBO is outstanding, top of the field, unsurpassed in their excellence and their nonpartisanship"?
Why then do you not want to discuss them? That's weird. Maybe you don't believe what you just posted above? That would make you a phony, would it not?
The troll POST is the thing that shouldn't be fed. A "troll" can be the person OR the post.
So once ONE person debunks the troll post, mocks it, then tells others to ignore it, then others should ignore it to STOP that string in its tracks!
I have explained this countless times in your presence - how is it that you still don't get it? Are you really that stupid? Or do you know EXACTLY what I mean when I say don't feed the troll, but you're simply making a personal attack because you're a paid troll and I hinder your efforts so succesfully? Which is it - troll or stupid?
The topic IS FoxNews's hypocrisy. The topic is NOT what YOU want it to be, about the CBO.
As I explained, the FIRST thing that one needs to do when confronting a troll post is to DEBUNK the idiocy/disinformation in the troll post. And that's why I discussed how important and reliable the CBO was.
All this post by yours intended to do was to again smear me since you can't defend your off-topic rant about the CBO. Please don't feed this troll anymore.
So once ONE person debunks the troll post, mocks it, then tells others to ignore it, then others should ignore it to STOP that string in its tracks!"
If anyone can tell me this isn't the by-product of a nut, I am all ears.
And, like I said, the post (troll) shouldn't be fed.
And because you can't dispute what I said, what do YOU do but make yet another baseless personal attack.
Boo!
There ARE, clearly, posters out to get me, stalking my posts, thumbing them down in a bogus and useless attempt to discredit me. All it does is make those people who DO it look petty and mean and hateful. It doesn't reflect on ME at all! Overall, they don't matter, and they don't bother me in any way - that doesn't STOP them from showing the personal attacks on me, the stalking, and the pettiness of your side and your supporters! In fact, I appreciate the confirmation that I scare your side half to death!
So, thank you for pointing out that it's happening again on THIS thread.
Stupid fool that you are, you somehow think it reflects badly on me. It doesn't. It makes YOUR side look bad, so thanks so much for CONTINUING to dig your own grave as well as make a mockery of the rightwingers who post here!!!!!!
"those that cling to these numbers as some sort of inarguable gospel and call anyone who questions them as anything more than, as Wesley says, a snapshot, are furthering their own agenda as well."
But I'd also like to say that both sides grab onto numbers and facts they like, and spin away the others.
This is not limited to Fox or consevatives.
I don't agree with everything in this bill. But, I would commend the Democrats for using the CBO to make alterations to their bill to meet the financial goals they had set. That is a wonderful change of pace from the previous administration that would simply say the CBO was mistaken and go about enacting horrible, unfunded legislation.
But part of my distrust comes from the Dems who supply the CBO with information, coupled with the desire to expand this coverage as quickly as possible.
Something doesn't smell right to me about how they are going about it all.
Call me what you will, but I am concerned.
A bill being debated for a year and an issue that's been hurting our country for 40+ years is NOT going as quickly as possible.
Why is expanding coverage a bad thing? Aren't 45,000 yearly deaths enough for you? You know, that's about 15 9/11's. Every year.
Been hurting our country for 40+ years, too, huh?
I think we have a different opinion on the CBO and how this is being handled. Frankly, I don't trust the numbers they have been given to work with, whether or not from only one group. The Dems are the ones who appear to tinkering with it so much (pretty obvious) and thus I assume that the vast majority of numbers come from them. I don't trust 'em. I don't trust them for a variety of reasons that I would be happy to share if you want.
Why don't I want expanded coverage? I don't want expanded coverage to come from the government. So its less about expanding it than who is expanding it. If I knew that there was no chance for the government to expand it beyond what we (think we) see now, then I might be more amenable to the idea. But it will not be limited, and it will grow.
Use the google. Enter "Harvard study deaths health care". Just the other week we had the 5-year old who died because his family's insurance company denied a doctor-recommended treatment.
I don't want expanded coverage to come from the government
Why not? The overhead is lower and you won't be subsizing CEO salaries and HMO profits and people won't be denied for pre-existing conditions.
The insurance companies had their chance. They blew it with their greed. It's time for a change.
