GOP - the economy, the Middle East - it has nothing to do with us. It's Obama's!

[rdean]

Let me see almost six years in Obama and the Democrats controlled all of Congress for two years they have held the White House and the Senate for the rest of this time and yet somehow nothing is ever Obama or the Democrats fault. Obama may go down in history as being the first President to never have anything be his fault.

They never had control of the congress for two years. Why do you guys keep saying that? You know it's not true.

 

[rdean]

Obama is the most successful President this country has ever had.
Obama can't accomplish anything because the Republicans obstruct him and he can't get anything
done.

This is what we see here all the time from Obama supporters on this site.

The truth is he has been able to accomplish a lot "in spite of" the obstructionism from the right wing.

Congress hits new low: Only 7% have confidence in the institution | OnPolitics

Obama's approval rating is 6 times that much. How do you guys explain that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let me see almost six years in Obama and the Democrats controlled all of Congress for two years they have held the White House and the Senate for the rest of this time and yet somehow nothing is ever Obama or the Democrats fault. Obama may go down in history as being the first President to never have anything be his fault.

They never had control of the congress for two years. Why do you guys keep saying that? You know it's not true.

Dem never had control of Congress for 2 years?????

When was this Deany?

 

[blackhawk]

Let me see almost six years in Obama and the Democrats controlled all of Congress for two years they have held the White House and the Senate for the rest of this time and yet somehow nothing is ever Obama or the Democrats fault. Obama may go down in history as being the first President to never have anything be his fault.

They never had control of the congress for two years. Why do you guys keep saying that? You know it's not true.

Dem never had control of Congress for 2 years?????

When was this Deany?

Dean after the 2008 election the Democrats had both the House and Senate they were sworn in with the President in January of 2009 they held control of both until they lost the House in the 2010 midterms that group was not sworn in till January 2011 that is two years deal with it.

 

[Wildman]

Look at these right wing Republicans here on the USMB.

It's been 5.6 years since Obama because president. The destabilized Middle East, the screwed up economy, the many trillions in deficit, ISIS, the millions of jobs moved overseas from 2001 to 2008, the tens of thousands of factories closed when those jobs left. None of that has anything to do with us. They belong to your "messiah", Obama, who apparently can't work miracles.

Reminds me of the time my Great Dane crapped all over our neighbor's yard. Two days later, he said, "You have to help clean that up. Your dog did it". So I say, "That was two days ago. After two days, it's yours, I have nothing to do with it". So the yard now belongs to Obama. And instead of getting out of the way, Republicans take potshots to stop him from being effective.

Today's NEWS FLASH: Army's don't suddenly "materialize".

-------------------------------------------------------------

Why the Iraqi army can't defeat ISIS

Rosenblatt said, "those second-in-command guys have very strong ties to Saddam's army." Acquiring lots of weapons, money, and experience over the course of the Syrian war allowed them to translate that new training into real military effectiveness.

It's hard to overstate how much of advantage this training and professionalism gives the Islamist group. "ISIS knows how to use smaller units" effectively against larger forces, says Smyth. They're "very efficient, and you have to deal with that."

This matters greatly. An undisciplined force, one whose movements aren't well coordinated or can't deploy proper tactics for taking city blocks, can be beaten by a much smaller opponent that knows what it's doing.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Bush: 'I can't remember why we disbanded the Iraqi army'

Now we know where Saddam's well trained army went.

Republicans are the gift that just keep giving and giving and giving....................

So these USMB Republicans say "What would you do?"

All I can say is "I don't know". It's like a train going over a cliff. Halfway down, the guy who owns the train says, "Aren't you going to stop this? It's your cliff."

you are absolutely correct.., he IS a "because president"

BECAUSE several million idiots like you voted for him..., TWICE

do you have any idea you are one of the most stupid liberliars on USMB ?

 

[Dot Com]

Let me see almost six years in Obama and the Democrats controlled all of Congress for two years they have held the White House and the Senate for the rest of this time and yet somehow nothing is ever Obama or the Democrats fault. Obama may go down in history as being the first President to never have anything be his fault.

