Ina LANDSLIDE, House repeals Obamacare

[HUGGY]

Considering you don't live in nor have ever lived in a communist country your point is not valid. Ayn Rands is.

I am not interested in basing my outlook of this country on the reactionary ramblings of an escapee of Soviet Russia. MY Opinion has far more weight than Rands. My relatives are the ones that fought for and won our right to persevere. It is MY obligation to carry their wishes into the future. Ayn has no such obligation or motivation. YOU can choose any source for your foundation. Don't presume my point is not valid or cannot be defended. This is just the internet Sparky...you have no way of testing my resolve...much to my chagrin...

So your family members have better observasion of what is wrong with communism than someone who actually live through it? Do tell.
What you are doing and I use this as an example
Saying those who liberated the nazi death camps have a better insight of how living conditions were than those who survived them. Just because they help liberate them.

They are the same assholes that loaded their own families onto the cattle cars Sparky. Didn't you get the memo? Communism is a joke. The only thing dumber than communism are the dummies that allowed it to happen. The same can be said for Hitlers regime. Not gonna happen here. We have enough crazy people to put a stop to it and if tey fail...there are a WHOLE lot of SERIOUS sane ones that FO SHOW will nix it.

 

[Flopper]

I would welcome the opinion of someone living in and escaping from communism on the subject of living in and escaping from communism. Living in the United States...where we have come from..where we should be headed...not so much.

There have been calls from several scholars for an independent appraisal of what the US is doing right and what it's doing wrong, by studying other countries monetary, taxing, and social services policies. However, that requires that we admit that we might have something to learn from the rest of the world, which might be pretty hard to sell to the Right.

The USA has traditionally gone out to find and import great thinkers, innovators, expertise. That's how we got the bomb ahead of Germany--we imported their scientists along with all their expertise to work on ours.

But the one thing I as an American patriot am absolutely committed to--we should do things the way that are right for Americans so long as that does not violate the unalienable rights of others. This country was created and designed to be unique and different from all the rest. We would be the first people in the history of the world that would identify and recognize unalienable rights of the people and give those supremacy over any other. We would be the first people in the history of the world who would design a government for the purpose of securing and defending those rights against all within and without who would violate them, and then the people would govern themselves.

We did not WANT to be like other nations though of course every American and every new immigrant has added to the sum of knowledge, experience, and culture that has created a uniquely American culture.

I don't want to be like anybody else. I want to be the America that our Founders wanted us to be.

I don't believe the solutions to our problems are to be found in the Constitution, our history, or the works of Adams Smith, Karl Marx or in the writings of any political or economic scholar. The rest of world is moving past us. Why? My suggestion is to look at those countries that are passing us by and determine what we are doing wrong or what they are doing right. I'm not saying we should necessarily emulate anyone, but I think we should understand why they are passing us up.

We stand 36th in world in life expectancy. We were 4th 50 years ago.

Student tests comparing student progress to students in other nations showed U.S. fourth-graders performing poorly, middle school students worse. and high school students are unable to compete. US student scores compared to other countries have been falling since at least 2000.

A recent study showed college students after 2 years are not any better off academically than when they entered. The cost of a 4 year education in the US averages just under $100,000 and is rinsing rapidly.

50 years ago we were the envy of the world for our high standard of living. Today we don't even make the top 10.

I could go on but, I think you get the idea.

Most of these countries seem to be more socialist, have higher taxes, more regulated, and have far less natural resources than us.

Countries with Highest Standard of Living
Academic Failure - International Test Scores - Poor TIMSS Results
List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Countries with Highest Standard of Living

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neo writes, "Dismantling of the free market system by any kind of gov't will always end in the erosion of individual economic and personal freedom." Hmm. . . Red China, most of central America for most of the 20th century, and plenty of other countries in the 20th century all contravene your statement.

Explain Canada, Sweden, Denmark, and the mixed economies of Australia, France, and England, among others.

Neo, you are simply simple: no other explanation. When you make blanket statements, the blanket gets yanked out from under you.

