1st Gallup Poll shows Romney edging Obama

[Shaudius]

This took me 1 second to find on Google, a Reuters article from July 2009:
DEMOCRATS CITE CBO REPORT TO BOLSTER HEALTH CARE CASE

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/27/us-usa-healthcare-idUSTRE56M0HE20090727

Only the talking heads were taking the "independent" CBO at face value when the Obama administration and leadership of both chambers of Congress were on a full-court press to pass the health care bill.

What a colossal waste.

Keep enlightening us, Shad.

Notice how you completely ignore my first point that you are flat our wrong about the unemployment thing. Again, the CBO estimates are not lies, which you seem to calling them, they are estimates, that some people choose to take at face value, but that is a far cry from a poster which states that oil from Canada is domestic, when definitionally it is not.

Furthermore,

"Actual cost $1.76 trillion and counting"

Is actually another CBO estimate!! So now we're taking the CBO at face value but we weren't taking them at face value in their original estimate? And that 1.76 trillion figure? It doesn't even cover the same period of time as the 938 billion figure, the 1.76 trillion estimate is for the period 2012-2022, the 938 billion figure is for the period 2010-2020. And again, those are gross figures, not net.

I mean seriously, you can't make this faulty logic and semi-truths up, well wait, I guess you can.

[ByeShea]

I mean do you just parrot everything you hear no matter if its true or not?

What, like Democrats never touted the CBO findings to justify the health care bill?

During the 15 minutes before I read and responded to your made up crap, you fukkin owned that topic.

And now you cite the euro when the exports in question may head to South America. Thanks for nothing, Shad.

[ByeShea]

the CBO estimates are not lies, which you seem to calling them, they are estimates, that some people choose to take at face value, but that is a far cry from a poster which states that oil from Canada is domestic, when definitionally it is not.

Normally an estimate that is off by $1 trillion is worthless and ignored - except when it's being used by Democrats to push the most controversial legislation of our generation.

THEN IT'S SOMETHING TO SHOUT ABOUT.

And 2 years later when the real, non-rushed non-political estimates arrive ... that's when you know the Democratic Party just punk'd the country. Again.

Had a laugh at seeing "Speaker Nancy Pelosi" in print, though. It's been awhile.

[Shaudius]

What, like Democrats never touted the CBO findings to justify the health care bill?

During the 15 minutes before I read and responded to your made up crap, you fukkin owned that topic.

And now you cite the euro when the exports in question may head to South America. Thanks for nothing, Shad.

I referenced both the Euro, as well as the overall strength of the US dollar, so is your contention that the US dollar is weak versus some South American currency while being overall strong and stronger against the Euro than four years ago. Which currency would this be that South American countries trade in.

Would it be the Brazillian Real? The only currency in the region that has any strength at all in world markets? The Real is actually worth less today in US dollars than it was a year ago, and approximately the same as it was 5 years ago. Do you think most South American countries trade in their own currencies? You would be wrong for the most part, they trade in the global reserve currency, the US dollar.

[Shaudius]

Normally an estimate that is off by $1 trillion is worthless and ignored - except when it's being used by Democrats to push the most controversial legislation of our generation.

But how would anyone know it was off by a trillion at the time? Why is it not off by a trillion now? What makes the CBO estimate so much worse in 2009-2010 then it is in 2012? When it covers a 10 year period either way?

THEN IT'S SOMETHING TO SHOUT ABOUT.

You were the one who was saying the estimate was a lie. I am saying that it was an estimate, not a lie, and that your counter estimate is also an estimate from the same source. No one is shouting about anything but you about supposed democratic hypocrisy, while yourself using the same source of figures to claim something that was the current estimate at the time is simply a lie.

And 2 years later when the real, non-rushed non-political estimates arrive ... that's when you know the Democratic Party just punk'd the country. Again.

The CBO takes the same time to score something prior to a bill being passed as it does when it scores things later. The CBO is not partisan and is led today by the same person that it was led by when the original estimate was made, which again covers a different period of the estimate you quote.

[ByeShea]

But how would anyone know it was off by a trillion at the time? Why is it not off by a trillion now? What makes the CBO estimate so much worse in 2009-2010 then it is in 2012? When it covers a 10 year period either way?

Because that absurd estimate was being used to sell an earthshaking, controversial bill.

OF COURSE IT WAS GOING TO BE OFF $1 TRILLION IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S FAVOR.

The shock of the century would have been this post-debate non-political headline:

""CBO significantly revises healthcare costs downward""

But we would have had a better chance of meeting Jesus.

[Shaudius]

Because that absurd estimate was being used to sell an earthshaking, controversial bill.

OF COURSE IT WAS GOING TO BE OFF $1 TRILLION IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S FAVOR.

