Monday, July 12, 2010

Ciro Rodriguez, Human



I've already seen this on both Wonkette and Where Are My Keys. It's not exactly the proof that Democrats are anger-crazed liars that some are saying. For one thing, I'd like to know how long Rodriguez (D-TX) put up with this heckling before he reacted. And at least he didn't threaten to shoot anyone. Still, he could have handled it better. Generally the best way to counter teabaggers is to act interested and ask them to cite the source of their information. When they change the subject, you've won.

More amusing than the video, of course, is the comments from YouTube. For example:

Is removing them from power enough to punish them for High Treason against the People of American and the Constitution which they swore an Oath to defend...Time to hang some progressives?

SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS YOU RAT! You are a foreign national enemy of America. This pig cam (sic) here illegally. We need to enact term limits and BAN ALL FOREIGN BORN from government, these are the ENEMIES WITHIN!

Just another taco-bender that your Illegal-infested state voted in to protect their own interests, and further the Reconquista invasion. Mexicans will always vote and champion Socialism. They just haven't figured out that sooner or later you run out of "Gringo's" money.

Yes, of course they're not all like this. But plenty are. Besides taking things out of context and painting all people of one kind with the same brush kind of suits these comments, don't you agree? Don't you? Oh.

14 comments:

wamk said...

Why is it "heckling", when his constituents are pointing out that his rationale for supporting Obamacare was proven false, by the very same CBO he cites?

As a teabagee, you must understand that the "heckler" did cite the source of information, that being the CBO.

Or are you not aware that after Obamacare passed, and the CBO was able to actually score the final bill, the CBO found that Obamacare will increase costs?

Why are you trying to change the subject from those facts? Because you have lost?

Danielk said...

Increase costs, the CBO says?

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm

"On March 20, 2010, CBO released its final cost estimate for the reconciliation act, which encompassed the effects of both pieces of legislation...CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation will produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period."

What did our probably-powdered-wig-wearing friend behind the camera phone see in this report that I'm missing?

wamk said...

Do you even read what you paste?

"On March 20, 2010, CBO released its final cost estimate for the reconciliation act, which encompassed the effects of both pieces of legislation...CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation will produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period."

The report you cite is the CBO report from the ESTIMATES provided to it by the Democrats, prior to passage of the bill.

Recently, the CBO had the opportunity to review the FINAL version of Obamacare. Their results?

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1034

On Wednesday I spoke at a conference on the health care system hosted by the Institute of Medicine. My presentation dealt with health care costs and the federal budget. The central challenge is straightforward and stark: The rising costs of health care will put tremendous pressure on the federal budget during the next few decades and beyond.

In CBO’s judgment, the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish that pressure. In fact, CBO estimated that the health legislation will increase the federal budgetary commitment to health care (which CBO defines as the sum of net federal outlays for health programs and tax preferences for health care) by nearly $400 billion during the 2010-2019 period. Looking further ahead, CBO estimated that the legislation would reduce the federal budgetary commitment to health care in the following decade—if the provisions of the legislation remain unchanged throughout that entire period. CBO also estimated that the legislation will reduce budget deficits by about $140 billion during the 2010-2019 period and by an amount in a broad range around one-half percent of gross domestic product (GDP) during the following decade—again, under the assumption that the legislation remains in force as enacted.


You do recognize the difference between the earlier report, based on supposition, and the recent report, based on fact.

Don't you?

Danielk said...

So the blog post literally isn't an estimate right? It's established fact? I'm just clarifying because you pointed out that I don't know what "estimate" means.

Publius said...

Me, I'm just waiting for the Keepin it real, Yo blog post titled, "Trent Lott, Human," or maybe the post titled, "Strom Thurmond, Human."

wamk said...

Why is it so difficult to admit you were wrong?

Which analysis would be more accurate, the one submitted by the Democrats (that may have left a few things out) before the final bill and amendments were passed, or the one done after the final bill was signed into law, that had all the juicy stuff in it?

Keep clinging to the notion that the report from March, 2010 is the correct one. Just don't be surprised when reality comes knocking.

You are wrong on this one, and you know it.

Danielk said...

"However, they are small steps relative to the length of the journey that will be needed to achieve sustainability. If the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 are extended, the alternative minimum tax is indexed for inflation, and no other changes are made to current laws regarding taxes and spending, the budget deficit in 2020 would be about 6 percent of GDP and rising."

You agree with that one too? That we need to let the Bush tax cuts lapse?

wamk said...

Piker, one simple question.

If the March, 2010 CBO report is gospel, and proof that Obamacare would save us lots of money, why did the CBO do another report after the bill passed?

Danielk said...

I believe the report overestimates the savings based on the final bill, but I don't believe the final few days of negotiations wiped them out completely.

Now, your turn - you believe the part of the informal blog post you quoted - do you also believe the part I did?

wamk said...

You didn't answer the question. Why was there a second report on the bill?

Danielk said...

There was a second report (actually a speech with powerpoint graphs) to account for changes made following the final CBO estimate. Do you buy the conclusions that Elmendorf reached in this speech?

wamk said...

I believe that the report, taken in its entirety, paints a picture of Obamacare that is quite different than what we were told in March of 2010.

Since you also must believe the report (and presentation in its entirety also, since you believe that one passage you pasted), I'll ask what conclusion you draw from the final slide in his presentation:

Putting the federal budget on a sustainable path would almost certainly require a significant reduction in the growth of federal health spending relative to current law (including this year’s health legislation).

If Obamacare as written will reduce the cost of healthcare (as you seem to think it will), why would the CBO recommend a "significant reduction" in spending, including Obamacare?

Doesn't that fly in the face of what we were told about Obamacare and its costs?

wamk said...

Also in the presentation (which I'm sure you studied carefully), slide #5 shows a massive jump in cost in 2013 (the light blue line) as a result of PPACA (Obamacare). How si that possible, when the CBO report in March didn't show that?

Slide #2 says this:

Rising health costs will put tremendous pressure on the federal budget during the next few decades and beyond. In CBO’s judgment, the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish that pressure. Since you agree with that little snippet you pasted, you also agree with the CBO statement here, correct?

Danielk said...

This massive jump - it hasn't happened yet.

Also the report is not the work of the whole bipartisan CBO, just one guy in it. He's a chairman, but it's certainly not the same as a CBO report. It's neither as detailed nor as well vetted.