 

[Flopper]

You seem to put full faith in the number government feeds you Flopper. I prefer to put faith in those who have nothing to gain or lose but who want to get it right.

And that would be? Name a private organization without an agenda that essentially does the work the CBO does but does it in a more trustworthy manner.

Sure.

Here's just a few:

One correction to your premise though. I have never said that the CBO is untrustworthy. I have no way of knowing that one way or the other. I have said that the CBO is constrained by the requirement to use whatever Congress or its subsidiaries gives the CBO to use. If Congress says there will be a 10% tax cut, CBO is required to use that number. If Congress says there will be a 50% shift in allocations, the CBO is required to use that number. The CBO is not allowed to factor in history or probability or track records.

None of the independent groups have such constraints.

Many of the organizations you name are biased, unlike the CBO. But that's not my problem with this line of thought. When you start to consider the history and the track record of various agencies and such factors then the analysis becomes less objective. Different organization will come up with different results. Also, the customer that pays for the analysis will influence the outcome. This then seems rather pointless. You would be back right where you are not with the objective analysis of the CBO.

 

[Foxfyre]

And that would be? Name a private organization without an agenda that essentially does the work the CBO does but does it in a more trustworthy manner.

Sure.

Here's just a few:

One correction to your premise though. I have never said that the CBO is untrustworthy. I have no way of knowing that one way or the other. I have said that the CBO is constrained by the requirement to use whatever Congress or its subsidiaries gives the CBO to use. If Congress says there will be a 10% tax cut, CBO is required to use that number. If Congress says there will be a 50% shift in allocations, the CBO is required to use that number. The CBO is not allowed to factor in history or probability or track records.

None of the independent groups have such constraints.

Many of the organizations you name are biased, unlike the CBO. But that's not my problem with this line of thought. When you start to consider the history and the track record of various agencies and such factors then the analysis becomes less objective. Different organization will come up with different results. Also, the customer that pays for the analysis will influence the outcome. This then seems rather pointless. You would be back right where you are not with the objective analysis of the CBO.

How do you know who is biased and who isn't? How do you know who is interested in protecting their reputation for careful and accurate research and analysis and who isn't? Do you know anybody at the CBO? Who hires the people who work there? Who pays their salaries? The Director is appointed for a four-year term jointly by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate who will also decide whether that person will be reappointed or not. Do you think there might be opportunity for just a wee bit of political motivation or pressure there?

Do you know anybody at any of those other organizations? Have any ever been accused or convicted of skewing numbers or offering suspect reports and analysis or otherwise given cause to question their integrity?

I have no reason to believe anybody at the CBO is anything other than an honest, hard working person. But when the CBO is not allowed to do independent research and reporting but is fed the information to be analyzed by the Congress, it is a safe bet that the CBO is not the entirely free and independent agency that you seem to trust so completely with no questions allowed.

Sorry but I think I am a bit more realistic on this one.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am not interested in basing my outlook of this country on the reactionary ramblings of an escapee of Soviet Russia. MY Opinion has far more weight than Rands. My relatives are the ones that fought for and won our right to persevere. It is MY obligation to carry their wishes into the future. Ayn has no such obligation or motivation. YOU can choose any source for your foundation. Don't presume my point is not valid or cannot be defended. This is just the internet Sparky...you have no way of testing my resolve...much to my chagrin...

So your family members have better observasion of what is wrong with communism than someone who actually live through it? Do tell.
What you are doing and I use this as an example
Saying those who liberated the nazi death camps have a better insight of how living conditions were than those who survived them. Just because they help liberate them.

They are the same assholes that loaded their own families onto the cattle cars Sparky. Didn't you get the memo? Communism is a joke. The only thing dumber than communism are the dummies that allowed it to happen. The same can be said for Hitlers regime. Not gonna happen here. We have enough crazy people to put a stop to it and if tey fail...there are a WHOLE lot of SERIOUS sane ones that FO SHOW will nix it.

Don't quit understand what you ar saying? Are you saying your family was memebrs of the communist party?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Neo writes, "Dismantling of the free market system by any kind of gov't will always end in the erosion of individual economic and personal freedom." Hmm. . . Red China, most of central America for most of the 20th century, and plenty of other countries in the 20th century all contravene your statement.