Health insurance companies and our present system certainly needs a retooling, if you will. But I do not want the government getting in like they are going to get in. See, once in, it will only get bigger and the estimates we have now are worthless.
What is being "supplied" to the CBO are criteria and goals, and then the CBO tells Congress what the costs of those proposed initiatives will be.
They aren't given "numbers". They CREATE the numbers.
Two problems with that. One, I would think you would support the current plan if you do not want the government running healthcare coverage. I think it is pretty clear we need more government control and regulation. If not single payer. I think allowing the private insurance companies to continue to be such an essential part of the costs (as with the current plan) has been shown to be unsustainable in the long run. But it sounds like that part of the plan (which I disagree with) you actually agree with.
Second, your argument that once government gets in costs will only get bigger is the exact same argument that was used 15 years ago. The only way to control costs was to let the private insurance companies control costs. How did that work out for us? I fell for it 15 years ago. Clearly, the insurance companies are run just like any other for profit endeavor. They have no intention of lowering costs or covering everyone. Ever. They have the very same intention as any other profit-making corporation. To sqeeze more money out of the bottom line. So, I will not fall for that line again.
The insurance industry is odd. Competition is severely limited because they cannot compete across state lines. I think they could even be held to a higher standard of what they must accept.
And I do not think the government itself will make it cheaper or provide better service.
You're right about the health insurance industry being odd. It does not have a true market price and the demand curve is flat. It is not widgets. Any simple macroeconomics course will illustrate this to you. There is no price people are not willing to pay if they or their loved ones are sick and dying. It is not like wanting to buy a Porsche but settling for a Honda because it is cheaper. If you need a heart transplant, you cannot settle for a baboon heart to save money.
This is really not that complicated economically speaking. If we want to curb the ever rising cost of healthcare and health insurance in this country, we have two choices. We either cover everyone in a large group so that it is a large enough pool of healthy and sick people to achieve some balance of risk or we deny care to those who cannot afford it. We cover everyone now. We just do it at the highest possible prices with the lowest possible expectations of positive outcomes. We use ERs and provide no preventative care, etc.
It's pretty simple really. The free market is not complicated. It would deny care to those who cannot afford it. If that is the idea that the right wants to sell, they need to stop hiding and admit it. I doubt the American people will support it, but at least you would no longer be acting dishonest throughout the entire debate.
Pooling resources sounds great, but it ends up being the rich feeding the poor. I know you disagree with that, but I see it as an inevitable reality.
Also, I think you overstate the lack of any sort of price point for health insurance. See, medical care and products has cost points. And when buy insurance, you are not buying those services-- you are buying the right for a company to help you pay for them. These companies know what the costs are and can plan accordingly. They can bundle these in a way that allocates risk accordingly to the consumer, who, if given options, can pick the amount he wants to be covered for and the services he wants.
So while it is not a widget, there is room for the market to work.
Now, do I think there are valid reasons to regulate some parts of this? Absolutely. A medical provider should only be able to charge that which is reasonable and should not unreasonably deny any coverage. Reasonable, by the way, is a high standard, and is more than just a good business reason. That should include not only business but humanitarian reasons.
One thing about me is that I believe in personal responsibility. But I think that personal responsibility extends to business. While businesses must make enough to make money, they should not forget that people matter, not only their employees and customers but their community. They should really act in a way that is going to benefit more than their wallets. This should apply especially to those in the medical field and medical insurance.
So, do you REALLY not get it, which says you're very ignorant and so partisan that you're unwilling to learn, or you well-aware of how flawed your argument is, but you're so partisan that you're unwilling to admit it?
This is really not that complicated economically speaking. If we want to curb the ever rising cost of healthcare and health insurance in this country, we have two choices. We either cover everyone in a large group so that it is a large enough pool of healthy and sick people to achieve some balance of risk or we deny care to those who cannot afford it. We cover everyone now. We just do it at the highest possible prices with the lowest possible expectations of positive outcomes. We use ERs and provide no preventative care, etc.
He's arguing that we put all our money to health care in one pot so that those who need it will have it when the need arises, and since the others won't be needing it there won't be any harm. And thus there is a net gain in the benefits seen by all involved since the healthy get to stary healthy because they'll have health care.