They never had control of the congress for two years. Why do you guys keep saying that? You know it's not true.

Dem never had control of Congress for 2 years?????

When was this Deany?

enough already [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION]

Republicans have magically, mystically turned 72 days into two full years.

 

[g4racer]

The best response to the Tea Party Extremists is:
If you did not vote you really shouldn't have the right to ***** about it. We may have to use your famous "Trickle Down Theory" here. You voted for them to represent you. Since they have been in office they really haven't come up with anything to solve problems, any of them They do complain if President Obama does something and they complain if he doesn't.
You don't like ObamaCare; but your as responsible for it as he is. I really don't want to hear you say, "We didn't vote for it!" Who's fault is that. You also didn't vote against it. You would not even talk about it and if you did it never would have come up for a vote. I'm not a fan of ObamaCare as it exists, it should have been a basic coverage plan with options to expand its coverage.
Your doing exactly the same thing with Immigration. John Boehner, suggested the President do things on his own for the latest immigration problem. You don't want to touch the issue of immigration with an election coming up. That would make you attempts of attracting minorities, which you need.
From what I can see the only thing that the Tea Party has done is to attempt to have Democracy Removed.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Look at these right wing Republicans here on the USMB.

It's been 5.6 years since Obama because president. The destabilized Middle East, the screwed up economy, the many trillions in deficit, ISIS, the millions of jobs moved overseas from 2001 to 2008, the tens of thousands of factories closed when those jobs left. None of that has anything to do with us. They belong to your "messiah", Obama, who apparently can't work miracles.

Reminds me of the time my Great Dane crapped all over our neighbor's yard. Two days later, he said, "You have to help clean that up. Your dog did it". So I say, "That was two days ago. After two days, it's yours, I have nothing to do with it". So the yard now belongs to Obama. And instead of getting out of the way, Republicans take potshots to stop him from being effective.

Today's NEWS FLASH: Army's don't suddenly "materialize".

-------------------------------------------------------------

Why the Iraqi army can't defeat ISIS

Rosenblatt said, "those second-in-command guys have very strong ties to Saddam's army." Acquiring lots of weapons, money, and experience over the course of the Syrian war allowed them to translate that new training into real military effectiveness.

It's hard to overstate how much of advantage this training and professionalism gives the Islamist group. "ISIS knows how to use smaller units" effectively against larger forces, says Smyth. They're "very efficient, and you have to deal with that."

This matters greatly. An undisciplined force, one whose movements aren't well coordinated or can't deploy proper tactics for taking city blocks, can be beaten by a much smaller opponent that knows what it's doing.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Bush: 'I can't remember why we disbanded the Iraqi army'

Now we know where Saddam's well trained army went.

Republicans are the gift that just keep giving and giving and giving....................

So these USMB Republicans say "What would you do?"

All I can say is "I don't know". It's like a train going over a cliff. Halfway down, the guy who owns the train says, "Aren't you going to stop this? It's your cliff."

Listen to yourselves lefties. With all the whining you would think Obama was just a bystander and the GOP was in charge. When the hell is the president and the dumb ass who runs the senate going to take responsibility for the mess we made in the Mid East, the border mess and dozen scandals. The median income for the middle class dropped 6% since Hussein took office.

That's the left's idea of a President with true "leadership" ability, it's no different than simply voting PRESENT while serving in Congress. He was there when it all happened he just chose to make speeches about it, this supposed "leader" might as well just be refered to as simply just a Commentator-in-Chief.