Explain Canada, Sweden, Denmark, and the mixed economies of Australia, France, and England, among others.

Neo, you are simply simple: no other explanation. When you make blanket statements, the blanket gets yanked out from under you.

Jake writes another non answer post. jake you are simply simple: no other explanation. When you make blanket statements, the blanket gets yanked out from under you

 

[Flopper]

Sure.

Here's just a few:

One correction to your premise though. I have never said that the CBO is untrustworthy. I have no way of knowing that one way or the other. I have said that the CBO is constrained by the requirement to use whatever Congress or its subsidiaries gives the CBO to use. If Congress says there will be a 10% tax cut, CBO is required to use that number. If Congress says there will be a 50% shift in allocations, the CBO is required to use that number. The CBO is not allowed to factor in history or probability or track records.

None of the independent groups have such constraints.

Many of the organizations you name are biased, unlike the CBO. But that's not my problem with this line of thought. When you start to consider the history and the track record of various agencies and such factors then the analysis becomes less objective. Different organization will come up with different results. Also, the customer that pays for the analysis will influence the outcome. This then seems rather pointless. You would be back right where you are not with the objective analysis of the CBO.

How do you know who is biased and who isn't? How do you know who is interested in protecting their reputation for careful and accurate research and analysis and who isn't? Do you know anybody at the CBO? Who hires the people who work there? Who pays their salaries? The Director is appointed for a four-year term jointly by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate who will also decide whether that person will be reappointed or not. Do you think there might be opportunity for just a wee bit of political motivation or pressure there?

Do you know anybody at any of those other organizations? Have any ever been accused or convicted of skewing numbers or offering suspect reports and analysis or otherwise given cause to question their integrity?

I have no reason to believe anybody at the CBO is anything other than an honest, hard working person. But when the CBO is not allowed to do independent research and reporting but is fed the information to be analyzed by the Congress, it is a safe bet that the CBO is not the entirely free and independent agency that you seem to trust so completely with no questions allowed.

Sorry but I think I am a bit more realistic on this one.

All of these organizations are biased. They do research for their sponsors or customers producing reports which help them achieve their goals, whatever they might be. If they didn't they wouldn't be around long.

You have an objective analysis by the CBO using data supplied by the administration. Where else do expect the data to come from? I believe if you asked any of those organizations for an objective analysis, they would refer you to the CBO. However, if you wanted an analysis taking into account items you mentioned, history of the agencies, probabilities, etc., and you are willing to pay the fees these guys charge, they will delivery a report stating their opinions that are sure to please. If I had an analysis done by another organization on the list, they would delivery a report stating their opinions which would make me a happy customer. So, as I said, what's the point? You have a number of studies like this done by the Right and Left proving their point. Why get more? Like the country needs another biased opinion.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Neo writes, "Dismantling of the free market system by any kind of gov't will always end in the erosion of individual economic and personal freedom." Hmm. . . Red China, most of central America for most of the 20th century, and plenty of other countries in the 20th century all contravene your statement.

Explain Canada, Sweden, Denmark, and the mixed economies of Australia, France, and England, among others.

Neo, you are simply simple: no other explanation. When you make blanket statements, the blanket gets yanked out from under you.

Jake,

Jake writes,
"Neo writes, "Dismantling of the free market system by any kind of gov't will always end in the erosion of individual economic and personal freedom." Hmm...Red China [. . .] all contravene your statement."

Indeed, sadly your blanket is all wet and reeks of urine.

You believe that, Red China contravenes that statement- very out of the mainstream on your part.
If anything, any successes they have are due to moving away from socialism not towards, supporting my statement.
So Red China has economic and personal freedom? Maybe we should be more like them?
Maybe you are a Maoist... no too cerebral for you.


Jake, are you really this naive?

Even Locke and Rousseau believed man abandoned their claims of rights with a transfer of power to the gov't with a Social Contract. Now you say it does not?
Wow, you even "pulled the blanket" from under them, I guess.