The second prong of what he says is that keep it all private and allow those who can afford to pay to pay, and prohibit those who cannot afford to pay.
He prefers the first version because he believes everyone gets the health insurance they need while in the second people are left out of the mix of health care.
I get it, Dolly. I just disagree, and I disagree for the reasons I stated above. So, instead of stating that I am ignorant and partisan, look at what I wrote. Considers its merits and discuss them.
Is healthcare a right or a privilege?
If it is a right, then it should not be a for profit proposition. Access for everyone.
If it is a privilege, then the insurance companies can charge whatever they want. Access for those who can afford it.
Make your choice. I've made mine.
This assertion from you, one you've made multiple times on multiple threads, that you've provided the support for the argument you're making here is supported by things you've written in other posts, is ridiculous and unfounded.
You're not rational. Never have been.
All we needed was some fine tuning and 15 years later the cost for healthcare has tripled? That is clearly unsustainable. The private insurers have been given their chance to act reasonably in this situation many, many times. They have not and will not. As we speak, rates are once again rising all over this country. And I disagree with you that the business has to be made to show some kind of personal responsibility. That is impossible to regulate or demand. Businesses are, generally, not moral or immoral. They are amoral. I do not see a way to demand some sort of humanitarian effort from a business designed to make money. It would be nice. But, if we cannot even get them to stop raising rates, there is zero chance they will suddenly have a heart for the sake of humanitarianism.
And you are assuming there are price points because the products cost a certain price. But that is now how a market price is determined. A market price is determined by a meeting point between what someone is willing to sell a product at and the price someone is willing to pay for that product. A hotel room is sold at the rate someone is willing to pay, not the price it cost to flip that room. That is why insurance companies can ALWAYS raise prices. If you have 100 people willing to pay $100 dollars for a product, but 1 of those people is willing to pay $20,000 you are going to keep raising your prices until you can make the most money. That is business.
You also have not addressed the fact that the free market would NEVER cover anyone who cannot afford it. Without the government getting involved the poor and lower middle class in this country will never have any health coverage. So, are we going to all pay for them or are we going to deny them? I understand why you do not want to address this question, but if you are being honest with yourself you should.
Now we've finally identified the problem.
there is room to work within the industry rather than abandoning it.
In other countries that instituted some form of single payer, private insurers saw their business INCREASE.
But I think that personal responsibility extends to business
We've identified another problem. Businesses don't exist to provide personal responsibility. They exist to make money.
You said that we "cling to these numbers as some sort of inarguable gospel and call anyone who questions them as anything more than a snapshot", which means that we're too stupid to realize what they REALLY mean, too stupid to understand that they're not inarguable gospel, and too stupid to understand that they're just a snapshot!
This is not rocket science, you know.
They aren't "essentially meaningless". Estimates and projections like this, as I have repeatedly explained to you, are absolutely necessary for both gov't and business!!!
And as I already explained, it's a strawman argument to suggest that anyone accepts them as inarguable gospel. It's an argument that has already been debunked countless times.
So, like I said, you don't want to have a discussion on this topic - that's why you denied the undeniable in your post, by denying that you were describing us in the first post as stupid, when you clearly were, and you ADMITTED it in the reply after DENYING it earlier in the same reply!! And then you repeated already debunked talking points, followed by making the same strawman argument you've made before.
Repeated the same lies over and over doesn't magically make them become factual and true.
And that's for proving that your assertion that I do was simply a hollow and baseless personal attack by failing to provide a SINGLE EXAMPLE of me behaving that way.
And yeah, I mock people who behave ignorantly. It's not MY fault that so many posters from your side of the aisle behave ignorantly.
Your side are not the victims here. A criminal is NOT a victim of the DA who prosecutes him or the jury that declares him guilty, and those of you who I mock by saying that it's not rocket science aren't my victims either.
And most of my posts aren't "cut-and-paste essays", much less EVERY one.
But thanks for throwing out yet another baseless personal attack - because we all know how terrible it is to back up what one says with documentation, links, and irrefutable evidence!
Hmmm, you mean kind of like the stock market? Then there are lots of stupid folks out there who accept the market as inarguable gospel as well no?
