If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story) Spiffy According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Obama's health reform initiative will increase the deficit by $118 billion. What's that? I'm sorry, that's DECREASE the deficit by $118 billion   (rawstory.com) divider line 376
More: Spiffy, Congressional Budget Office, Obama, House Leader, David Plouffe, Organizing for America, political consulting, smears, nonpartisan  
•       •       •

11513 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Mar 2010 at 5:55 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



376 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-03-11 04:31:53 PM
i44.tinypic.com

what's that you said?
 
2010-03-11 04:36:18 PM
Hmm, this is what Pelosi has been waiting for to run the vote. I doubt she does it on a Friday though. Monday is my guess.
 
2010-03-11 04:41:31 PM
Yes, but that means the CBO is back to being partisan and unreliable.
 
2010-03-11 04:43:49 PM
kmmontandon: Yes, but that means the CBO is back to being partisan and unreliable.

oh, i'd forgotten about that bit. good catch!
 
2010-03-11 04:55:16 PM
kmmontandon: Yes, but that means the CBO is back to being partisan and unreliable.

i'm adding it to my list of anti-GOP conspirators.
 
2010-03-11 04:57:08 PM
I Said: kmmontandon: Yes, but that means the CBO is back to being partisan and unreliable.

i'm adding it to my list of anti-GOP conspirators.


write it in pencil, in case they discover something tomorrow that makes them change their minds.
 
2010-03-11 04:58:55 PM
In before retards claiming it doesn't count because the benefits don't start til the program is fully funded which is bad
 
2010-03-11 04:59:49 PM
cameroncrazy1984: In before retards claiming it doesn't count because the benefits don't start til the program is fully funded which is bad

I heard the benefits don't start until 2042, and that "benefits" actually means "mandatory abortions".
 
2010-03-11 05:07:53 PM
I'm going to put my money on "It doesn't decrease the deficit enough".

Any takers?
 
2010-03-11 05:09:28 PM
I understand that the GOP version of the bill uses a proven implementation of providing health care only to the wealthy. After a few weeks the health care "trickles down®" to the middle and lower classes. So we got that going for us.
 
2010-03-11 05:11:45 PM
Great, so now they'll just add another $118 billion in spending and claim it's "deficit-neutral," then find out too late that $118 billion was wildly off the mark.

How's that?
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2010-03-11 05:12:46 PM
Barbigazi: I'm going to put my money on "It doesn't decrease the deficit enough".

Any takers?


I'll take that in an exacta box with "It won't create enough new jobs in the health sector."
 
2010-03-11 05:14:02 PM
Wait, I want to change my answer! I'm going with this:

"Yeah through rationing and making doctors into modern day slaves it will."
 
2010-03-11 05:14:57 PM
jbc: I'll take that in an exacta box with "It won't create enough new jobs in the health sector."

And I'll go with the perfecta: "it still doesn't actually reduce healthcare costs, which are the real problem"
 
2010-03-11 05:16:53 PM
They kill off enough old people and yeah, there will be some savings.
 
2010-03-11 05:18:17 PM
if you really think that's the case then you shouldn't have a problem cutting taxes to the wealthy in order to give them back that money you are no longer using.
 
2010-03-11 05:18:17 PM
ne2d: Great, so now they'll just add another $118 billion in spending and claim it's "deficit-neutral," then find out too late that $118 billion was wildly off the mark.

How's that?


No, it's "partisan and unreliable". You missed the partisan part.
 
2010-03-11 05:20:37 PM
thomps: if you really think that's the case then you shouldn't have a problem cutting taxes to the wealthy in order to give them back that money you are no longer using.

I think you don't understand the meaning of "deficit"
 
2010-03-11 05:20:43 PM
Two words: Risky Scheme.
 
2010-03-11 05:22:03 PM
ne2d: Two words: Risky Scheme.

It's so risky that every other country that's tried it is ranked ahead of the US on affordability and availability of care.
 
2010-03-11 05:22:06 PM
cameroncrazy1984: thomps: if you really think that's the case then you shouldn't have a problem cutting taxes to the wealthy in order to give them back that money you are no longer using.

I think you don't understand the meaning of "deficit"


death panels?
 