This is a new extreme belief we must add to your collection. Perhaps the word erosion was too harsh for you.....would transfer be better.. Jake, I hope you know that rights include property rights as well.

--------

We see you don't read the international news much; how is freedom of speech doing in Canada and England lately?
Since, England, Germany and France are all trying to move right by cutting gov't and programs,
it appears they have learned a lesson and are moving in the right direction.

Of course, you conveniently left Italy, Spain and Greece off; their socialist failures are financially coming "home to roost "
Using your approach Jake, they just needed one more gov't program or tax to get it "right", this time.

Ask the Japanese in US Internment camps, how were their rights as citizens working out for them?
Did you know, the US locked up Germans in Internment camps as well during WW I and WW II ? Of course you didn't ....

Ask the Ukrainians during Holodomor how they were doing? Since they had free health care, I am sure it worked out for them too.

Ask the German Jews how those laws and elections worked out for them in the Weimar Republic. They were protected too at one time, on paper.

Thanks for proving my point, "there is even the naive belief by some that somehow they will be able to "control" the gov't to stop the erosion of individual rights..."
Indeed, Lenin was correct when he said he would always have "useful idiots" around to help him.

You see Jake, we all accept there must be gov't and no one believes the "road to statism" is a slippery slope. Must normal people understand, the question is one of limits, how much and when it is enough. You appear to not have any such limits, very extreme and for those you believe limits don't matter, potentially very dangerous.
-------------------------------


We know ignorance is bliss for some; but for you it is not. In fact, could be potentially dangerous.

We see you never asked about these other "mixed" economies.
Cuba, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan etc


Oh yes, of course not, we forgot. According to you, statism does not exist anywhere in the world.
Perhaps, we should tell these people in those countries; it will make them feel better.
-----------



Jake, it really is surprising how out of the mainstream you are sounding of late.
Of course with you, you appear to believe there will be NO erosion of rights with gov't power, very extreme.

-believing the General Welfare Clause can be used by itself for generating legislation
-believing that statism does not exist anywhere in the world
-believing that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke
-believing that the Tenth Amendment does not exist or matter, such a reckless view of the Constitution
-believing that the Commerce Clause can be used to justify any Federal gov't intrusion
-the apparent use of resources that are outside the mainstream
-NEW- believing that there is no transfer of man's rights in their Social Contract with gov't
-NEW- believing that Red China is a country of individual economic and personal freedoms.
-NEW- believing that the size of gov't does not matter


The US is just not ready for this kind of extreme thinking on your part.
No doubt seeing a rejection of the manifestation of the "Rousseau way" last election must have really brought that point home to you.

Jake, the US is just not ready for such out of the mainstream thinking like yours.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neo, must think apparently that posting many words means he knows the subject.

He doesn't. He can't refute the fact that capitalism does not guarantee liberty and freedom, nor can he adequately account for success in Canada, Sweden, Denmark and other non-capitalistic countries.

Then he makes the ludicrous statement that I am out of mainstream, the implication that he is. He's not. He is far, far to the GOP right and is no more mainstream than the NBPP.

 

[Foxfyre]

Many of the organizations you name are biased, unlike the CBO. But that's not my problem with this line of thought. When you start to consider the history and the track record of various agencies and such factors then the analysis becomes less objective. Different organization will come up with different results. Also, the customer that pays for the analysis will influence the outcome. This then seems rather pointless. You would be back right where you are not with the objective analysis of the CBO.

How do you know who is biased and who isn't? How do you know who is interested in protecting their reputation for careful and accurate research and analysis and who isn't? Do you know anybody at the CBO? Who hires the people who work there? Who pays their salaries? The Director is appointed for a four-year term jointly by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate who will also decide whether that person will be reappointed or not. Do you think there might be opportunity for just a wee bit of political motivation or pressure there?

Do you know anybody at any of those other organizations? Have any ever been accused or convicted of skewing numbers or offering suspect reports and analysis or otherwise given cause to question their integrity?

