Author Topic: "I need strategies for hitting back at those who are trying to discredit the CBO (Read 1802 times)

Tess Anderson · « **on:** January 07, 2011, 03:50:32 PM »

link

Liberal_Stalwart71 doesn't like anybody dissing the CBO (now):

Quote

Liberal_Stalwart71 (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-07-11 04:10 PM
Original message
I need strategies for hitting back at those who are trying to discredit the CBO
The CBO has been a reliable institution now for many decades. It produces non-partisan, quality research and has done so since its inception. And now all of the sudden, it's been discredited by a group of people who don't dislike its findings and want to politicize anything that it doesn't like. So, rather than argue those findings on the merits, this same group of people attack the organization itself. When confronted about why they don't address the CBO's findings, their response is to name call and attack those who who dare ask the question.

The question now is how do we fight back against these people who are so brainwashed by Teabagger rhetoric and Republican talking points when they try and discredit this institution?

Honestly, I'm just incredibly baffled by this.

JohnnyReb · « **Reply #1 on:** January 07, 2011, 03:55:38 PM »

DUmmie said...."...discredited by a group of people who don't dislike its findings..." ....huh?

Karin · « **Reply #2 on:** January 07, 2011, 04:03:41 PM »

Well they say it's garbage in, garbage out. The CBO apparently just runs already set-up models, given the data they're given, like trained monkeys. These models are static as well, so the impact of unintended consequences and opportunity cost considerations are ignored. They don't take into account the fact that when you tax something you get less of it.

To me, this is doing a half-assed job of analysis. I would be fired for such shoddy work.

DumbAss Tanker · « **Reply #3 on:** January 07, 2011, 04:14:12 PM »

If anyone ever wants a perfect example of voodoo economics, the CBO's costing-out of HCRA is it.

SSG Snuggle Bunny · « **Reply #4 on:** January 07, 2011, 04:18:38 PM »

Quote from: DumbAss Tanker on January 07, 2011, 04:14:12 PM

If anyone ever wants a perfect example of voodoo economics, the CBO's costing-out of HCRA is it.

They scoe what is iven to them.

That congress went back later and passed "the doctor fix" over medicare pricing puts most on the onus of the corruptocrats.

DumbAss Tanker · « **Reply #5 on:** January 07, 2011, 04:21:23 PM »

Quote from: SGT Snuggle Bunny on January 07, 2011, 04:18:38 PM

They scoe what is iven to them.

You been taking typing lessons from nmbluesky?

Carl · « **Reply #6 on:** January 07, 2011, 05:11:16 PM »

Quote from: SGT Snuggle Bunny on January 07, 2011, 04:18:38 PM

They scoe what is iven to them.

That congress went back later and passed "the doctor fix" over medicare pricing puts most on the onus of the corruptocrats.

Exactly,they run the numbers that Congress tells them are going to be so.
They were told that 500 billion was to be cut out of Medicare via waste and fraud so they had to score it based on that assumption which of course was and is never going to happen.
Debate over that point isn`t what they do though.

AllosaursRus · « **Reply #7 on:** January 07, 2011, 05:32:54 PM »

Could be because the Obumbler admin was counting some of their numbers twice! Especially when it came to their "this bill will decrease healthcare costs" crap! I heard a pretty in depth run down on this "smoke and mirrors" accounting bull shit yesterday! I'll have to try and find it.

AllosaursRus · « **Reply #8 on:** January 07, 2011, 06:03:26 PM »

This is a starter.........

Via........AssociatedContent.com-Why the Health Care Law is anything but Budget Neutral!

Quote

Double-Counting Medicare. Medicare is being reduced by hundreds of millions of dollars. This savings is going to be achieved a number of ways, but one is in reduced payments to providers...which is already a problem
in and of itself. But where is the money going? It cannot go two places at once, but the CBO somehow managed to score it that way. We intend to close the "donut hole" on Medicare Part D with the money, while the full amount has been calculate to create solvency for the program. So which is it? You can't have your cake and eat it to...unless you control the way the CBO is scoring. I watched the President attempt to answer that question during his interview and laughed out loud. I was thinking of George Orwell's Double Speak. Double speak for double counting...how ironic.

