Is anyone listening---or REPORTING?

[Greenie]

The two year old has a pretty long life ahead of her to pay for the mistakes we're making now. That's what steams me the most, the rate of taxation our children and grandchildren will be saddled with.

[Compu Doc]

Hot air balloons...It seems there's a surplus of fuel......Ben

Only in Washington DC.

Wow. That's deep. The two year old has a pretty long life ahead of her to pay for the mistakes we're making now. That's what steams me the most, the rate of taxation our children and grandchildren will be saddled with.

Let's get rid of ALL the illegal aliens in this country so that the wages could go up and then the tax rate might not hurt so much when the 2 year old's are out their working.

The problem I see is that the wages that employers were paying are the same they were twenty five years ago. Wages have not increased as much as the cost of living making it harder to pay more taxes today. At the same time cut off some spending such as giving money freely to other countries. If they don't have it to bad. Then after that is done don't spend more than you take in.

[Kevin]

Has anyone noticed the real irony here?

When the CBO was putting out figures that people didn't want to hear, it was "they don't know anything, they use fake data, it's all a put up job".

Now that the CBO is saying things they want to hear, the CBO's estimates look good again.

Wild.

How about we GTF out of Iraq and Afghanistan and use THAT money instead of taxing people more? There is nothing to win in either of those two nations.

[TxMusky]

As long as they are using "projected" numbers that is worked up off of what the politicians are telling them instead of actual figures that can change month to month under everyday ups and downs I use what they say with caution. Didnt the CBO last year say we had SS money for 20 years or so, but just recently came out and revised what they had said, it was going to run out much sooner because the real time revenues were very different than what they used in their formula. I dont see what the problem is here...its not a dam test where there is only one answer. Yes they can get close if the moon and the stars and the sun align at the predetermined times and at the exact angles that were projected......life doesnt always work that way. If it did we could have avoided every problem this world has ever encountered just by planning off of what somebody said was going to happen.

Tell that song and dance to the people who lost their azz to Enron or to Bernie Madoff, or to the latest wall street meltdown, I think you will find that even the best laid plans get a bad case of the runs if something goes awry.

[Kevin]

As long as they are using "projected" numbers that is worked up off of what the politicians are telling them instead of actual figures that can change month to month under everyday ups and downs I use what they say with caution.

You are absolutely incorrect when you say this, Tx. The politicians tell them the language of the legislation and the CBO develops THEIR OWN numbers of how that proposed legislation translates into cost/revenue projections. They do not use numbers the politicians tell them. You keep bringing this up and it exposes a complete ignorance of how the CBO performs its analysis. Look on the CBO site if you don't believe me. They tell you how they develop their estimates. It is through their own policy analysts and econometric experts, not politicians. That dog won't hunt.

[Kevin]

Didnt the CBO last year say we had SS money for 20 years or so, but just recently came out and revised what they had said, it was going to run out much sooner because the real time revenues were very different than what they used in their formula.

I don't know what you are referring to. Please provide a link to a CBO report.

I will say that each projection is based on conditions at the time of the report. Those conditions change due in unforeseeable ways. For example, we had ourselves a humdinger of a recession that we are still in the middle of. Revenue projections from two years ago are bound to be off because no one could have possible predicted this recession.

With that said, though, they represent the best game in town insofar as projections based on something other than a WAG.

[TxMusky]

Thats what you just cant grasp.......

it is a WAG either way. If it wasnt then it would be a perfect world!!!!!! Why cant you get that through your thick head??

[Kevin]

No, it is not a WAG either way. One way uses the best data available to come up with as best an estimate as we can. This way also goes back to figure out how close it came and why the estimate was off, where it can be improved in the future. For example, on the cost of Bush's drug benefit, it was within 10%. Not too shabby.

The other way, your way, is just whatever you feel like.

You tell me which one I should make a decision on.

[TxMusky]

Best data available? Well go to a fortune teller or flip a quarter....either way if the data is not in any way firm and cannot be changed due to any event in the future........

then it is just a guess or a hope that the "facts" will turn out to be true. WAG works just about as good now days, because what the politicians are doing now is inflating or deflating their goals every time the wind changes direction. Hide and watch.

