Libs believe CBO figures when it suits them

[ugonow]

"Following up on an earlier item, the Republican argument that the Affordable Care Act would cost thousands of jobs is clearly untrue. But there's one talking point in particular we're likely to hear repeated, which deserves special scrutiny.

When making the case for repeal, GOP leaders insist that the reform law will cost the economy "650,000 jobs." Republicans even published a report of sorts, claiming that the 650k number is the result of "independent analyses," most notably from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

To its credit, the AP fact-checked the claim today, noting the CBO "never produced the number," and the talking point itself is an example of how "statistics get used and abused in Washington."

What CBO actually said is that the impact of the health care law on supply and demand for labor would be small. Most of it would come from people who no longer have to work, or can downshift to less demanding employment, because insurance will be available outside the job.

"The legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by a small amount -- roughly half a percent -- primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply," budget office number crunchers said in a report from last year.

That's not how it got translated in the new report from Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other top Republicans.



No, of course not. Congressional Republicans aren't interested in a credible, serious debate -- they're interested in scoring points. In this case, a lie is more effective than the truth, so that's what they're repeating over and over again.

The key here is understanding that the health care law may reduce the labor supply, not the number of jobs. The possible 0.5% shift in labor is not the result of employers cutting jobs, it's the result of people working less. And why might people work less? Because some workers might decide to retire earlier, knowing that they won't have to keep working in order to have health care benefits. (And when these older workers leave the workforce, it creates opportunities for younger workers.)

The 650,000 figure is a sham, pushed by professional con artists who assume the public and the media won't aren't pay close attention anyway. Some will believe the lie, and there won't be any consequences of the dishonesty anyway. "

[jkapp]

I assume you also believe the CBO figure that states the bill would be paid for...except that it is only using 6 years of expenses and 10 years of income???

[Angel!]

What does this have to do with Libs believing CBO figures? The 650K didn't come from the CBO. You seem to be attempting to rip on liberals while posting an article about republicans making up facts.

[verrip1]

I thought people were supposed to show the source when they post the words of others.

[floridayankee]

Jan 19, 2011 14:50:34 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

I thought people were supposed to show the source when they post the words of others.

That was the old board. Let's not start that crap up on this one.

...it's called google. It's really not that hard.....
www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01/027583.php

[fairlycrazy23]

Both parties use the CBO numbers when they suit them.. The CBO numbers are usually very misleading because they are constrained on what they can take into account.

[floridayankee]

Jan 19, 2011 15:44:05 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Both parties use the CBO numbers when they suit them.. The CBO numbers are usually very misleading because they are constrained on what they can take into account.

In the case of analysis on a piece of legislation, they get most of their data from the legislation itself. The rest comes from the people writing the legislation. This data and legislation can purposely be manipulated to produce misleading results....like the CBO saying that Obamacare will save more than it costs. Of course, it does, captain obvious....just about anybody can look good with 10 years of income and only 7 (6?) years of expenses.