I have no reason to believe anybody at the CBO is anything other than an honest, hard working person. But when the CBO is not allowed to do independent research and reporting but is fed the information to be analyzed by the Congress, it is a safe bet that the CBO is not the entirely free and independent agency that you seem to trust so completely with no questions allowed.

Sorry but I think I am a bit more realistic on this one.

All of these organizations are biased. They do research for their sponsors or customers producing reports which help them achieve their goals, whatever they might be. If they didn't they wouldn't be around long.

You have an objective analysis by the CBO using data supplied by the administration. Where else do expect the data to come from? I believe if you asked any of those organizations for an objective analysis, they would refer you to the CBO. However, if you wanted an analysis taking into account items you mentioned, history of the agencies, probabilities, etc., and you are willing to pay the fees these guys charge, they will delivery a report stating their opinions that are sure to please. If I had an analysis done by another organization on the list, they would delivery a report stating their opinions which would make me a happy customer. So, as I said, what's the point? You have a number of studies like this done by the Right and Left proving their point. Why get more? Like the country needs another biased opinion.

Okay we're making progress. You have FINALLY agreed that the CBO ues data supplied by the administration and/or Congress. The same Administration that hired the management of the CBO, evaluates its performance, authorizes its salary and benefits, and has power to keep people in their jobs or let them go.

Do you not think that the information furnished to the CBO might at least possibly be weighted on the side of a piece of unpopular legislation favored by that same Administration and/or Congress? Are you, a reasonably intelligent and educated American honestly going to try to convince me that the Administration and/or members of Congress are not biased and might possibly feed the CBO data favorable to their interests?

Again it is your opinion that the organizations I listed are biased. You have provided no evidence of any kind for that. I suspect they are because we all are. I am. You have thus far demonstrated bias to the extreme on this topic without anything to back up your opinion other than your gut. And you have nothing to back up your presumed opinion that those organizations whose livelihood depends on doing honest, credible, and competent work would do less than that due to bias.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Neo writes, "Dismantling of the free market system by any kind of gov't will always end in the erosion of individual economic and personal freedom." Hmm. . . Red China, most of central America for most of the 20th century, and plenty of other countries in the 20th century all contravene your statement.

Explain Canada, Sweden, Denmark, and the mixed economies of Australia, France, and England, among others.

Neo, you are simply simple: no other explanation. When you make blanket statements, the blanket gets yanked out from under you.

Jake,

Jake writes,
"Neo writes, "Dismantling of the free market system by any kind of gov't will always end in the erosion of individual economic and personal freedom." Hmm...Red China [. . .] all contravene your statement."

Indeed, sadly your blanket is all wet and reeks of urine.

You believe that, Red China contravenes that statement- very out of the mainstream on your part.
If anything, any successes they have are due to moving away from socialism not towards, supporting my statement.
So Red China has economic and personal freedom? Maybe we should be more like them?
Maybe you are a Maoist... no too cerebral for you.


Jake, are you really this naive?

Even Locke and Rousseau believed man abandoned their claims of rights with a transfer of power to the gov't with a Social Contract. Now you say it does not?
Wow, you even "pulled the blanket" from under them, I guess.

This is a new extreme belief we must add to your collection. Perhaps the word erosion was too harsh for you.....would transfer be better.. Jake, I hope you know that rights include property rights as well.

--------

We see you don't read the international news much; how is freedom of speech doing in Canada and England lately?
Since, England, Germany and France are all trying to move right by cutting gov't and programs,
it appears they have learned a lesson and are moving in the right direction.

Of course, you conveniently left Italy, Spain and Greece off; their socialist failures are financially coming "home to roost "
Using your approach Jake, they just needed one more gov't program or tax to get it "right", this time.

Ask the Japanese in US Internment camps, how were their rights as citizens working out for them?
Did you know, the US locked up Germans in Internment camps as well during WW I and WW II ? Of course you didn't ....

Ask the Ukrainians during Holodomor how they were doing? Since they had free health care, I am sure it worked out for them too.

Ask the German Jews how those laws and elections worked out for them in the Weimar Republic. They were protected too at one time, on paper.