[Kevin]

Oddly enough, BOTH sides of the political aisle don't believe that consulting a fortune teller is a more accurate method of determining the budgetary impact of proposed legislation. The Republicans use the CBO just as the Dems do. Why would they continue to do so if consulting a fortune teller is just as good a method?

Because demonstrably, it is not. If it were, Congress would be consulting fortune tellers. It consults the CBO because it is the best game in town. If it were not, it would not be used.

You just don't like the answers. If WAGs were just as good as the CBO, no one would use the CBO. Yet both sides do. Why? Because it is the best game in town and sure beats pulling a number out of one's own ass.

Personally, I prefer that policy decisions be based on the best data and the best analysis that can be done rather than relying on Madame Orczy's scrying crystal. If you think that you have a better method, show it. Let's see your analysis of how, say, the health care proposal will affect the budget. Lay it out for us, Tx. Show us in detail the budgetary impacts of Obama's health care legislation over the next ten years. Since you are relying on a WAG, it shouldn't be hard, right? So put up. Show us your analysis.

If you can, that is.

Your way drags us back into caves consulting auguries in the entrails of chickens to figure the budgetary impact of legislation. I'll pass.

[Dave Grubb]

I'm not sure who might have first said:

"You can fix ignorant. You can't fix stupid!"

.......but I'm not nearly as convinced of its accuracy as I once was.

[Saggy]

Well looky here, someone doesn't have a clue as to what the CBO does.

The CBO is charged with determining the effect of proposed policy on the federal budget. It is not charged with determining the effect on other sectors of the economy.

Maybe you and Saggy need to start actually reading that which you criticize. It is easy to cry "fake" when you don't seem to have any understanding of the numbers in the first place. The CBO never purported to be providing an economy-wide analysis. The "B" stands for "Budget". It figures out the effect on the "budget" of the United States. That's all it does. That is all it is SUPPOSED to do.

If you don't even know that much, you don't have much business talking about the evaluations they make. Here, let me help you by doing the legwork you as an adult offering an opinion about the CBO should have done for yourself:



Note that their focus is always budgetary, not economic.

============================================



"To compound the alarm, the CBO admits to understating the severity of the problem because its report does not include the negative impact that "substantial amounts of additional federal debt" would have on other aspects of the nation's economy."

That was the CBO understating the severity-----kinda being self-critical.


And just WHERE IN THE HELL do you get off advising others HOW MUCH BUSINESS THEY HAVE TALKING ABOUT EVALUATIONS THEY MAKE???? If you don't agree, that's o.k. and expected----just don't be so full of yourself that you believe it mandatory to advise others on what, where, when, how and why they should make their evaluations----thank you very much.

[2ndthyme]

============================================



"To compound the alarm, the CBO admits to understating the severity of the problem because its report does not include the negative impact that "substantial amounts of additional federal debt" would have on other aspects of the nation's economy."

That was the CBO understating the severity-----kinda being self-critical.


And just WHERE IN THE HELL do you get off advising others HOW MUCH BUSINESS THEY HAVE TALKING ABOUT EVALUATIONS THEY MAKE???? If you don't agree, that's o.k. and expected----just don't be so full of yourself that you believe it mandatory to advise others on what, where, when, how and why they should make their evaluations----thank you very much.

Sam, you don't have a quote from the CBO. you're quoting spin about the CBO. The source isn't credible because it is trying to make claims that the CBO advises on economic impact. it does not

[Kevin]

And just WHERE IN THE HELL do you get off advising others HOW MUCH BUSINESS THEY HAVE TALKING ABOUT EVALUATIONS THEY MAKE???? If you don't agree, that's o.k. and expected----just don't be so full of yourself that you believe it mandatory to advise others on what, where, when, how and why they should make their evaluations----thank you very much.

I don't think it is too much to ask that people actually have a clue about the things they spout off about. However, having read your posts for some time, I can understand why you'd disagree.

Take the time to learn a bit before ranting. You'll look less foolish.

I'm someone who thinks that maybe the brain should be engaged before the mouth is. Call me a dreamer...

[TxMusky]

I'm not sure who might have first said:



.......but I'm not nearly as convinced of its accuracy as I once was.

I see from your comment that you cant fix arrogance or stupidity.