2010-03-11 05:22:26 PM
thomps: if you really think that's the case then you shouldn't have a problem cutting taxes to the wealthy in order to give them back that money you are no longer using.

We're trying to reduce the deficit, not increase it. The bill is a net decrease to the deficit, why the fark would you try to change that.

ne2d: Two words: Risky Scheme.

One word: bullshiat
 
2010-03-11 05:24:41 PM
GAT_00: thomps: if you really think that's the case then you shouldn't have a problem cutting taxes to the wealthy in order to give them back that money you are no longer using.

We're trying to reduce the deficit, not increase it. The bill is a net decrease to the deficit, why the fark would you try to change that


ha sorry i should have been more clear that i was submitting my predicted republican talking point. dead-pan doesn't come through very well in print.
 
2010-03-11 05:29:13 PM
thomps: GAT_00: thomps: if you really think that's the case then you shouldn't have a problem cutting taxes to the wealthy in order to give them back that money you are no longer using.

We're trying to reduce the deficit, not increase it. The bill is a net decrease to the deficit, why the fark would you try to change that

ha sorry i should have been more clear that i was submitting my predicted republican talking point. dead-pan doesn't come through very well in print.


I don't think it's you. I've noticed that Gat_00's sarcasm detector seems to be nonoperational [what's wrong with "inoperational," Firefox?] a lot of the time.
 
2010-03-11 05:31:14 PM
cameroncrazy1984: ne2d: Two words: Risky Scheme.

It's so risky that every other country that's tried it is ranked ahead of the US on affordability and availability of care.


I don't think it's the end result that's risky, it's the implementation that holds all the danger. Getting a working system in place in a country full of imbeciles with one block of the government doing everything they can to destroy it... I give us 1 chance in 3.
 
2010-03-11 05:31:31 PM
ne2d: thomps: GAT_00: thomps: if you really think that's the case then you shouldn't have a problem cutting taxes to the wealthy in order to give them back that money you are no longer using.

We're trying to reduce the deficit, not increase it. The bill is a net decrease to the deficit, why the fark would you try to change that

ha sorry i should have been more clear that i was submitting my predicted republican talking point. dead-pan doesn't come through very well in print.

I don't think it's you. I've noticed that Gat_00's sarcasm detector seems to be nonoperational [what's wrong with "inoperational," Firefox?] a lot of the time.


Yeah, I totally missed the sarcasm there.
 
2010-03-11 05:33:37 PM
Mordant: cameroncrazy1984: ne2d: Two words: Risky Scheme.

It's so risky that every other country that's tried it is ranked ahead of the US on affordability and availability of care.

I don't think it's the end result that's risky, it's the implementation that holds all the danger. Getting a working system in place in a country full of imbeciles with one block of the government doing everything they can to destroy it... I give us 1 chance in 3.


Hm, that's a good point. There's always the Republicans taking credit for it once they realize the public loves it.
 
2010-03-11 05:35:49 PM
The Republicans don't want this passed at this point for 2 main reasons;

1. If it's more expensive than Obama's predictions, the public will by then be feeling the benefit of guaranteed health-care. The American public doesn't like to give up good benefits so, like Social Security, no Republican will touch it if they want to stay in office.

2. If, as the CBO predicts, it saves money, Republicans will be shown as the shills that they are and they'll pay for it at the ballot box in 2012. But the voters and their notoriously short memories will follow previous patterns and and listen to whatever BS the wing-nuts are selling within a year or two.
 
2010-03-11 05:38:17 PM
I'm partial to the new "The democrats will just end up spending the surplus that the bill creates" as a way to negate the idea of passing the bill. Just enough stupid to make someone slap themselves.
 
2010-03-11 05:43:44 PM
bulldg4life: I'm partial to the new "The democrats will just end up spending the surplus that the bill creates" as a way to negate the idea of passing the bill. Just enough stupid to make someone slap themselves.


Well, slap someone, anyways.
 
2010-03-11 05:45:11 PM
bulldg4life: I'm partial to the new "The democrats will just end up spending the surplus that the bill creates" as a way to negate the idea of passing the bill. Just enough stupid to make someone slap themselves.

interesting you say that because most of the cost savings come from the fact that the democratic plan is to replace traditional cancer screening with the "is your hand bigger than your face" test.
 