Thanks for proving my point, "there is even the naive belief by some that somehow they will be able to "control" the gov't to stop the erosion of individual rights..."
Indeed, Lenin was correct when he said he would always have "useful idiots" around to help him.

You see Jake, we all accept there must be gov't and no one believes the "road to statism" is a slippery slope. Must normal people understand, the question is one of limits, how much and when it is enough. You appear to not have any such limits, very extreme and for those you believe limits don't matter, potentially very dangerous.
-------------------------------


We know ignorance is bliss for some; but for you it is not. In fact, could be potentially dangerous.

We see you never asked about these other "mixed" economies.
Cuba, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan etc


Oh yes, of course not, we forgot. According to you, statism does not exist anywhere in the world.
Perhaps, we should tell these people in those countries; it will make them feel better.
-----------



Jake, it really is surprising how out of the mainstream you are sounding of late.
Of course with you, you appear to believe there will be NO erosion of rights with gov't power, very extreme.

-believing the General Welfare Clause can be used by itself for generating legislation
-believing that statism does not exist anywhere in the world
-believing that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke
-believing that the Tenth Amendment does not exist or matter, such a reckless view of the Constitution
-believing that the Commerce Clause can be used to justify any Federal gov't intrusion
-the apparent use of resources that are outside the mainstream
-NEW- believing that there is no transfer of man's rights in their Social Contract with gov't
-NEW- believing that Red China is a country of individual economic and personal freedoms.
-NEW- believing that the size of gov't does not matter


The US is just not ready for this kind of extreme thinking on your part.
No doubt seeing a rejection of the manifestation of the "Rousseau way" last election must have really brought that point home to you.

Jake, the US is just not ready for such out of the mainstream thinking like yours.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Neo, must think apparently that posting many words means he knows the subject.

He doesn't. He can't refute the fact that capitalism does not guarantee liberty and freedom, nor can he adequately account for success in Canada, Sweden, Denmark and other non-capitalistic countries.

Then he makes the ludicrous statement that I am out of mainstream, the implication that he is. He's not. He is far, far to the GOP right and is no more mainstream than the NBPP.

Can you prove your argument to be correct?
Jake you're not sounding very mainstream in this rply. you are sounding kind of like an extremist.

I've notice the same thing Neotrotsky has pointed out

-believing the General Welfare Clause can be used by itself for generating legislation
-believing that statism does not exist anywhere in the world
-believing that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke
-believing that the Tenth Amendment does not exist or matter, such a reckless view of the Constitution
-believing that the Commerce Clause can be used to justify any Federal gov't intrusion
-the apparent use of resources that are outside the mainstream
-NEW- believing that there is no transfer of man's rights in their Social Contract with gov't
-NEW- believing that Red China is a country of individual economic and personal freedoms.
-NEW- believing that the size of gov't does not matter

 

[JakeStarkey]

My comments are in the mainstream. Those by Neo and others are far, far to the right. My statements are common knowledge, theirs are not. Our Founders were influenced by many, including Locke and Rousseau, and the Founders recognized natural rights, civil liberties, and social compact.

To suggest the above is not so is ludicrous.

 

[hylandrdet]

Sweet. Now what?

Assuming that it passes the Senate, I'll consider this house action as a...

V ery
E ntertaining
T oken of
O pposition

Food for thought.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Jake, we know you are not the mainstream
because you are afraid to defend your beliefs or statements

But, it is your story and you can tell it anyway you want



Jake, again

-believing the General Welfare Clause can be used by itself for generating legislation
-believing that statism does not exist anywhere in the world
-believing that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke
-believing that the Tenth Amendment does not exist or matter, such a reckless view of the Constitution
-believing that the Commerce Clause can be used to justify any Federal gov't intrusion
-the apparent use of resources that are outside the mainstream
-NEW- believing that there is no transfer of man's rights in their Social Contract with gov't
-NEW- believing that Red China is a country of individual economic and personal freedoms.
-NEW- believing that the size of gov't does not matter


The US is just not ready for this kind of extreme thinking on your part.
No doubt seeing a rejection of the manifestation of the "Rousseau way" last election must have really brought that point home to you.

