• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How much increased spending does Clinton propose?

countryboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,765
Reaction score
7,408
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

Carjosse

Sit Nomine Digna
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
14,618
Reaction score
6,312
Location
Montreal, QC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Well American Action Forum pretty much admits to being biased as they only call themselves centre-right. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget seems to be more bi-partisan having both Democrats and Republicans and seems to have a larger pool of experience.
 

SocialD

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Messages
2,467
Reaction score
716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says $1.45 trillion, but something called the American Action Forum says $3.5 trillion. How would you account for this "yuge" discrepancy?

And should the American Action Forum lose its tax-exempt status?

You may recall the whitehouse estimated cost for the ACA. and the large discrepancy other groups and organizations estimated it included the OMB. administrations... or potential ones... are always going to underestimate their costs and overestimate their revenues.. particularly in the environment we are presently in.
As for that group losing their tax exempt status .. why? unless you are suggesting every pac, every think tank, every social organization that attempts political influence should also lose theirs.. which might be a good thing actually.
 

mmi

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
4,810
Reaction score
2,250
Location
is everything
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
As long as Media Matters and all other left wing hack organizations lose theirs.

Does Media Matters lie about things like this (assuming the AFF figure is grossly inaccurate)? Can you provide any examples?

You may recall the whitehouse estimated cost for the ACA. and the large discrepancy other groups and organizations estimated it included the OMB.

Well, the OMB is part of the administration, so I'm guessing the WH estimate came from there and wasn't any different. Do you have those figures?

Here's some stuff I found doing a quick search:

When estimates are compared on a year-by-year basis, CBO and JCT’s estimate of the net budgetary impact of the ACA’s insurance coverage provisions has changed little since February 2013 and, indeed, has changed little since the legislation was being considered in March 2010. In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period.

Those amounts do not reflect the total budgetary impact of the ACA. That legislation includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce budget deficits. Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade. (source)​

The Congressional Budget Office on Monday again lowered its estimate of the cost of the Affordable Care Act, citing slow growth of health insurance premiums as a major factor.

Just since January, the budget office said, it has reduced its estimate of the 10-year cost of federal insurance subsidies by 20 percent, and its estimate of new Medicaid costs attributable to the law has come down by 8 percent. — "Budget Office Again Reduces Its Estimate on Cost of the Affordable Care Act," NYT, Mar 9, 2015​

Here's the story as reported by the AFF:

Five years after passage, there are few clear indications that the ACA has had its intended impact on cost of care and access to it. Meanwhile, the law costs significantly more than projected. (source)​

They seem to be at odds with the information coming out of CBO and the lying liberals at the New York Times.

>>suggesting every pac, every think tank, every social organization that attempts political influence should also lose theirs

Is there a difference absurdly lying and educating?
 

countryboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,765
Reaction score
7,408
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Does Media Matters lie about things like this (assuming the AFF figure is grossly inaccurate)? Can you provide any examples?



Well, the OMB is part of the administration, so I'm guessing the WH estimate came from there and wasn't any different. Do you have those figures?

Here's some stuff I found doing a quick search:

When estimates are compared on a year-by-year basis, CBO and JCT’s estimate of the net budgetary impact of the ACA’s insurance coverage provisions has changed little since February 2013 and, indeed, has changed little since the legislation was being considered in March 2010. In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period.

Those amounts do not reflect the total budgetary impact of the ACA. That legislation includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce budget deficits. Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade. (source)​

The Congressional Budget Office on Monday again lowered its estimate of the cost of the Affordable Care Act, citing slow growth of health insurance premiums as a major factor.

Just since January, the budget office said, it has reduced its estimate of the 10-year cost of federal insurance subsidies by 20 percent, and its estimate of new Medicaid costs attributable to the law has come down by 8 percent. — "Budget Office Again Reduces Its Estimate on Cost of the Affordable Care Act," NYT, Mar 9, 2015​

Here's the story as reported by the AFF:

Five years after passage, there are few clear indications that the ACA has had its intended impact on cost of care and access to it. Meanwhile, the law costs significantly more than projected. (source)​

They seem to be at odds with the information coming out of CBO and the lying liberals at the New York Times.

>>suggesting every pac, every think tank, every social organization that attempts political influence should also lose theirs

Is there a difference absurdly lying and educating?

Everything MM publishes is either a lie, or gross mischaracterization. But thanks for revealing your blatant hypocrisy yet again.
 

David_N

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
6,562
Reaction score
2,769
Location
The United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal

fmw

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
12,361
Reaction score
3,358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian

mmi

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
4,810
Reaction score
2,250
Location
is everything
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Everything MM publishes is either a lie, or gross mischaracterization.

And yet out of "everything it publishes" you don't provide a single example. Interesting.

>>thanks for revealing your blatant hypocrisy yet again.

At first, I thought you said "everything MMI publishes." I was relieved to find that yer instead saying that I'm a blatant hypocrite in asking you to support yer allegation.

Politics, obviously.

So you think AFF is lying by more than doubling the amount of new spending Clinton has proposed?

>>I think only charities should enjoy tax exempt status

I've commented on this before.

The office in the IRS that handles applications for tax-exempt status appears to have acted improperly in its review of requests by conservative groups. One point that doesn't matter much to me is that no direct link to the WH has been established. It's Obama's administration, so he's responsible. But do you really think these groups are "educational" and not "political"? The law as written says they can't be political at all. The agency decided back in the 1950s that they needed to be "primarily" educational. If Congress had any sense, they'd tell the IRS to forget that stupid revision and just enforce the law.

Obviously, I understand that everyone wants to be, and is legally entitled to be, treated equally. And it does seem likely that there was partisanship involved in the way conservative groups were treated. But consider a couple of things: these applications were for 501(c)(4) status. Donations to those organizations "generally are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes." (IRS) So failing to gain status would not have made it easier for them to raise money from people looking to deduct the donation on their taxes. These groups just didn't want be required to disclose the names of donors and the amounts they donated. Guess why. They also wanted to avoid federal income tax liability. And why is that? Here's a clue:

According to the [2013] year-end spending report filed with the Federal Election Commission, of the $6,405,087 that the group (Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund) has raised since early last year, $5,335,162 has been spent, and all of it has been put toward operating expenditures. — Tea party groups are making and spending millions, but not on candidates

That's the scandal I'd be concerned with if I'd made a donation to that group. They spend all the money on administrative overhead and pass nothing along to candidates. They know people will contribute, and it's just a way for them to collect big salaries and hire their friends as consultants, office workers, field organizers, etc. It's an industry, and they benefit if people think that commie, criminal Obama and his gang of crooks are interfering with democracy.​
 

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
23,180
Reaction score
9,769
Location
Lauderdale By-The-Sea, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Top Bottom