 

[g4racer]

shacklesofbiggov:
You are proof of just how true my statement is. A dysfunctional congress is not the fault of a resident it is the fault of a congress with too many extremists on both sides. The problem with extremists is that they don't think, they follow and obey. The attitude of an extremist is the same if right, left or Taliban; we have the answer and we hold the truth. The only comment I can agree with the Tea Party on is that the government is to big and needs to be downsized. It's not going to happen by sending congressmen to Washington chanting "We'll shut down the government." If it is to become smaller and efficient it is going to take time and work. I have posted on USMB that same thing over and over again. I have posted on Big Government and what is wrong with it. I have also list some things that could be done to start the process.
Can the government be made smaller and efficient, YES. It is not going to happen by sending people to Washington that are not willing to work at making the necessary changes. Honesty and ethics have become words used by politicians when running for election the same way as "I want to serve the people" has become. I've seen companies fold because the wrong decisions were made by a few paid to make them and them do things that wasted money to make things look better but gave these people a great big bonus. The other cry of the Tea Party is "It's my money and I want to keep it." That really isn't much difference than those people that caused a business to fold so they could get their bonus.
Let's hit welfare! It may be required from time to time, it should never be a way of life. Medicare or Medicaid: I seem the system as eating up a lot of money but what about the fraud of some wealthy businesses which continue to get millions of dollars each year with out providing services.
I am not against health care being made available to everyone, Obamacare is not a bad thing to have, the services provided make it a really good plan. The problem with it is that it is basic care with a few added benefits is what it should consist of. A lack of honesty and ethics on the part of all involved still provides us with a problem.
The only problem with Capitalism is that it tends to bring out the worst in people, greed. The other problem with Capitalism is that I can't come up with anything to replace it.
Your comments on the ME over looks about 60 of a combination of the interference by our businesses and our government in the area. Instead of printing quotes and slogans in an attempt to make your motives appear to be honorable you could check the part we played in creating the conditions which exist today.
Any reason you use the Concord Minuteman?

 

[jknowgood]

That's right, things get better after GOP rule and they had nothing to do with it, they won't even take responsibility for Boosh! or the GOP Congress...The GOP is not into taking personal responsibility, but it makes for a good ad pitch during campaigning..

History for conservatives goes like this:

Jesus came to the US and gave the founders the Constitution to establish a Christian Nation. Then the North attacked the poor south and took away their guns. Then Reagan came and kicked the asses of the commies and the unions. Everything was cool until Clinton got a blowjob. Then it really went to shit in 2009 with the election of a guy with an arab name.

The end.

No, actually everything was okay until liberals took over the democrat party.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

shacklesofbiggov:
You are proof of just how true my statement is. A dysfunctional congress is not the fault of a resident it is the fault of a congress with too many extremists on both sides. The problem with extremists is that they don't think, they follow and obey. The attitude of an extremist is the same if right, left or Taliban; we have the answer and we hold the truth. The only comment I can agree with the Tea Party on is that the government is to big and needs to be downsized. It's not going to happen by sending congressmen to Washington chanting "We'll shut down the government." If it is to become smaller and efficient it is going to take time and work. I have posted on USMB that same thing over and over again. I have posted on Big Government and what is wrong with it. I have also list some things that could be done to start the process.
Can the government be made smaller and efficient, YES. It is not going to happen by sending people to Washington that are not willing to work at making the necessary changes. Honesty and ethics have become words used by politicians when running for election the same way as "I want to serve the people" has become. I've seen companies fold because the wrong decisions were made by a few paid to make them and them do things that wasted money to make things look better but gave these people a great big bonus. The other cry of the Tea Party is "It's my money and I want to keep it." That really isn't much difference than those people that caused a business to fold so they could get their bonus.
Let's hit welfare! It may be required from time to time, it should never be a way of life. Medicare or Medicaid: I seem the system as eating up a lot of money but what about the fraud of some wealthy businesses which continue to get millions of dollars each year with out providing services.
I am not against health care being made available to everyone, Obamacare is not a bad thing to have, the services provided make it a really good plan. The problem with it is that it is basic care with a few added benefits is what it should consist of. A lack of honesty and ethics on the part of all involved still provides us with a problem.
The only problem with Capitalism is that it tends to bring out the worst in people, greed. The other problem with Capitalism is that I can't come up with anything to replace it.
Your comments on the ME over looks about 60 of a combination of the interference by our businesses and our government in the area. Instead of printing quotes and slogans in an attempt to make your motives appear to be honorable you could check the part we played in creating the conditions which exist today.
Any reason you use the Concord Minuteman?

