Bush and Obama

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I would guess they Wyden plan is the most likely of all of them to be passed. It has several Republican co-sponsors, enjoys wide popularity in the House, and Wyden has positioned himself to be one of the "gang of six" who may potentially hold up any other bill in the Senate (he has the support of Snow, Collins, and at least 4 Democrats).

The tax provision will be tricky to negotiate, and perhaps that provision will be swapped out with a tax on the top 1%, but it most certainly isn't guaranteed right now. Note Geithner's statement today about new taxes (perhaps a trial balloon to see how the public would respond if Obama reneged on his promise not to raise any taxes for those under $250000 through a tax like a benefits tax- although the benefits tax could also be structured to only impact those with over $250000 in income).

I am surprised you are so unfamiliar with all of this, given your profession.

I am not surprised at your forked tongue, given your profession.

So how are the negotiations going. I'm sure that you are front and center, at the table, able to give us the personal details. It's going to be "tricky" you say.

"Renege" is what a democrat is doing when he is lying and deceiving, apparently.

[MikeWaters]

This is how stupid NY Times is. They are saying the bill will cost nearly 1 trillion. If they had just consulted Cali, they would know that everyone is aware it will only cost ~670 million.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/he...e.html?_r=1&hp

As House members began a five-week recess, they left behind the outlines of a nearly $1 trillion health care overhaul that is sure to draw fire from a variety of interests, but which shows the beginnings of a consensus that would provide insurance for more Americans and give them new rights in dealing with insurers.

I'm surprised that they are not aware of this, given that they are the premier journalists in the country.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

This is how stupid NY Times is. They are saying the bill will cost nearly 1 trillion. If they had just consulted Cali, they would know that everyone is aware it will only cost ~670 million.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/he...e.html?_r=1&hp



I'm surprised that they are not aware of this, given that they are the premier journalists in the country.

I don't know how many times I can say this before you get it. Clearly more than two. There are about ten proposals under consideration right now. Some of those proposals have an estimate of about $1 trillion over ten years (and since when did we start measuring costs over a ten year period?). Others cost less (some significantly less). For whatever reason, the media has keyed in on the $1 trillion number (largely due to political reasons, as Republicans have made it their favorite number to harp on). Point is, you should certainly know better.

I am not front and center on the negotiations. Not at all. But I can read the news clippings from more than one source (I assume you can too, and I encourage you to do so as it will make our conversations more productive).

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I am not surprised at your forked tongue, given your profession.

So how are the negotiations going. I'm sure that you are front and center, at the table, able to give us the personal details. It's going to be "tricky" you say.

"Renege" is what a democrat is doing when he is lying and deceiving, apparently.

Meh. So you give up on substance and attack on the rest. So be it. I hoped for better.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't know how many times I can say this before you get it. Clearly more than two. There are about ten proposals under consideration right now. Some of those proposals have an estimate of about $1 trillion over ten years (and since when did we start measuring costs over a ten year period?). Others cost less (some significantly less). For whatever reason, the media has keyed in on the $1 trillion number (largely due to political reasons, as Republicans have made it their favorite number to harp on). Point is, you should certainly know better.

I am not front and center on the negotiations. Not at all. But I can read the news clippings from more than one source (I assume you can too, and I encourage you to do so as it will make our conversations more productive).

Please don't play these games where you accuse me of manufacturing the 1 billion number, and then saying "everyone knows it is 670 million" and I call you out on it.

It's boring.

Go back to your fantasy world where you make all the rules.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Please don't play these games where you accuse me of manufacturing the 1 billion number, and then saying "everyone knows it is 670 million" and I call you out on it.

It's boring.

Go back to your fantasy world where you make all the rules.

Are you really reading anything before you type? I never accused you of manufacturing the $1 trillion (not billion as you said) number. I have said multiple times it pertains to SOME of the plans. You still don't seem to get that there are many plans which have been proposed. When I was discussing costs of plans, I was speaking specifically about the Wyden plan.

Note:

"Some plans, like the Wyden plan (my favorite), have cost estimates over a decade of only $670 billion (insanely cheap for what we are proposing). You would do well to read up on some of the plans under consideration (rather than focusing on just the one you seem to disagree with). For example, you said in the link below that you want to divorce healthcare from employment."

From that, you get "Waters- you are totally making up the $1 trillion number." Really? How do you get from what I said to what you heard?

If you want to continue trying to find tiny victories in this argument by constructing arguments I never made and then declaring victory when you knock them down, well- you are right. It is boring. Perhaps this is why people left YOUR fantasy world.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't know how many times I can say this before you get it. Clearly more than two. There are about ten proposals under consideration right now. Some of those proposals have an estimate of about $1 trillion over ten years (and since when did we start measuring costs over a ten year period?). Others cost less (some significantly less). For whatever reason, the media has keyed in on the $1 trillion number (largely due to political reasons, as Republicans have made it their favorite number to harp on). Point is, you should certainly know better.

I am not front and center on the negotiations. Not at all. But I can read the news clippings from more than one source (I assume you can too, and I encourage you to do so as it will make our conversations more productive).

Heh, yeah. That damn media is just sittin' in the Republican's back pockets.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Heh, yeah. That damn media is just sittin' in the Republican's back pockets.

Some of it clearly is (Fox News, the WSJ, Washington Times, etc). The issue isn't, in this case (with most media outlets, at least), a decision to be biased on political grounds, but a decision to be biased on ratings grounds. It isn't exciting news to report the drudgery of congressional committee work. Instead, the news becomes about the momentum of the process itself. If something goes wrong, the story becomes "BIG SETBACK FOR OBAMA!" The story also gravitates towards the talking points of the two parties (and the Republican talking point is that health care reform will cost over $1 trillion). The Dems at some point soon will make significant progress towards passage, and then the media story will be "SETBACKS OVERCOME! OBAMA TO GET HIS BILL!"

[Tex]

The media has keyed in on the $1 trillion number, because it's political.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

For whatever reason, the media has keyed in on the $1 trillion number (largely due to political reasons, as Republicans have made it their favorite number to harp on). Point is, you should certainly know better.

Wait, no it's not.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Some of it clearly is (Fox News, the WSJ, Washington Times, etc). The issue isn't, in this case (with most media outlets, at least), a decision to be biased on political grounds, but a decision to be biased on ratings grounds.

Hold on, yes it is.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It isn't exciting news to report the drudgery of congressional committee work. Instead, the news becomes about the momentum of the process itself. If something goes wrong, the story becomes "BIG SETBACK FOR OBAMA!" The story also gravitates towards the talking points of the two parties (and the Republican talking point is that health care reform will cost over $1 trillion).

I suspect that reporters at both Fox News and the New York Times would take exception to the characterization that they're just mouthpieces for "x" party's talking points, but what do I know.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

The media has keyed in on the $1 trillion number, because it's political.



Wait, no it's not.



Hold on, yes it is.



I suspect that reporters at both Fox News and the New York Times would take exception to the characterization that they're just mouthpieces for "x" party's talking points, but what do I know.

Is this really complicated for you?

WSJ, Fox News, other conservative blogs and media outlets= political reasons (which also happens to coincide with ratings reasons for them)

Non-conservative media outlets= ratings reasons (sensationalism drives ratings).

If you have a better explanation for the fact that the media has largely not reported at all (comparatively speaking) on the under $1 trillion price tag for several of the ten or so plans under consideration (which have at least as good of a chance of passage as the $1 trillion plan, and perhaps moreso), out with it.

Thought so.