Total Posts:112|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Healthcare Reform Town Hall

Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 11:15:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Anyone watching the President's healthcare summit with Members of Congress? Its turning out to be hilariously partisan, yet there does appear to be some will to work together among the members, though maybe reluctant. I'm hoping Obama strong arms the Republicans into serious discussion. With Canada's Parliament suspended, I need to watch a good ol' fashioned political arm wrestle.

If you don't know where to watch it, you can here: http://www.c-span.org...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 11:56:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"We don't want the government to do all of this, we want people to do it." - Paul Ryan

Because the government isn't composed of people?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 12:02:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 11:56:51 AM, Reasoning wrote:
"We don't want the government to do all of this, we want people to do it." - Paul Ryan

Because the government isn't composed of people?

Of course not - the government are a bunch of machines. Have you never seen the Matrix? Or talked to Geo?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 12:26:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm hoping Obama strong arms

Lol... Obama's pathetic. If he can't do sh1t with a supermajority, he's not going to be able to do sh1t now. All talk, no game.

the Republicans into serious discussion.

Yeah. This is Congress. "Serious discussion" usually doesn't belong in the same sentence with Republicans or Democrats.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 12:27:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 11:15:06 AM, Volkov wrote:
Anyone watching the President's healthcare summit with Members of Congress? Its turning out to be hilariously partisan, yet there does appear to be some will to work together among the members, though maybe reluctant. I'm hoping Obama strong arms the Republicans into serious discussion. With Canada's Parliament suspended, I need to watch a good ol' fashioned political arm wrestle.

If you don't know where to watch it, you can here: http://www.c-span.org...

Down with Harper for suspending parliament! >:(
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 12:33:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 12:26:40 PM, Nags wrote:
Lol... Obama's pathetic. If he can't do sh1t with a supermajority, he's not going to be able to do sh1t now. All talk, no game.

Well, talk is all he needs to do. I didn't literally mean that Obama needs to use Boehner as a punching bag - though I'd love to see that; I meant that with Obama there, he can get right into the debate and we can see his arguments, we can see the GOP use more than talking points (like Ryan and another couple of members did, but not Boehner, who sounds like a cheap attack ad), and we can see Democrats try to explain themselves. So far, I'm impressed, with all sides.

Yeah. This is Congress. "Serious discussion" usually doesn't belong in the same sentence with Republicans or Democrats.

Lol, good point. Though, I'm not disappointed so far.

InsertNameHere said:
Down with Harper for suspending parliament! >:(

Hey hey, ho ho, Harper's gotta go, as some protesters would say. :D
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 5:09:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
When Paul Ryan went through and gave his point on how the CBO could only calculate based on the six year of spending/ten years of taxes, I found it funny that the California guy said "hey, are you questioning the CBO? You need to trust them!!!" Even though that was not at all his point.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 5:10:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 5:09:04 PM, mongoose wrote:
When Paul Ryan went through and gave his point on how the CBO could only calculate based on the six year of spending/ten years of taxes, I found it funny that the California guy said "hey, are you questioning the CBO? You need to trust them!!!" Even though that was not at all his point.

I liked the GOP guy that said "the CBO is God." I would have loved to have seen Ryan's face then.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 5:16:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Everyone makes it seems like the CBO is free of error, while the OMB is inherently biased. The latter is true, of course, but the former is also biased. The President and the Congress are both big government.

Besides, it's impossible for the CBO or anyone for that matter to be able to predict the future. Future revenues and other economic conditions are impossible to predict. The CBO, OMB, and the Government in general has been notoriously over-optimistic and there predictions are almost always wrong.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 5:18:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 5:16:23 PM, Nags wrote:
Everyone makes it seems like the CBO is free of error, while the OMB is inherently biased. The latter is true, of course, but the former is also biased. The President and the Congress are both big government.

Besides, it's impossible for the CBO or anyone for that matter to be able to predict the future. Future revenues and other economic conditions are impossible to predict. The CBO, OMB, and the Government in general has been notoriously over-optimistic and there predictions are almost always wrong.

It's not that the CBO is biased, it's that it is given false information and has to pretend that it is fact. They don't have a choice.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 5:20:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 5:18:40 PM, mongoose wrote:
It's not that the CBO is biased, it's that it is given false information and has to pretend that it is fact. They don't have a choice.

The CBO provides the data to Congress. They're either biased or their economics are just wrong. I'll say both.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 5:22:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It can't be that they're right. No, they have to be wrong because they come up with a conclusion that us teenagers who have no training in economics disagree with.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 5:28:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 5:22:12 PM, Volkov wrote:
It can't be that they're right. No, they have to be wrong because they come up with a conclusion that us teenagers who have no training in economics disagree with.

They came up with a conclusion based on six years of costs and ten years of revenue. Anybody can see that that just doesn't add up.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 5:31:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 5:28:44 PM, mongeese wrote:
They came up with a conclusion based on six years of costs and ten years of revenue. Anybody can see that that just doesn't add up.

Still, I don't know if you or Nags or myself are truly qualified to criticize the CBO's calculations and methods. I know two accountants that cost things with different methods, and I wouldn't begin to understand it I tried, yet they're both successful at their jobs.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 5:33:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 5:22:12 PM, Volkov wrote:
It can't be that they're right.

It's impossible to predict the future, and that's what the CBO does. If the CBO could predict the future, we would be rich with-out any debt.

The CBO can't know the future revenues, the future interest rates, the future economic policies, and the future economic conditions. It's not an attack on authority, it's an attack on what the CBO attempts to do.

Take, for example, the Iraq War. The CBO projected it would cost about $50 billion. We're now over $700 billion. Another example, Medicare prescription drug plan. CBO projected it would cost $400 billion. A year later, and it's now $ 1 trillion.

No, they have to be wrong because they come up with a conclusion that us teenagers who have no training in economics disagree with.

Speak for yourself.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 5:40:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If the CBO is the same as the Parliamentary Budget Officer here, then yes, their goal is to attempt to cost future legislation. That is their raison d'etre, because you cannot do legislation without at least attempting to cost it, and see if its feasible with as much accuracy as you can attempt.

That doesn't mean the CBO is wrong, however. It means that their models are predicting what it will cost if everything goes according to plan, if the economy is stable, and if the situation doesn't swing too wildly. Every example you listed had either horrible implementation or something occurred that wasn't in the projection model. You can only prepare for these things, you can't nail them down. But, that doesn't mean the CBO's numbers are wrong, not by a long shot, just that they're essentially the baseline for what it should cost.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 5:41:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 5:22:12 PM, Volkov wrote:
It can't be that they're right. No, they have to be wrong because they come up with a conclusion that us teenagers who have no training in economics disagree with.

Bush sed trhere waz wepons of mass distruction in Iraq, so who ar us teenagers to critisize him?? hes the presedent, eh knows what he is doing. questioning your leaders meens you want the terrorists to win.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 5:42:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 5:40:07 PM, Volkov wrote:
It means that their models are predicting what it will cost if everything goes according to plan, if the economy is stable, and if the situation doesn't swing too wildly.

This.

When has this ever happened?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 5:42:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 5:41:40 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 2/25/2010 5:22:12 PM, Volkov wrote:
It can't be that they're right. No, they have to be wrong because they come up with a conclusion that us teenagers who have no training in economics disagree with.

Bush sed trhere waz wepons of mass distruction in Iraq, so who ar us teenagers to critisize him?? hes the presedent, eh knows what he is doing. questioning your leaders meens you want the terrorists to win.

lawlz
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 5:45:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 5:41:40 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Bush sed trhere waz wepons of mass distruction in Iraq, so who ar us teenagers to critisize him?? hes the presedent, eh knows what he is doing. questioning your leaders meens you want the terrorists to win.

I'll take this to mean that you also have no idea what you're talking about. Not a surprise, really, given your chosen ideology...

But, seriously, I'm not saying that you cannot question these things, but don't act as if you are the end-all of knowledge on the subject. With the situation at the time, could you have said for sure that Iraq had no weapons? No, you couldn't have, not unless you were either a weapon's inspector, in the government, or God himself. Not only are you not an expert, you're not even in a position whereby you'll come across any definitive knowledge about it. What gives you the right to sit there and say definitively that "you're wrong," when you have no access or knowledge on the situation?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 5:48:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 5:42:31 PM, Nags wrote:
This.

When has this ever happened?

What, the economy becoming unstable or things going according to plan?

Assuming its the latter, if nothing has never gone according to plan, then maybe we should never, ever, ever, attempt to at least set our a baseline of what we expect to happen. In fact, lets sit here and cower in the awesomeness of the random universe and just hope everything goes well, without ever thinking about how it actually might.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 5:51:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 5:45:59 PM, Volkov wrote:

But, seriously, I'm not saying that you cannot question these things, but don't act as if you are the end-all of knowledge on the subject. With the situation at the time, could you have said for sure that Iraq had no weapons? No, you couldn't have, not unless you were either a weapon's inspector, in the government, or God himself. Not only are you not an expert, you're not even in a position whereby you'll come across any definitive knowledge about it. What gives you the right to sit there and say definitively that "you're wrong," when you have no access or knowledge on the situation?

It's not so much that I claim to know better, but that history shows governments are all too willing to go to war carelessly (Vietnam, Korea, WWI, anyone?). When old men from the safety of Washington DC tell young kids to go fight and die thousands of miles away from home, they better be damn sure they have their facts straight first.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 5:51:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 5:45:59 PM, Volkov wrote:
I'll take this to mean that you also have no idea what you're talking about. Not a surprise, really, given your chosen ideology...

What's that supposed to mena?

But, seriously, I'm not saying that you cannot question these things, but don't act as if you are the end-all of knowledge on the subject. With the situation at the time, could you have said for sure that Iraq had no weapons? No, you couldn't have, not unless you were either a weapon's inspector, in the government, or God himself. Not only are you not an expert, you're not even in a position whereby you'll come across any definitive knowledge about it. What gives you the right to sit there and say definitively that "you're wrong," when you have no access or knowledge on the situation?

First off, straw man -- no one ever said they are the end-all knowledge on any subject. Neither did anyone say definitively that Iraq has no WMDs.

The CBO has never been right, so there's no reason to believe they would ever not be wrong.

"God himself" --- You sure do talk about Jesus [Christ] and God a lot for an atheist.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 5:53:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 5:48:43 PM, Volkov wrote:
What, the economy becoming unstable or things going according to plan?

Latter.

Assuming its the latter, if nothing has never gone according to plan, then maybe we should never, ever, ever, attempt to at least set our a baseline of what we expect to happen. In fact, lets sit here and cower in the awesomeness of the random universe and just hope everything goes well, without ever thinking about how it actually might.

Your solution misses the mark of the problem. Why project something that is certainly going to be wrong? It's a waste of time, money, resources, and it mis-leads.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 5:53:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
And regarding the CBO, I don't trust them any farther than I can throw them. How many tens of trillions of dollars over budget was Medicare, again?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 5:53:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 5:51:30 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
It's not so much that I claim to know better, but that history shows governments are all too willing to go to war carelessly (Vietnam, Korea, WWI, anyone?). When old men from the safety of Washington DC tell young kids to go fight and die thousands of miles away from home, they better be damn sure they have their facts straight first.

I agree, but that is completely different from what we're talking about. To say what you say here is completely legitimate, because its not only just a very justified opinion, it can be backed up with a lot of facts from history. But it's a completely different story when you try to argue against the War on the basis of there being no weapons of mass destruction, when you have no access to such information.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 5:57:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 5:53:47 PM, Volkov wrote:
But it's a completely different story when you try to argue against the War on the basis of there being no weapons of mass destruction, when you have no access to such information.

Right. Because government has all the information. Clearly it was right to trust them on this one for WMDs in Iraq.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 5:58:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 5:51:48 PM, Nags wrote:
What's that supposed to mena?

'Twas a joke.

First off, straw man -- no one ever said they are the end-all knowledge on any subject. Neither did anyone say definitively that Iraq has no WMDs.

Not a strawman, because it wasn't an argument that was directed specifically to you or Kenyon, but a general statement aimed at covering the subject, which is related to what Kenyon said.

The CBO has never been right, so there's no reason to believe they would ever not be wrong.

The CBO's job description, as I understand it, is not supposed about "being right." It's about accounting, setting up baseline numbers, and giving a number based on the information they have access to. It isn't necessarily about being right, as it is trying to make a base upon which you can build when these situations arise.

"God himself" --- You sure do talk about Jesus [Christ] and God a lot for an atheist.

It's apart of Western culture to make references to God, Jesus Christ, and all that stuff. Not my fault the language and its expressions are built into the culture's religious leanings.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 6:01:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 5:58:33 PM, Volkov wrote:
Not a strawman, because it wasn't an argument that was directed specifically to you or Kenyon, but a general statement aimed at covering the subject, which is related to what Kenyon said.

It certainly sounded like it was directed at us.

The CBO's job description, as I understand it, is not supposed about "being right." It's about accounting, setting up baseline numbers, and giving a number based on the information they have access to. It isn't necessarily about being right, as it is trying to make a base upon which you can build when these situations arise.

They suck at their job then. If reality isn't even close to their projections, then they fail epically. They are counter-productive.

It's apart of Western culture to make references to God, Jesus Christ, and all that stuff. Not my fault the language and its expressions are built into the culture's religious leanings.

As an atheist, you shouldn't be doing it though. No need to further ingrain religion into culture.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 6:02:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 5:57:32 PM, Nags wrote:
Right. Because government has all the information.

More information than you. Or were you involved with the Iraqi government?

Your solution misses the mark of the problem. Why project something that is certainly going to be wrong? It's a waste of time, money, resources, and it mis-leads.

You need a foundation from which to build upon. The CBO provided that foundation. It's numbers cost out the plan as if it it expects no issues to arise, which is important because then these issues do arise, you need something to compare numbers.

Like, say if there is an influx of immigrants that strains a program past its original capacity and budget; you can use the CBO's numbers to see what it would look like if this didn't occur, compare them to the current numbers, and see how you can adjust accordingly to see how you can get back on track, or relatively so, to the original estimates.