Since the CBO numbers estimate a positive budgetary outcome, they attack the credibility of the CBO estimates without any tangible proof provided to back up their claims.
It really is as simple as that.
However, according to NY Times today - "Whenever the budget office [CBO] judged that some element or elements of the bill would cause a problem meeting the cost and deficit-reduction targets, Democrats just adjusted the underlying legislation to make sure it would hit their goal"
Oopsy daisy Suzy-Q
Dems in the House of Representatives, and in the Senate before them, and ANY members of Congress in previous, similar positions, try to craft their bills to meet numerous goals. If their bills turn out to NOT meet those goals, they adjust the bills until they DO meet those goals! This is NOT unusual or remarkable.
The CBO was given one version of the revisions to the bill. They honestly and excellently scored those revisions WRT to the core bill.
The House Dems said to themselves, "nope, not quite what we were hoping for", and so they then added different revisions/took stuff away/changed other things, and then re-submitted that NEW revision to the CBO.
The CBO's expertise, nonpartisanship, and excellence isn't questioned at ALL by that behavior!
Again, a distortion with the apparent attempt to derail the conversation away from the fact that FoxNews portrayed the CBO as trustworthy.
Even MORE remarkable here is YOUR inability to understand that YOUR questioning of the integrity and outstanding ability of the CBO to do their job here undercuts your earlier statement about them!
Lol! Do you ever vet or read your nonsense one last time before you hit the save button? Really Sue, you crack me up. Don't ever change.
Oops, you didn't do that, did you?
Nope. All you did, all you COULD do, was make yet another baseless personal attack.
Thanks for continuing to dig that hole.
The CBO refused to factor in several of the costs associated with reform, such as the wider access to preventative care, community health centers, lower healthcare premiums and higher average wages (which equate to greater tax revenues), etc. I think we'll find that liberal principles that have always stimulated the real economy, i.e., more money in the pockets of people, rather than corporation coffers, will play a significant role in reducing Federal deficits and improving standards of living all over the country. But that's just me....
I need more coffee.
"The CBO is not untrustworthy or liars"
HAH! You right-wing fringe dwellers are so funny!
Keep it up! We all need a good laugh!
Denialism to the end.
Or maybe thats family values. Its so hard to tell the difference.
The attempts to dismiss the CBO by the right are laughable. I have seen nothing of substance from the attacks on the right that would lead any reasonable person to believe the CBO is pushing some sort of political agenda.
NY Times and Wash Post Say CBO Numbers Don't Pass Smell Test
...............
Nice catch there, guys. Pretend it's only Fox that thinks they smell a rat.
Liberal logic at its best.
Spin.
"It's about future promises and tax increases that they won't have to deal with, the next crop of lawmakers will"
Fact.
Your statement may be correct, but it's speculation.
You and Hoosier missed the mark on this one.
I guess Hoosier was in too much of a hurry that he didn't actually read the WAPO or NYT articles. Hey, that happens, when you are busy cherry-picking.
Here's my response.
I know many who hate Bush as much as you do.
Perhaps you have heard of the term RINO (Republicans in Name Only)? Coined to go after the left leaning Republicans.
I was thinking about this, though just recently. What I was thinking about is how easy it is to be united against a common enemy, and how difficult it can be to unite a diverse group once victory is had.
That's a big reason why it is so much easier to get into power, and then how easy it is to lose it.
The GOP is a big tent in that there actually are quite a number of diverse views within it. Fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, moderate conservatives, some arguably not even conservative. People have thought the GOP was finished in large part due to a split in ideology. A split that really showed itself towards the end of W's term.
But where we are now is that they are all united against the Dem health plan. Much easier to lose sight of the difference when united against a single foe. So, the differences do not come out, and I guess your comment may be understandable...
I know many who hate Bush as much as you do.
Perhaps you have heard of the term RINO (Republicans in Name Only)? Coined to go after the left leaning Republicans." - RC
Oh, please. Stop selling it, no one is buying. Pretending as if Republicans who supported G-Dub and Republicans who call themselves conservatives are not the same thing is laughable. The term RINO is often used by the TV and radio entertainers that the right follows. Guess who they supported? Bush. And these Republicans not in Congress, who did they vote for TWICE? That's right - Bush. Give it up, already.
Yes, we know, everyone hates Bush now. Unfortunately, for Republicans that was only after electing him twice and defending him and his policies for 8 years while the country went into shambles. Forgive us if we are a little distrustful of your concerns now.
That is unfair. Many principled conservatives did not approve or, endorse, or support much of the spending that Bush and the big government Republicans did. To say we are all hypocrites now for worrying about more debt is off base.
You wrongly assume that all Reps are Conservatives and that all Conservatives blindly follow GOP policy.
I am not talking about politicians or media personalities who were opposed to the Bush spending spree, I am talking about rank and file, normal, civilian, unelected, working stiff conservatives. Us.
Oh, I am sure there were some Republicans who did not like G-Dub. Some Ron Paul types and others. Just as there are many on the left who do not like the way Obama is changing very little a year into his presidency. But, if there were truly a significant number there would have been some leaders and they would have some power within the Republican party. The Republican party has not changed strategies or leaders. It is the very same people and party that were just in power a couple of years ago. Only now their campaign seems to be "Give Us Another Chance, It's Gotta Be Better than Last Time".
I just have not found much of the criticisms of Obama to be very principled. There are many areas of criticism that should be brought up. I am severely disappointed that there is no anti-war movement to speak of right now in America. I think it is always a sign of a vibrant, open country when each war is accompanied by a principled movement against war. Even if I agree with the war itself. The fact that there is nothing to speak of right now coming from the right or the left about that speaks volumes about our current political state of affairs. I also think on civil libertarian grounds there are many areas where Obama should be attacked, and it would be more than fair. And the current healthcare legislation has plenty of areas I disagree with and would like to see debated. Unfortunately, the opposition on the right has done very little to make this debate about substance at all. Or any other debate since Obama took office.
Show me some examples of that strong distain. Show me how the Tea Party efforts started while Bush was in office. Show me the efforts to rescind the Bush tax cuts. Show me the efforts to object to the poor way Bush led the war effort. Show me some efforts from the right to repeal/rescind many (any?) of the civil liberties we lost after 9/11.
Provide ANY evidence of this strong distain. If it truly was there, you should have no problem showing huge throngs of people objecting to Bush's lack of true conservative behavior.
See my list below.
OK. I got bad news for you. All I get for results lead me to the Republican party websites.
Where do I find these guys who were so vociferously against G-Dub DURING his actual presidency? Ron Paul and Bob Barr? I agree those two men are principled. I do not agree with them on most issues, but I have always admired their principles on issues. They are not political hacks.
I am sure there were a smattering of principled, civil libertarian, or fiscal conservative Republican voters who actually agreed with them and found G-Dub and Cheney's legislation appalling. But it was certainly not enough to disrupt anything they ever wanted done. And it was certainly not enough to change the power structure within the current GOP. There has been no power shift. The same ideas (or lack thereof) and the same men are still running things. Only now, they want us to believe that G-Dub never happened.
Read THIS post again.
"The Republicans weren't concerned with the debt when they had the power to do something about it."
The only Republicans who had power were the ones who could vote.
So why are you NOW disagreeing with the previous poster by talking about "conservatives" who aren't in Congress?
Well, because you aren't TRYING to have a reasonable debate on the the subject, that's why.
And most of us don't hate Bush. We hate the behavior.
You are incapable of reasonable debate. Because if someone tries to debate you they are automatically labeled a TROLL. Stop your phony act of self-aggrandizement. Nobody, but nobody, buys it.
Your posts to me, on the other hand, are almost always ad hominem attacks that have nothing to do with what I posted. You fail to address the issues I raise, and most often that's because you can't refute a thing I said!
You don't feed my troll posts because I don't MAKE troll posts.
I swear, you are so dishonest that if God made a mistake and you had a meeting with St Peter, you'd lie to him too!
Personal attacks AREN'T debate.
Lies, distortions and omissions of relevant info is not debate.
I have NEVER, ever, classified ANYONE who has tried to debate me a troll. Not once.
And that's why you can't provide a SINGLE example of me doing that - and we KNOW you keep track of my posts that might be (what you think in your delusional mind) valuable for you to use against me in later posts! You can't provide any examples of me behaving that way because I don't do it!