2010-03-11 05:48:13 PM
Is there a public option included?
 
2010-03-11 05:49:53 PM
Barbigazi: I'm going to put my money on "It doesn't decrease the deficit enough".

Any takers?


No, I think they're beyond even reasoning from false premises, beyond ad hominem, beyond the random collection of irrelevant sound bites.

I think we're finally going to see the full Chewbacca defense.
 
2010-03-11 05:57:15 PM
Are free late term abortions included?
 
2010-03-11 05:58:53 PM
cameroncrazy1984: ne2d: Two words: Risky Scheme.

It's so risky that every other country that's tried it is ranked ahead of the US on affordability and availability of care.


Quick reply: OMG European commies are running away! Their system has failed!!1 Down with the seekritt mooslim!!1.

/you need to think ahead of the curve
 
2010-03-11 05:59:00 PM
It's a trick. Get an axe.
 
2010-03-11 05:59:46 PM
images.icanhascheezburger.com
 
2010-03-11 06:00:12 PM
vernonFL: Are free late term abortions included?

Well, if by 'free late term abortions', you mean 'hunting Republicans for sport..."

Wait, I've said too much already.
 
2010-03-11 06:00:18 PM
When, in the history of the U.S. has a bill of this size and scope ever been able to reduce the budget deficit? I am all in favor of health care reform, to the point of a single payer nationalized plan, but please, just be honest about it.
Can you say newspeak?
 
2010-03-11 06:00:22 PM
No. Let's just keep things the way they are because I have some health insurance right now and I don't give a rat's ass about anyone else or the health of the economy in general.

Sincerely,

Fark Independent
 
2010-03-11 06:00:54 PM
Two words: Risky Scheme.

rmdmarketing.co.uk


www.malheur.be

/hot
 
2010-03-11 06:01:25 PM
vernonFL: Are free late term abortions included?

Not only included but also mandatory for EVERYONE. Now you can panic.
 
2010-03-11 06:02:46 PM
You guys, you're giving the Fox news people all their talking points! Stop feeding them or they'll never go away! Or at least make them work for it.
 
2010-03-11 06:03:17 PM
I Said: cameroncrazy1984: In before retards claiming it doesn't count because the benefits don't start til the program is fully funded which is bad

I heard the benefits don't start until 2042, and that "benefits" actually means "mandatory abortions".


...did someone say abortion panels?
 
2010-03-11 06:03:17 PM
ddam: vernonFL: Are free late term abortions included?

Not only included but also mandatory for EVERYONE. Now you can panic.


I won't panic until they release the gay albino midget hordes.
 
2010-03-11 06:04:16 PM
thomps: GAT_00: thomps: if you really think that's the case then you shouldn't have a problem cutting taxes to the wealthy in order to give them back that money you are no longer using.

We're trying to reduce the deficit, not increase it. The bill is a net decrease to the deficit, why the fark would you try to change that

ha sorry i should have been more clear that i was submitting my predicted republican talking point. dead-pan doesn't come through very well in print.


actually, that was crystal friggin' clear to me while reading through your posts. those guys just have no sense of humour.
 
2010-03-11 06:04:23 PM
Here are the available responses:

1) This is due to a Bush policy that just kicked in.
2) This is due to a Reagan policy that just kicked in.
3) This is fudging with numbers and lying.
4) Nuh uh.
 
2010-03-11 06:04:30 PM
I Said: cameroncrazy1984: In before retards claiming it doesn't count because the benefits don't start til the program is fully funded which is bad

I heard the benefits don't start until 2042, and that "benefits" actually means "mandatory abortions".


*snert*

/keyboard, etc
 
2010-03-11 06:04:44 PM
que the pic of our beloved admiral.
 
2010-03-11 06:04:56 PM
Right, when has any predictions ever made by anyone in DC envloving money been accurate? I wouldnt be suprised if this $118 billion decrease in the defecit turned into $2 trillion in addition to the deficit. Then again, it could decrresae the deficit by $2 Trillion. All i know is that $118 billion will be nowhere close to the real number
 
Displayed 50 of 376 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »