- Joined
- Nov 11, 2011
- Messages
- 12,895
- Reaction score
- 2,909
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
If something has a cost of 1 dollar, and a savings of a buck and a quarter, it saves money, but costs a dollar. See the problem. A bunch of savings and revenue increasers where included in ACA to offset to total cost and make it save money(over 10 years). SO when you say they projected it saving money it was figuring both halves into the equation. When you say costing over a trillion, you are figuring just one side of the equation in.
they're actually pretty open about the limitations on their estimates, being that they are based on the full implementation of the legislation, and that rarely happens.
they're actually pretty open about the limitations on their estimates, being that they are based on the full implementation of the legislation, and that rarely happens.
What entity, according to both parties, is more authoritative on legislative analysis?
really don't understand the point of your question. Regardless if the CBO was the only entity in existence, that offered such estimates, their estimates would still have these exact same limitations that the CBO readily admits to.
The point is the CBO is the most authoritative bipartisan entity we have, according to both parties, to conduct legislative analysis.
And there are very real limitations with their estimates, which I pointed out, and you seemingly have taken issue with.
Do facts generally bother you so?
so you don't actually disagree with what I wrote, and this has all been for what?
For the third time, to show there is no entity more authoritative than the CBO on legislative analysis.
and as pointed out previously, such doesn't reconcile the issues with their estimates.... So why you would respond to me pointing out these issues, with the opinion that they're the most authoritive, when such doesn't address these issues, doesn't make much sense. Because such is completely * irrelevant* to my earlier point
We all have limitations. That doesn't mean that some don't have more limitations than others. Every other entity that conducts legislative analysis, such as the Heritage Foundation have both more limitations and bias.
The CBO remains both the most bipartisan and the most authoritative entity we have to consult on legislative analysis. That is my point.
Here's your problem: despite your disagreement with the heritage foundation, they could do an estimate based on certain provisions not being fully enacted. So prior to passing any judgement on a report, you would need to actually read it, because 1) how the CBO conducts it's analysis is fundamentally flawed 2) other organizations can correct for that
The heritage foundation, as well as other organizations, don't have access to all the data the CBO does and the HF has demonstrated heavy bias.
you're appealing to a number of fallacies (genetic, for one) and ignoring the point of my post: that any organization, not just the heritage foundation, can improve on the methods of the cbo, because their estimates are fundamentally flawed (they assume something that rarely happens)
hey usually prepare several versions based on varying scenarios of the legislation to help compensate for unknowns. It is the CBO that is used by both parties in Congress and not the HF. HF is not considered bipartisan as is the CBO.
see my original post
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?