I'm still not Sue. I've been posting here since my accident in August of 2009, so feel free to find ANY examples of me calling someone a troll who wasn't making a troll post during that time.
"Yep, those that supported Bush blindly and now dump on Obama for their phony concerns about the debt deserve the mocking given to them. Many on the right, and many Republicans are not immune from hypocrisy, they earned it."
In fact, re-read my post last post on this.
But here is not the bottom line: you portrary (by assumption, at the least) that all Republicans are conservative. That is not true. You also portray that all conservatives supported W. Also not true.
So, if you are going to lump us all together, you are not portraying the issue at it really is.
They supported everything he did and then showed feigned outrage when he became a liability.
Care to prove that it was all a ruse, or is that a conspiracy theory?
Just to be clear, I am specifically talking about the grass root level now.
So on a level, yes, there are Republicans that other conservatives view as more Democrat than Republican.
These conservatives believe more than the power of a party and that ideas matter. Just having an R (or a D) by their name does not get the politician the vote.
Here's a link to a video from Tea Party types objecting to healthcare reform. They are clueless, first off. They've been misled by disinformation from the rightwing media. And they are NOT showing ANY signs of ANY of this longstanding objection to anything that Bush did.
It's about the country, not what party you belong to.
You act like because Republicans increased the size of the debt and ran up deficits that no amount is too much now. It's ludicrous to use that logic to argue for what will be disaster for America.
Then after 7 years of defending him and selling him to their fellow Americans, they realized what a colossal F-up his legislation and agenda was. Only then did they begin to distance themselves from him. And, now that all reasonable adults can agree on what a mess the entire G-Dub presidency was, do these same people on the right admit they were wrong and re-examine some of the beliefs they defended so vehemently that went so terribly wrong for the entire country? No, they simply attempt to disassociate themselves from the entire G-Dub administration and pretend as if there was this significant, vibrant, principled conservative core of Republicans all along pushing back against G-Dub while he wrecked the nation.
Please. No one is buying it. I would suggest you guys admit that you were so horribly, clearly, undeniably wrong and use a little introspection. After such a failure, a little growth should be in order. No one is buying this nonsense you are selling. It's ludicrous of you to pretend that you are now arguing from a place of principles and logic after your defense of G-Dub for 7 years proved to be such a whopping disaster.
I encourage you to visit townhall.com's personal blogs to see this one. I'd list some, but don't want to violate any policies here.
Many conservatives did indeed abandon Bush. Like it or not, you are wrong on lumping the GOP into one group. Its far from it.
Where were the teaparties during Bush? Where were the townhall shrieks of "I want my country back!"? Because I don't remember them. Are you suggesting that Republicans get to disregard and distance themselves from the mess they created a measly year into the next president because not every SINGLE registered Republican voted for the man twice? You gotta do better than that. Show me where this principled, conservative movement was and who was leading it.
I do not suggest that the GOP distance itself, not in the slightest. I merely suggest you err in lumping us all together in one group, when we are not one group.
Keep in mind also that people are reluctant to rebel and leave, and it was not instantaneous. But before Obama was elected, there was a significant group of conservatives who really did not like him.
It was written in Feb of 2009.
Whether you agree with my conclusions is irrelevant. What matters is that I thought enough of this issue back then to write a piece on it.
http://justthinking.blogtownhall.com/2009/02/20/conservative_infighting.thtml
http://sheilafrush.blogtownhall.com/2006/09/05/republicans_distancing_themselves_from_bush_is_this_good_or_bad.thtml
Notice the date.
Also this:
http://sheilafrush.blogtownhall.com/2007/04/12/suicide_voters.thtml
And:
http://viewfromtheisland.blogtownhall.com/page7
And:
http://viewfromtheisland.blogtownhall.com/page7
And:
http://viewfromtheisland.blogtownhall.com/2007/04/12/the_end_of_america.thtml
I'm happy to find more, and remember, I am providing these to show the internal debate within the GOP long before Obama and in the heart of Bush.
Think again about what it is I have been saying.
This is an internal debate among conservatives. These articles show discord among other things that this debate began far before Bush was out.