Jake, the US is just not ready for such out of the mainstream thinking like yours.

 

[Flopper]

How do you know who is biased and who isn't? How do you know who is interested in protecting their reputation for careful and accurate research and analysis and who isn't? Do you know anybody at the CBO? Who hires the people who work there? Who pays their salaries? The Director is appointed for a four-year term jointly by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate who will also decide whether that person will be reappointed or not. Do you think there might be opportunity for just a wee bit of political motivation or pressure there?

Do you know anybody at any of those other organizations? Have any ever been accused or convicted of skewing numbers or offering suspect reports and analysis or otherwise given cause to question their integrity?

I have no reason to believe anybody at the CBO is anything other than an honest, hard working person. But when the CBO is not allowed to do independent research and reporting but is fed the information to be analyzed by the Congress, it is a safe bet that the CBO is not the entirely free and independent agency that you seem to trust so completely with no questions allowed.

Sorry but I think I am a bit more realistic on this one.

All of these organizations are biased. They do research for their sponsors or customers producing reports which help them achieve their goals, whatever they might be. If they didn't they wouldn't be around long.

You have an objective analysis by the CBO using data supplied by the administration. Where else do expect the data to come from? I believe if you asked any of those organizations for an objective analysis, they would refer you to the CBO. However, if you wanted an analysis taking into account items you mentioned, history of the agencies, probabilities, etc., and you are willing to pay the fees these guys charge, they will delivery a report stating their opinions that are sure to please. If I had an analysis done by another organization on the list, they would delivery a report stating their opinions which would make me a happy customer. So, as I said, what's the point? You have a number of studies like this done by the Right and Left proving their point. Why get more? Like the country needs another biased opinion.

Okay we're making progress. You have FINALLY agreed that the CBO ues data supplied by the administration and/or Congress. The same Administration that hired the management of the CBO, evaluates its performance, authorizes its salary and benefits, and has power to keep people in their jobs or let them go.

Do you not think that the information furnished to the CBO might at least possibly be weighted on the side of a piece of unpopular legislation favored by that same Administration and/or Congress? Are you, a reasonably intelligent and educated American honestly going to try to convince me that the Administration and/or members of Congress are not biased and might possibly feed the CBO data favorable to their interests?

Again it is your opinion that the organizations I listed are biased. You have provided no evidence of any kind for that. I suspect they are because we all are. I am. You have thus far demonstrated bias to the extreme on this topic without anything to back up your opinion other than your gut. And you have nothing to back up your presumed opinion that those organizations whose livelihood depends on doing honest, credible, and competent work would do less than that due to bias.

The CBO determines the expected costs and cost savings of each items in the bill. If they cannot cost out an item in the bill they will so state. The cost projections are based on information from many sources not just data from the administration. In the analysis the director made it clear that the CBO does not speculate as to the future actions of Congress or the administration. Also, the CBO leaves it to other analysts to speculate on the capability of government and the likelihood of success.

You can find a lot of information on how the CBO made their analysis on their website.
Congressional Budget Office - Home Page

 

[Foxfyre]

All of these organizations are biased. They do research for their sponsors or customers producing reports which help them achieve their goals, whatever they might be. If they didn't they wouldn't be around long.

You have an objective analysis by the CBO using data supplied by the administration. Where else do expect the data to come from? I believe if you asked any of those organizations for an objective analysis, they would refer you to the CBO. However, if you wanted an analysis taking into account items you mentioned, history of the agencies, probabilities, etc., and you are willing to pay the fees these guys charge, they will delivery a report stating their opinions that are sure to please. If I had an analysis done by another organization on the list, they would delivery a report stating their opinions which would make me a happy customer. So, as I said, what's the point? You have a number of studies like this done by the Right and Left proving their point. Why get more? Like the country needs another biased opinion.

Okay we're making progress. You have FINALLY agreed that the CBO ues data supplied by the administration and/or Congress. The same Administration that hired the management of the CBO, evaluates its performance, authorizes its salary and benefits, and has power to keep people in their jobs or let them go.

Do you not think that the information furnished to the CBO might at least possibly be weighted on the side of a piece of unpopular legislation favored by that same Administration and/or Congress? Are you, a reasonably intelligent and educated American honestly going to try to convince me that the Administration and/or members of Congress are not biased and might possibly feed the CBO data favorable to their interests?

Again it is your opinion that the organizations I listed are biased. You have provided no evidence of any kind for that. I suspect they are because we all are. I am. You have thus far demonstrated bias to the extreme on this topic without anything to back up your opinion other than your gut. And you have nothing to back up your presumed opinion that those organizations whose livelihood depends on doing honest, credible, and competent work would do less than that due to bias.

The CBO determines the expected costs and cost savings of each items in the bill. If they cannot cost out an item in the bill they will so state. The cost projections are based on information from many sources not just data from the administration. In the analysis the director made it clear that the CBO does not speculate as to the future actions of Congress or the administration. Also, the CBO leaves it to other analysts to speculate on the capability of government and the likelihood of success.

You can find a lot of information on how the CBO made their analysis on their website.
Congressional Budget Office - Home Page

Yes I have read their website on more than one occasion. And I know why they were set up as a government agency in the first place and what their function is.

And not a single syllable in their website addresses my comments re the CBO.

 

[taichiliberal]

For all the slavering neocons/oathers/birthers/teabaggers/Libertarians/Bluedog Democrats, etc.

The GOP "victory" in the House in Nov. 2010 was a result of LOW VOTER TURNOUT. Idiots that voted for Obama and were pissed that he didn't fight hard enough (in their opinion) for the policies and platforms they put him in for....decided that staying home was a good protest.

So now we've got a bunch of neocon GOPers who throw a bone to their teabag flunkies with this empty, time wasting gesture.

Reid's statement falls WELL within his rights for his position in the Senate....and the "people" WANT A HEALTH CARE REFORM. The GOP DOES NOT HAVE THE VOTES IN THE SENATE TO REPEAL THIS LAW! THE PRESIDENT CAN VETO THIS REPEAL BILL.....it's his right under the law, as it was Reagan's, as it was the Bush family's.

Bottom line: the GOP doesn't have squat with regards to jobs or healthcare accept to return to the very policies that caused our current problems. They seem to demonstrate a pattern that is indicative to the Party of NO and it's health insurance backers.....which is denying any FACT based evidence that contradicts YOUR conclusions and beliefs/assertions.

Case in point: it was the CBO that consistently caused the Obama administration to go back to the drawing board before a final proposal was deemed fiscally acceptable. The GOP and neocon punditry had NO problem with the CBO so long as they were complimentary to the anti-healthcare reform mantras. No suddenly, it's the old teabagger confusion about being against the gov't (while wanting gov't to enforce laws that favor corporations...go figure) because they tell you something you don't want to hear.

The fallacy that "all was well" before the healthcare reform bill passed is just that...fallacy. If you doubt that, just check out the Congressional testimonies of Dr. Peeno or Wendell Potter.

And if all the neocon/teabagger/oather/Libertarian/bither concern is about people getting something for nothing off of their tax dollars....then why don't they complain about the healthcare options that members of the House & Senate have?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neo has been posting wildly because he is stumbling. He lied in that I explicitly or even implicitly supported the following that he even won't tell us whether he believes in them or not.

Neo, you have to make a case with evidence, not assertions.

Show exactly where in each of the statements, I have support it, and secondly, tell us where you stand on each.

He won't do either and I will keep reminding him of his failure from now on.

Jake, it really is surprising how out of the mainstream you are sounding of late

-believing the General Welfare Clause can be used by itself for generating legislation
-believing that statism does not exist anywhere in the world
-believing that Rousseau had a greater influence on the founding of this nation than Locke
-believing that the Tenth Amendment does not exist or matter, such a reckless view of the Constitution
-believing that the Commerce Clause can be used to justify any Federal gov't intrusion
-the apparent use of resources that are outside the mainstream

Neo thinks he is mainstream. How funny.