Monday, March 22, 2010

The "deficit reduction" fraud 

A former head of the Congressional Budget Office deconstructs the claim that the health care "reform" bill just past will reduce the federal budget deficit. It ain't pretty, folks.

What a joke.


By Anonymous Mad as Hell, at Mon Mar 22, 03:53:00 PM:

"Real Arithmetic" leaves out that the new taxes being raised on high earners - $500 billion or so over ten years - have nothing to do with Healthcare. If raised at all, these taxes could be used for any purpose including to put a dent into the trillion dollar annual structural deficit we already have. Thus, on the author's own numbers Healthcare is increasing the deficit by over a trillion dollars, which is in line with Congressman Ryan's analysis. Of course, the actual numbers are likely to be worse.

What's noteworthy about it -- and why it was worth posting -- is that the author is an "expert" and it's in The New York Times. The Times' timing is curious. Had the NYT printed it a month ago -- and it could have ... it doesn't say anything that folks here haven't been saying -- it might have constructively added to the debate. Printed the day of the vote, it's an obvious CYA.

All The News That Fits, When We Think It Fits.  

By Blogger JPMcT, at Mon Mar 22, 05:01:00 PM:

IF I were a CEO and submitted that cost estimate to my stockholders, who then proceeded to lost their shirts...

I would GO TO JAIL!

Why is this different?  

By Anonymous Just Because I'm Paranoid, at Mon Mar 22, 07:28:00 PM:

How could Punch Jr let this slip out.

Or is this the true message:

"Of course I'm lying through my teeth. I know it, you know it ... most of the shithead Democrats in Congress know it ... and I'm going to go on a victory tour ... and I'm going to keep saying that Healthcare cuts the deficit ... and there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it. You can suck my dick."  

By Blogger Don Cox, at Tue Mar 23, 04:46:00 AM:

For the forseeable future, US citizens will have the worst of both worlds: you will be paying higher taxes, AND you will still be paying for health insurance.

When you eventually have a real health service, insurance to cover medical treatment will not be necessary.
You may then still want to insure against loss of earnings, or other consequential costs.

At one time, firemen were employed by insurance companies. If your house caught fire and you were not insured, nobody arrived to put the fire out. Nowadays, we all assume that the local fire department is paid for out of taxes. You insure only for the consequential damage, not to pay the wages of the firemen.  

Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?