Have you also done a google search as I directed?
Right. It was a debate between a few bloggers and the entire power structure of the Republican party. And, what has changed? What part of their agenda has now become different? Who amongst the Republican leadership has changed? Nothing that I can see.
See, you can't, because they didn't start before Obama was elected. You're lying. They didn't even start before Obama was inaugurated! They started after that.
The GOP stayed as a whole, and STILL is a whole. To claim dishonestly that there was some rebels in the party is ridiculous.
REASONABLE people don't object to deficit spending under those circumstances - but YOU do. That makes you, by definition, unreasonable. REASONABLE people object to unreasonable deficit spending - tax cuts that become unwise after a significant economic slowdown, then additional tax cuts rammed through Congress while we're at war, war time tax cuts are unprecedented, for example. Unnecessary wars. Unfunded mandates for new entitlement programs that are purposely and dishonestly understated.
And again, your side didn't object to these things. You weren't looking to roll-back tax cuts, or insist on reimplementing pay-go rules!
Disaster for America would be to have CUT spending during the worst worldwide economic crisis since the Great Depression! Allowing that to happen again would have been a hundred times worse for our economy versus adding to the deficit like we did!
It is not. They can disagree. As long as they realize that they and their ideas lost the last election. When they win again, they can start enacting the legislation they think works. It would also be nice for them and for the country if they admitted they were wrong about most of their ideas for the last presidency. I think that would at least lead to some humility and introspection on their part. But, I do not think someone is necessarily unreasonable if they see things differently than I do. What fun is it to debate with someone when you do not allow them to disagree with you?
We all have basic assumptions with which we base our view points on. All too often we let our biases affect what we think about the other side, and we are then not able truly see what it is they are saying.
More ideas are indeed good, but those ideas must be tolerated from all sides. For those ideas to make any traction on any other, they must be fully explored.
Will we ever reach that point? No, but I think an honest attempt to do so will go very far to change the tone of political discussion.
I have NEVER labeled ANYONE who has an honest disagreement with me a troll. Not once.
But there is NO reasoned argument against supporting deficit spending during a deep recession. None.
So, because I am cognizant of THAT fact, somehow that means that I don't EVER think that there's ANY topic of debate upon which there can be disagreement?
Thanks for proving how ignorant YOU are in logical thinking, Mike. Just because someone knows that some things aren't up for debate doesn't mean that they think all, or even MOST things aren't up for debate.
I don't, on MANY topics, that there is only ONE way to think, you jerk.
But on SOME topics, there IS only one way to think, because it's the only opinion that can be supported by the facts.
There is NO reason to say that I won't debate with someone because I don't allow them to disagree with me.
Thanks for proving that you too can be a jerk, Mike.
I agree with you on deficit spending. It is what I believe has been shown to work in these instances. But, anyone who disagrees with that is unpatriotic? Come on. RC and RO are not BJ Fan here. They disagree with the policy. They are wrong, in my opinion. But, they are not hoping for the country's downfall. They truly believe they are right. Is that not even possible in your mind?
That's EXACTLY the argument I am making.
There's no place to disagree with the policy to have massive gov't spending to stave off a second great depression. Our ONLY option was to have deficit spending. Cutting spending or increasing taxes would have been suicide!
Is it possible that there's an alternative universe where their opinion that deficit spending in this case is a bad idea? Yup. In this universe, though, nope.
And yeah, their politically partisan blinders that they wear would have caused such economic trouble that it couldn't be described as anything less than unpatriotic behavior if implemented.
And what's this "liberal logic" stuff? Liberals are neither more nor less prone than conservatives to suffer lapses in logic, ethics, hypocrisy, etc. To assert that these sins belong solely in the domain of one side or another is a childish taunt.
You seem to be missing the point, and your own links contradict your thesis.
Fox and by extension, the right, are attacking the CBO as "untrustworthy." You must have missed the point of the MMFA post. You may want to carefully read it again, if you still don't get it.
Now, this is what the WAPO says:
"Budget experts generally have high praise for the work of CBO analysts, the non-ideological technocrats who crunch the numbers to estimate the fiscal impact of legislation. But their work is often more art than science, and although the forecasts that accompany legislation are always filled with uncertainty, this one contains more than most."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/18/AR2010031805445.html?hpid=topnews
... and it goes on to explain the uncertainty. No one ever said the estimate would be perfect.