Quote

Unfunded Mandates. Okay...just because it isn't Uncle Sam taxing you doesn't mean it isn't a tax. If the federal government mandates a state to act a certain way (and you wonder why there are dozens of Tenth Amendment challenges to this bill?) the state has to figure out how to pay for it. Sometimes that payment is funded through grants or directly by the government. Sometimes it is not funded at all. Many of the special deals in this bill (especially the Nebraska one) were an attempt to buy the vote in exchange for funding the mandate for the select few whose votes were needed. So introducing unfunded mandates to the states who are already running budget shortfalls is going to necessarily result in new state taxes. That, my friends, is not budget neutral. It is called hiding the real cost of this budget busting monstrosity.

Quote

Doctor's Fix. The Doctor's Fix (which will cost 150 to 200 Billion dollars) was intentionally removed from the health care legislation to help make it balance. That is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. To say that this fix isn't part of the reform is ludicrous. Not only is it part of the reform, but it was the price tag demanded by the AMA in order to come on board with the President. The Doctor's Fix was just another purchase required to get this bill past. So it is definitely part of the cost of the bill and alone would cause the bill not to budget.

There's much more at the link!

Hannity had an interview with the new Speaker yesterday that had a congressional site with the facts, too! I'll try and run it down.

The Hollywood NeoCon · « **Reply #9 on:** January 07, 2011, 06:16:51 PM »

Quote

Liberal_Stalwart71 (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-07-11 04:10 PM
Original message

Honestly, I'm just incredibly baffled by this.

You're baffled by pop-tarts, you impertinent little shit.

AllosaursRus · « **Reply #10 on:** January 07, 2011, 06:29:18 PM »

Here's Ryan, the new head of Appropriations.

[youtube=425,350]<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zPxMZ1WdINs&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zPxMZ1WdINs&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Obwana's Admin cooked the books before handing them over to the CBO! This doesn't even take into account the wavers to this POS the Admin is handin' out faster than a pamphlet packin' Code Pinko protester at a George W, book signin' rally!

Here's the link to........House Budget Office

true_blood · « **Reply #11 on:** January 07, 2011, 06:31:17 PM »

Quote

Liberal_Stalwart71 (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-07-11 04:10 PM
Original message
I need strategies for hitting back at those who are trying to discredit the CBO
The CBO has been a reliable institution now for many decades.

They are?! Just like how they predicted Medicaid too, right?

Happy Fun Ball · « **Reply #12 on:** January 07, 2011, 09:10:35 PM »

BREAKING: CBO Says Repealing ObamaCare Would Reduce Net Spending by $540 Billion

jukin · « **Reply #13 on:** January 07, 2011, 09:31:23 PM »

HFB yo beat me to it. CBO BEST EVA!!!!1111!!!eleventy

For lurking DUchebags, the CBO only counts what is presented to them. Guess what new majority will start presenting the closer to reality numbers?

AllosaursRus · « **Reply #14 on:** January 08, 2011, 12:23:32 AM »

Quote from: Happy Fun Ball on January 07, 2011, 09:10:35 PM

BREAKING: CBO Says Repealing ObamaCare Would Reduce Net Spending by $540 Billion

Uh oh!!!

The smoke is clearin' out and the mirrors are a breakin'! Seems like the new wind in the House is throwin' a few rocks, too!

Sucks to be you, huh DUmmies!

Carl · « **Reply #15 on:** January 08, 2011, 05:28:57 AM »

Quote

Igel (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-08-11 12:23 AM
Response to Original message
9. It still would be.
It has its problems with things like budget projections because of the assumptions it has to make. That's the problem with any scoring, any projection--sorting out the assumptions. You've got to make some, some being more reasonable that others.

