It’s not that people don’t know the data, though many don’t, it’s that most people have no real understanding of economics or the full extent of government policies.
A lot of people’s ‘reasoning’ on the subject of the economy consists of “Deficit = bad”
You posted an alleged assertion by Hannity and claimed it was shown to be a lie by another fact that you posted. I observed that your alleged fact does not contradict what you quoted from Hannity.
Since then, instead of forthrightly admitting that you were wrong, you’ve been bouncing around all over the place, posting all sorts of other facts, and a new and different assertion by Hannity. I’m not interested in discussing any of that, expecially with you. My point was about your original claim, and it still stands.
You need to go back and read Post #5. I also mentioned that I was talking about debt reduction not just the cost side of ObamaCare.
Nevertheless apparently you have no legitimate source that shows a change in forecast that Obama-Care will increase the deficit by $6 trillion dollars or $1 trillion.
It continues to be a debt reduction program according to the most recent CBO projections.
Hannity was talking about increasing deficits by $6 trillion as I pointed out is a lie.
Hannity was claiming the ACA was being revised and now it increases the deficit by $6 trillion.
That is a lie, and you obviously cannot make a case that it is not a lie.
Duly noted.
What you quoted from Hannity was not about the deficit, but about the cost to the taxpayers. You quoted from a guest on his show about the deficit. My point was and is that these do not contradict each other.
Subsequently, you’ve quoted other statements from Hannity about the deficit. I’m not talking about those statements.
This should be pretty clear by now. In fact, it is pretty clear by now. I do not intend to continue playing games with you.
Regardless of your limited translation of what I wrote, I was talking about something I just heard on the radio about the $6.2 Trillion number. Since then I found a transcript from the Hannity website.
Here is what Hannity is saying:
It is a lie.
I don’t want to play games.
Either you can refute this lie or you can’t.
This is wrong:
I am not ‘pretending’ he was talking about the deficit.
And Revenues are not a “cost” to the Federal Government.
The fact of what I wrote initially about to start this thread and about Hannity about the “DEFICIT” and is right here:
The Title of this thread is “The Rapidly Shrinking** Federal Deficit**”
IF you want to go away please do. But don’t walk out claiming that I was not focused on the ‘Deficit’. That is not true.
Most of the current amazing deficit reduction (*see below WSJ) is due more, percentage-wise, to increases in revenues rather than to cuts in spending.
So if your theory about unified governing is correct… Republicans contributed to reduced spending and Obama and Dems get credit for raising revenues, then you must admit that Obama and the Dems should get most credit for the current shrinking Federal Deficit.
That gets back to why people from the right that it is Obama to blame for the current Federal Budget Deficit.
I think it would be better had the GOP not won control of the HOUSE in 2010, because a balanced approach on raising revenues and cutting spending would already be in place.
We’d have lower deficits with a faster recovery in employment.
But we are where we are.
And that fact is from known current data… Dems push for more revenue has helped reduce the deficit quite quickly from what it was at the end of the Great Bush recession of 2008.
The ‘facts’ show that Republicans are wrong to remain devoted and loyal to Grover Norquist, who is not and never has been an elected official accountable to an electorate.
So it is Grover Norquist who is in favor of slower deficit reduction, not Obama.
Why would any lawmaker sign an oath to him?
Have you read any of the latest CBO reports? The ACA is holding up quite well at it’s original numbers and has contributed to Fed Spending savings on Medicare and Medicaid?
Is it time for an update and follow up to your comment?
Health care spending nationwide has been lower than projected due the weak economy. With no plans to ever staff IPAB, there will be no way to curtail health care spending once the economy starts booming again.
That’s odd. More people are entering the programs every day but government cost are going down. So is it that people without jobs and much less money per enrollee don’t get sick or injured as much somehow when the economy is running at a higher rate of growth. Anyway, what is the basis for your opinion?
Oh, well they have a projection, that settles it. They should also tell me what they project the Dow to be in five years.
You blamed the weak economy for the reduction in US Fed Government spending on Health Care. I asked where you come up with that and how is it that a recession causes people to not be sick and injured as much when there is more of them.
Are you saying Hospitals and doctors charge less for services during a recession?
No, I’m saying that people purchase less health care when money is tight. Health care spending is more elastic than you would expect, mainly because so much of what is bought is useless or unnecessary. In another thread, a poster was advised to go to the emergency room for a cut on his finger. He didn’t have insurance, so he didn’t. Had he had insurance, he might have gone and thus incurred a $1000 bill that his insurance company would have paid. In a better economy, he might have had insurance.
What do you have?
History. Medicare and Medicaid vastly exceeded projections. THe burden is on ACA supporters to explain why ACA will be different.