The shock of the century would have been this post-debate non-political headline:

""CBO significantly revises healthcare costs downward""

But we would have had a better chance of meeting Jesus.

You do realize that's what happened last month though right, they did revise the net cost estimate down: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...82C19Q20120314

Of course we're taking about a decrease in net cost, and your figure is the Republican talking point of gross cost and again are comparing different periods of time, really the estimate isn't a trillion dollars more, its closer to 500 billion over the same period.

Yes, the Democrats used budget estimates and backloaded the implementation to make it seem like it would cost less, but they were factually accurate with their assertions over 10 years. Everyone does it, both sides of the aisle, but there's a difference between touting the figures of a non-partisan group which you properly cite, and flat out lying, which is what calling the Keystone pipeline domestic oil is doing as are other assertions you've made in this thread, including the weakness of the US dollar and attributing an unemployment figure to Obama which he never promised.

[ByeShea]

You do realize that's what happened last month though right, they did revise the net cost estimate down: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...82C19Q20120314

So when they're selling the bill: Obamacare is gonna cost $948 Billion.

Then when once too late to debate: By the way, Obama actually costs $1.76 Trillion.

And now that it's election season again: Great news, Obamacare is only gonna cost $1.71 Trillion. (and covering 5-7 million less people)

You and Obama are really on a roll, Shaudius.

[Shaudius]

So when they're selling the bill: Obamacare is gonna cost $948 Billion.

Then when once too late to debate: By the way, Obama actually costs $1.76 Trillion.

And now that it's election season again: Great news, Obamacare is only gonna cost $1.71 Trillion. (and covering 5-7 million less people)

You and Obama are really on a roll, Shaudius.

I don't know why I am bothering to respond because you seem to either be incapable of telling the difference between different periods of time or compare apples to apples. Here's a hint, your first figure, gross figure, your second figure gross figure, your third figure, a figure you just made up based on your inability to read and/or do math.

Here are the real figures:

Estimate at the time of passage : 2010-2019 Net Figure: 794 billion(Notice how this covers the period 2010-2019)
Last year's estimate: 2012-2021 Net Figure: 1.13 trillion(notice how this covers the period 2012-2021)
This year's estimate: 2012-2021 Net Figure: 1.083 trillion(notice how this again covers the period 2012-2021)

Now I did some extrapolating and said that Obamacare will cost at least in 2020 what it cost in 2019, to figure out what a 10 year estimate for the period 2012-2021 would have been at the time of passage and, shock of all shocks, this is the figure I came up with:

1.13 trillion dollars.

[ByeShea]

I don't know why I am bothering to respond because you seem to either be incapable of telling the difference between different periods of time or compare apples to apples. Here's a hint, your first figure, gross figure, your second figure gross figure, your third figure, a figure you just made up based on your inability to read and/or do math.

Here are the real figures:

Estimate at the time of passage : 2010-2019 Net Figure: 794 billion(Notice how this covers the period 2010-2019)
Last year's estimate: 2012-2021 Net Figure: 1.13 trillion(notice how this covers the period 2012-2021)
This year's estimate: 2012-2021 Net Figure: 1.083 trillion(notice how this again covers the period 2012-2021)

Now I did some extrapolating and said that Obamacare will cost at least in 2020 what it cost in 2019, to figure out what a 10 year estimate for the period 2012-2021 would have been at the time of passage and, shock of all shocks, this is the figure I came up with:

1.13 trillion dollars.

"See? Getting jumped and fukked in the a$s isn't so bad."

Except it is.

You should be wondering why you bother to defend Obamacare with this drivel, scratching your pen in figures of trillions. Please.

[Shaudius]

"See? Getting jumped and fukked in the a$s isn't so bad."

Except it is.

You should be wondering why you bother to defend Obamacare with this drivel, scratching your pen in figures of trillions. Please.

I'm done with you, you have been proved wrong so many times in this thread its enough.

[Shafted69]

Yo Sam. Can you give us an update on the GALLUP numbers as of today? My computer is broke & I can't log into gallup.com.

[Sam Odom]

Last I looked : Obama +5 or so

[Sam Odom]

Just went to Gallup...

Obama 49 / Mittens 43

Mitt +1 since last poll

[Shafted69]

Hey Sammy ! I'm on my cell can't get into Gallup. Can you tell me what the Gallup Approvals are today?

[Sam Odom]

Romney closed the gap some since you last asked

Barry 46
Mittens 45


Obama's fav job rating = 51%

[baskets]

can we get a human in 2012?

[dante1]

Job approval at this time in a Presidential race is much more accurate than weekly poll numbers. Gallup states that O approval rate is just a bit better than George W at this same time in his reelection bid. Claims that approval rate is what mattered in almost all elections results since WW II. If that is the case some more bad news for Mr. Stiff Man.

[baskets]

d, will u be betting for a human in 2012?