The policies and extreme views of government won't change as these very extremes are what divides our nation. This division is between the belief of "government is our provider" and "government is our problem".

Some look to government as a means to make choices for us, under the belief we can't trust people to make decisions for themselves. From making decisions on what health care we should carry, to giving women free contraception who don't know how to budget for themselves, to our financial provider under welfare when we make poor personal choices such as never completing public school already provided FOR us. Supporters believe in a government to provide and make decisions FOR them, so as to keep them from making decisions or providing for themselves. Government has taken more of the "responsible parent" role, or the "give me give me" of throwing out free gifts. Well, it's never free someone has to pay for these provisions. Just like going out and enjoying the fine dining under the experience of a rather expensive restaurant, when that bill comes due they would just rather pass that check onto someone else.

Then there is the group that believes government provides too much, and just like seeing an addict use the government (like their next beer) to support their "habit" and provided lifestyle, would rather see these enabling programs cut "cold turkey". They look to the expense of what all these various "needs", that apparently Americans can't live without nor are responsible to provide for themselves, as a driving force behind all this added debt. This group sees all these government provisions (of their fine dining experience) racking up the tab, and looks to the final check that is coming due.

Each group is using government to force the other into their "preferred" way of life, the child who simply wants VS the parent who can't afford it. There is no doubt we have a HUGE debt, and everyone must feel the pinch and she the burden in paying for it (in my view). Unfortunately whoever holds the control will dictate the fate and course this nation takes. The question is, which party will be adult enough to take on some accountability for how our taxes are being spent and do something to get our debt under control? ... or will we spend and increase or debt until we face the same economic collapse the world saw under Greece?

As far as the minuteman statue, I believe we need to carefully reconsider who is in control of our nation (1) a dictating Federal government (2) or the power of the people OVER government that our nation once believed.

 

[g4racer]

Their was way too much lying and self interest going on to blame God for it. Because some fellow standing in the front of a church tells you that is what happened. The lives of most involved does not point to them being directed by God. History is written by the winner and they write to make events to be more honorable and noble than they really were. If a person is a Christian they don't have to tell people they are. The problem isn't liberalism, it is extremism that is causing the problems we have.
Sorry I forgot, you are not an extremist just any one that does not agree with you is a liberal or worse.
Do you have any idea why the civil war was about? I'll give you a hint. Slavery played a small part but was used for to make the war sound honorable.
Do you know why Reagan was against unions? He tried to have the actors guild take action on something (I forget what it was now), they short him down. He considered that an attack and an embarrassment which prompted the hatred of unions and the change from a Democrat to Republican.
As Governor of California he destroyed the economy of the state, the bases for his idea of dealing with the economy. He did copy an approach that Nixon used well; get people to believe that to disagree with them makes you un-American. If you are going to blame all people for extra marital sex then evil people signed that piece of paper that made this the Colonies a Nation.
For jknowgood Extremism in any form is bad. The attitude of Extreme Right, Extreme Left, the Taliban and Al Quadra are the same, the only difference is the focus.

 

[Dad2three]

Three Charts To Email To Your Right-Wing Brother-In-Law (Updated)

These charts show what actually happened.

Spending

Government spending increased dramatically under President Bush. It has not increased much under President Obama. This is just a fact.

Deficits

Note that this chart starts with Clinton's last budget year for comparison.


President Obama inherited a budget deficit of $1.4 trillion from President Bush's last budget year and annual budget deficits have gone down dramatically since.

The Stimulus and Jobs

In this chart, the RED lines on the left side – the ones that keep doing DOWN – show what happened to jobs under the policies of Bush and the Republicans. We were losing lots and lots of jobs every month, and it was getting worse and worse. The BLUE lines – the ones that just go UP – show what happened to jobs when the stimulus was in effect. We stopped losing jobs and started gaining jobs, and it was getting better and better.


Had to substitute as they didn't show up, go here to see them


Three Charts To Email To Your Right-Wing Brother-In-Law (Updated) | Crooks and Liars

 

[Dad2three]

They never had control of the congress for two years. Why do you guys keep saying that? You know it's not true.