They conclude (you must have missed this part):
"CBO analysts attempt to make forecasts that are symmetrical -- that have a roughly equal chance of being better or worse than expected. And one recent example offers reason for optimism: The Medicare prescription drug benefit was passed in 2003 -- and its costs have come in lower than the CBO forecast."
And of course you also must have missed this from the Times:
"In other words, the overall numbers were never going to miss the mark. Whenever the budget office judged that some element or elements of the bill would cause a problem meeting the cost and deficit-reduction targets, Democrats just adjusted the underlying legislation to make sure it would hit their goal."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/us/19score.html?hp
Thanks for pointing these out. They just further prove how wrong the right is on this.
Hey, these are your links. I'm just taking a bit more time to actually read them, I guess.
This is not unusual. Actually, it's good fiscal practice.
The Dems wanted to make sure the bill was properly adjusted to be as fiscally responsible as possible. That sounds responsible to me.
Hoosier would like you all to think this is somehow "collusion" of the Dems with the CBO. All I can say is - read this article carefully. That is NOT what the article is implying.
I sense desperation by Right and Hoosier.
Like, those failed arguments will convince whom?
No rational person. That's for sure! :-)
So if the CBO estimates for the healthcare bill are grossly off the mark, the questions should be did they fail to factor in some variable cost hidden by the fact that the program hasn't been implemented, and if so, why don't the "conservatives" support paying for it with taxes, as they should have insisted upon with Medicare D? The Bush tax cuts obviously couldn't be funded with more taxes, which make me wonder why they pushed for them in the first place. The GOP wasn't perhaps REDISTRIBUTING WEALTH, was it?
Randy
The bigger case here, at least what I have seen, is the CBO is reporting on a bunch of unusual budgeting tricks, like including an education bill, and using 10 years of taxes to pay for 6 years of benefits, to produce a favorable 10-year number that is technically just as good as their previous numbers but realistically not.
And while it may be inconsistent, is it wrong? It isn't like the CBO hasn't dramatically underestimated costs before, namely, social security, medicare, medicaid (as much as ten times in these cases).
Instead they are showing FOX news hosts and guests in context, claiming that the CBO numbers cannot be trusted without evidence to support their claims.
Show us ONE initiative that, UNCHANGED, cost a lot more than originally projected.
Saying that Medicaid and Medicare's original projections were greatly exceeded, WITHOUT acknowledging that the programs greatly expanded from the original configuration, is as dishonest as any argument that's EVER been made on this site.
The ONLY fair comparison is to say that the projections are based upon certain income and certain outgo, NOT looking at adjusted/changed/expanded programs and saying that the original projection doesn't fit the expanded program. No one ever SAYS that a projection for XYZ configuration will be the same projection for UVWXYZ configuration!
And there's NO evidence that the current CBO score is bogus or a distortion. NONE. And thanks for backing that up by making baseless attacks on it without providing a single example of any problematic findings by the CBO!
Thank you, RC. I endorse your sentiment.
The gravest problems we face are not from the dynamic of the left v. right / liberal v. conservative nor from the libertarian v. authoritarian axis that is usually mapped as north v. south. The gravest problems arise from the domination of elite interests that have captured functional control of all aspects of government. They feed on constant conflict (resolution of conflict would be contrary to their interests) and act as gatekeepers to the process by permitting access via only two doorways: one marked 8Republican8 and the other marked 8Democratic8.
I call them 8Rust8 because they are corrosive to our republic and, as Neil Young noted, they never sleep. In my book of villains, the worst offenders are the corporatist oligopolies but your targets may be entities like unions or trial lawyers. Little matter, the net effect is that our democratic institutions are being snuffed out.
I call on liberals, conservatives, moderates, and libertarians to sign a temporary truce to break the stranglehold of Two-party duopoly, reform our system of elections, no more gerrymandering, no primaries—open elections with a series of runoffs until one candidate secures a majority of the votes cast. Then, when the rust is removed, we can get back to debating community v. individual solutions.