Take the budget projection made in 2000. Budget surpluses for as far as the eye could see. At the time that was dismissed as a crock. But they had to assume that the recent past would predict the future--even as the leading economic indicators said "recession" and we'd already had a record post-war period of growth. (Then again, the wise-crack is that leading indicators have predicted 12 out of the last 9 recessions.) In general, though, they could debate their own assumptions and often enough set them themselves. They worked for Congress; but they were largely independent of Congress.

That meant its scoring of bills used to be non-partisan. Bills would consist of laws and regulations and it was possible to look at the CBO's assumptions, look at the scoring, see how it reflected the bill, and think, "Yeah, not too bad." Or, conversely, "The assumptions suck" or even "Are we reading the same bill?"

The HCRA was billed as gaming the system because it stated the assumptions to be made and essentially set the guidelines the CBO had to follow. If it said it would save money the CBO was forced to agree with what the proposed legislation said. The CBO was scoring the bill, but wasn't authorized to pass judgment on the bill's assumptions. The CBO had to include everything the bill included, exclude everything the bill excluded. My favorite point was that healthcare reform would save so many billions of dollars through government administration of student loans. (A companion bill that actually redid the student loan system saved nothing.) It didn't matter if it would or not, or if the projection on the amount saved in administrating student loans was reasonable. It was what the CBO had to assume was true and that this would be a savings that resulted from the HCRA.

The CBO knew about this little problem and made mention of the fact that it was constrained to assume as plausible some things that they probably wouldn't have assumed given their druthers were they not obligated to do so by Congress. It's possible to disagree with that particular CBO scoring; the CBO wasn't all gung-ho about it. So I say the CBO used to be non-partisan although the most likely implicature is that I'm suggesting it's now partisan, I mean this in a quirky way. In the last few years the CBO has been firmly in Congress' pocket when it scores some bills, not when it scores others. It's not truly independent, it's just not dependent on a party (per se) or the executive branch.

Notice the difference between them and here...out of 10 replies on that thread there is only one that understands the mechanics of it whereas here everybody did.
Information is like water off a ducks back to the self proclaimed geniuses of the left.

Vagabond · « **Reply #16 on:** January 08, 2011, 07:00:36 AM »

One of the former directors for the CBO, I can't recall his name, has been warning for years that our trajectory is not sustainable. Turns out he was right on the money and we still aren't learning our lesson.

Randy · « **Reply #17 on:** January 08, 2011, 07:51:39 AM »

Doesn't the C in CBO sorta throw up the

on it's own?

AllosaursRus · « **Reply #18 on:** January 09, 2011, 12:12:08 AM »

Quote from: Randy on January 08, 2011, 07:51:39 AM

Doesn't the C in CBO sorta throw up the on it's own?

Ain't it the truth, Ran, ain't it the truth!

I defy anyone, not just the DUmmies, who we make fun of night and day cause it's so easy, but anyone, tell me a program the gubmint has run efficiently and on the up and up in the last century!

Randy · « **Reply #19 on:** January 09, 2011, 04:22:54 PM »

The silence is deafening....

GOBUCKS · « **Reply #20 on:** January 09, 2011, 05:40:38 PM »

Most normal people, if they're in the minority that have heard of the CBO, know that it is a democrat outfit that makes up shit to sell socialist programs.

BattleHymn · « **Reply #21 on:** January 09, 2011, 06:58:37 PM »

Quote from: The Hollywood NeoCon on January 07, 2011, 06:16:51 PM

You're baffled by pop-tarts, you impertinent little shit.

I_B_Perky · « **Reply #22 on:** January 09, 2011, 07:56:46 PM »

Quote from: Carl on January 07, 2011, 05:11:16 PM

Exactly,they run the numbers that Congress tells them are going to be so.
They were told that 500 billion was to be cut out of Medicare via waste and fraud so they had to score it based on that assumption which of course was and is never going to happen.
Debate over that point isn`t what they do though.

I read that the "score" on the Obamacare bill had double counted savings.

Just some more lies by the democrats

News:

Author Topic: "I need strategies for hitting back at those who are trying to discredit the CBO (Read 1802 times)