Dem never had control of Congress for 2 years?????

When was this Deany?

Dean after the 2008 election the Democrats had both the House and Senate they were sworn in with the President in January of 2009 they held control of both until they lost the House in the 2010 midterms that group was not sworn in till January 2011 that is two years deal with it.

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats over that period of time.

The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans. The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days during that period. Here are the details:

Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 24 working days | Fact Left

 

[Dad2three]

Let me see almost six years in Obama and the Democrats controlled all of Congress for two years they have held the White House and the Senate for the rest of this time and yet somehow nothing is ever Obama or the Democrats fault. Obama may go down in history as being the first President to never have anything be his fault.

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats over that period of time.

The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans. The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days during that period. Here are the details:


Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 24 working days | Fact Left

 

[Dad2three]

Obama is the most successful President this country has ever had.
Obama can't accomplish anything because the Republicans obstruct him and he can't get anything
done.

This is what we see here all the time from Obama supporters on this site.

False premises, distortions and LIES that's what we have seen EVERYWHERE for decades with conservatives/GOPers....

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Three Charts To Email To Your Right-Wing Brother-In-Law (Updated)

These charts show what actually happened.

Spending

Government spending increased dramatically under President Bush. It has not increased much under President Obama.

Is that after your belief in trying to convince me, that Obamacare is actually 100% funded? I think you better reexamine those figures, as I trust the knowledge of the CBO on our budget outlook more than your graphs.

Obamacare will increase the long-term federal deficit by $6.2 trillion, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released today.

.... the GAO report concluded that even under these “more optimistic assumptions,” Obamacare’s cost-control provisions “were not sufficient to prevent an unsustainable increase in debt held by the public.”

GAO Report: Obamacare Adds $6.2 Trillion to Long-Term Deficit | National Review Online

... even with strong economic growth and low unemployment. Over the ten year period 2015 to 2024, CBO is now projecting a cumulative deficit of $7.9 trillion, which would push debt held by the public to nearly 80 percent of GDP in 2024. That is far above the post-war norm for the United States and perilously close to levels from which it is hard to recover

because entitlement spending will continue to rise rapidly with the aging population and health care inflation. The long-term projections would look even worse if not for the unrealistic Medicare cuts from Obamacare that are built into the current law baseline. If those cuts are overridden, and other unrealistic assumptions in the baseline are also replaced with more realistic scenarios, then CBO expects debt held by the public to reach 190 percent of GDP by 2038.

Obamacare and the coming debt crisis - Health - AEI

 

[blackhawk]

Dem never had control of Congress for 2 years?????

When was this Deany?

Dean after the 2008 election the Democrats had both the House and Senate they were sworn in with the President in January of 2009 they held control of both until they lost the House in the 2010 midterms that group was not sworn in till January 2011 that is two years deal with it.

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats over that period of time.

The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans. The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days during that period. Here are the details:

Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 24 working days | Fact Left

The deal is I never said anything about a filibuster proof majority for two years what I said is the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate for two years and to be perfectly honest they controlled them for four years since they actually won control of them in the 2006 midterms.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Dem never had control of Congress for 2 years?????

When was this Deany?

Dean after the 2008 election the Democrats had both the House and Senate they were sworn in with the President in January of 2009 they held control of both until they lost the House in the 2010 midterms that group was not sworn in till January 2011 that is two years deal with it.

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats over that period of time.

The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans. The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days during that period. Here are the details:

Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 24 working days | Fact Left

How do you explain the passage of OBAMACARE which the Republicans opposed? Do you remember when Speaker Pelosi bogged down Congress for months on that legislation over staying focused on the economy as a priority overall, and wouldn't let representatives go home to face their constituents in town hall meetings? It was the blue dog Democrats and NOT the Republicans who she worked hard to get enough votes for passage. Did we seem to forget all about that period of control the Democrats had in Congress? Democrats couldn't pass a thing without Republicans blocking it? Doesn't seem true as Republiacns are the biggest obstical opponents to Obamacare, yet it still managed to pass after months of closed door deals from an administration that quickly changed its tune about "transparency" and live detailed C-Span coverage Obama boasted would take place behind the crafting of this bill. Obama knows as much about transparency as he does following the Constitution.

