PPACA upheld

Originally Posted by nontheist

Oh because the CBO said so. Chesus quit listening to buck.

This is a copy and paste, I already put it in my own more simple terms above.

One of the most outrageous claims by proponents of ObamaCare is that it will reduce the deficit. Harvard economics professor Greg Mankiw wrote on his blog, “I have a plan to reduce the budget deficit. The essence of the plan is the federal government writing me a check for $1 billion. The plan will be financed by $3 billion of tax increases. According to my back-of-the-envelope calculations, giving me that $1 billion will reduce the budget deficit by $2 billion.” This is how ObamaCare works. Health care entitlement spending increases, but taxes increase even more.The PPACA can only pretend to reduce the deficit because it counts only six years of spending while counting ten years of new taxes. Overall, the CBO originally estimated that PPACA would result in $900 billion in new spending in the next decade. CBO can’t provide an official estimate beyond that ten-year window, but the trend suggests spending will continue on an upward trajectory. Already, CBO has revised its original score upwards multiple times (such as adding $115 billion for administrative costs). Whitehouse.gov says the law will cost approximately $100 billion each year for the next ten years. Yet that’s almost certainly an understatement. Former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin released his own analysis, finding that the law will cost $1.072 trillion in subsidies during the first ten years and another $2.85 trillion in the decade after that. That’s a total of nearly $4 trillion in new spending in the next 20 years.

The goverment will cost us 350 trillion dollars over the next century

Am I leaving anything out?

Well yeah. I'm not including savings and income.

I see what you did there.

Originally Posted by ChesusRice

The goverment will cost us 350 trillion dollars over the next century

Am I leaving anything out?

Well yeah. I'm not including savings and income.

I see what you did there.

What the fuck was that?

Originally Posted by nontheist

What the fuck was that?

A reply to your biased article written by this guy

Gregory Mankiw
On November 2, 2011, some of the students in his Economics 10 class walked out of his lecture. About 60 to 70 out of 750 students participated.^[26][27] Before leaving, they handed Mankiw an open letter critical of his course, saying in part:

"we found a course that espouses a specific—and limited—view of economics that we believe perpetuates problematic and inefficient systems of economic inequality in our society today ... Economics 10 makes it difficult for subsequent economics courses to teach effectively as it offers only one heavily skewed perspective rather than a solid grounding on which other courses can expand. ... Harvard graduates play major roles in the financial institutions and in shaping public policy around the world. If Harvard fails to equip its students with a broad and critical understanding of economics, their actions are likely to harm the global financial system. The last five years of economic turmoil have been proof enough of this."^[28

More on your Golden boy who wrote that piece of crap you pasted

N. Gregory Mankiw, former top economic adviser to
President George W. Bush and current adviser to Republican presidential
candidate Mitt Romney, also backs a stiff gas tax increase... In a New York
Times column this year, Mr. Mankiw offered a tax overhaul that might include a
gas tax “exceeding” $2 per gallon.

BTW
The CBO has a very good track record of forecasting
And they PPACA will save money

Originally Posted by ChesusRice

A reply to your biased article written by this guy

Gregory Mankiw
On November 2, 2011, some of the students in his Economics 10 class walked out of his lecture. About 60 to 70 out of 750 students participated.^[26][27] Before leaving, they handed Mankiw an open letter critical of his course, saying in part:

"we found a course that espouses a specific—and limited—view of economics that we believe perpetuates problematic and inefficient systems of economic inequality in our society today ... Economics 10 makes it difficult for subsequent economics courses to teach effectively as it offers only one heavily skewed perspective rather than a solid grounding on which other courses can expand. ... Harvard graduates play major roles in the financial institutions and in shaping public policy around the world. If Harvard fails to equip its students with a broad and critical understanding of economics, their actions are likely to harm the global financial system. The last five years of economic turmoil have been proof enough of this."^[28


BTW
The CBO has a very good track record of forecasting
And they say it will save money

No that isn't who wrote the article it

Here is the full article if you like
http://iwf.org/files/34861c37dc46cee...e93ed90e45.pdf

Originally Posted by nontheist

Taxing people that can't afford health insurance to begin with is the solution to all our problems.

so are you saying that someone who is single and making $50,000 a year can't afford a basic health care plan? because that's who will be taxed.

you need to grow up, kid. come back in 4 years when you turn 18.