 

[Dad2three]

Three Charts To Email To Your Right-Wing Brother-In-Law (Updated)

These charts show what actually happened.

Spending

Government spending increased dramatically under President Bush. It has not increased much under President Obama.

Is that after your belief in trying to convince me, that Obamacare is actually 100% funded? I think you better reexamine those figures, as I trust the knowledge of the CBO on our budget outlook more than your graphs.

Obamacare will increase the long-term federal deficit by $6.2 trillion, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released today.

.... the GAO report concluded that even under these “more optimistic assumptions,” Obamacare’s cost-control provisions “were not sufficient to prevent an unsustainable increase in debt held by the public.”

GAO Report: Obamacare Adds $6.2 Trillion to Long-Term Deficit | National Review Online

... even with strong economic growth and low unemployment. Over the ten year period 2015 to 2024, CBO is now projecting a cumulative deficit of $7.9 trillion, which would push debt held by the public to nearly 80 percent of GDP in 2024. That is far above the post-war norm for the United States and perilously close to levels from which it is hard to recover

because entitlement spending will continue to rise rapidly with the aging population and health care inflation. The long-term projections would look even worse if not for the unrealistic Medicare cuts from Obamacare that are built into the current law baseline. If those cuts are overridden, and other unrealistic assumptions in the baseline are also replaced with more realistic scenarios, then CBO expects debt held by the public to reach 190 percent of GDP by 2038.

Obamacare and the coming debt crisis - Health - AEI

"The Government Accountability Office estimated (Obamacare) will add to the long-term deficit by $6.2 trillion."


Our ruling

Griffith said the GAO estimated Obamacare will add $6.2 trillion to deficits over the next 75 years.

That figure isn’t in the GAO report that Griffith’s office cited. Republicans came up with the number by adding reasonable computations to a worst-case scenario laid out by the GAO early this year.

Griffith failed to mention that the report also contained a rosy scenario showing Obamacare could substantially reduce long-term deficits. The GAO did not say in its report which of the scenarios is more likely to occur. Many experts say the reality likely will fall somewhere in the middle.

So Griffith’s statement contains a trace of fact, but creates a deceptive claim about what the GAO report said. We rate his statement Mostly False.


Morgan Griffith says GAO estimates Obamacare will add $6.2 trillion to long-term deficits | PolitiFact Virginia


But GAO spokesman Charles Young noted in a statement to The Huffington Post on Thursday that "we did not make such an estimate. There are number of different reasonable methods one could use that would result in a variety of different estimates. This is one such calculation."

As ThinkProgress notes, what Sessions failed to point out is that this figure was based on a model a scenario that exists only in theory: That the government would phase out Obamacare's cost control mechanisms while maintaining the rest of the law.


Jeff Sessions' Claim That Obamacare Would Increase Deficit Is 'Dishonest,'

Jeff Sessions' Claim That Obamacare Would Increase Deficit Is 'Dishonest,' ThinkProgress Points Out


May 14, 2013


CBO’s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time


CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade.


CBO?s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act?s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time - CBO


CBO: Repealing Health Care Law "Would Increase Federal Budget Deficits By $109 Billion Over The 2013-2022 Period."

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43472-07-24-2012-CoverageEstimates.pdf

January 2013
GAO Found A "Notable Improvement" In Budget Outlook If Health Care Law Is Enacted Fully.



"[T]here was notable improvement in the longer-term outlook after the enactment of [the health care law] under GAO's Fall 2010 Baseline Extended simulation, which assumes both the expansion of health care coverage and the full implementation and effectiveness of the cost-containment provisions over the entire 75-year simulation period."

http://gao.gov/assets/660/651702.pdf

April 14, 2014


CBO cuts Obamacare cost views and says program reduces deficits

CBO cuts Obamacare cost views and says program reduces deficits - Health Exchange - MarketWatch