Skip to main content

View Diary: CBO: Obamacare will have lower premiums, insure more, and cost government less than projected (181 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Wait for it, when they stop calling it Obamacare (60+ / 0-)

    then you'll know they're ready to stop attacking it. Then they'll start taking credit for it with lines like, "Well it was TERRIBLE until Republicans forced Democrats to fix it. Remember the disastrous rollout? We told you. Thank the Republicans for fixing it." Then a few years later they'll rename it the Ronald W. Reagan Memorial Healthcare Plan.

    GOP 2014 strategy -- Hire clowns, elephants, and a ringmaster and say "a media circus" has emerged and blame Democrats for lack of progress. Have pundits agree that "both sides are to blame" and hope the public will stay home on election day.

    by ontheleftcoast on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 09:22:00 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Somehow the Repugs will find a way (17+ / 0-)

      to take credit for ObamaCares, that's for sure.  However, people are just beginning to get that the "launch," the "roll out," even though absolutely terrible has had absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the policy.

      This is a monumental achievement for President Obama and all those who have fought for reform of medical insurance.  It is, after all, a regulatory entity that has finally stopped the insurance industry from screwing its policyholders.

      •  Like Clinton Eliminating the deficit (24+ / 0-)

        They say the GOP forced him to do it however his first budget that raised taxes was passed with no republican votes and him putting 100,000 more police on the gov't payroll stimulated the economy.

        •  BINGO!! Not one Republican't vote. (20+ / 0-)
          They say the GOP forced him to do it however his first budget that raised taxes was passed with no republican votes....(emphasis added)
          And the Senate deadlocked 50-50, such that VP Gore had to break the tie. That legislation helped create the longest period of unbroken economic growth in American history.

          [That's so nice, I always say it twice: Clinton's legislation helped create the longest period of unbroken economic growth in American history.]

          "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

          by bartcopfan on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 10:14:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  and W's idiotic "laissez faire" approach (11+ / 0-)

            had led to one of the longest (in my memory ) periods of MIDDLE CLASS ECONOMIC STAGNATION.

            Pardon my unabashed French, but FUCK the Republicans - they have turned our government into a wealth spigot for the already-filthy-rich.

            America's LAST HOPE: vote the GOP OUT in 2014 elections. MAKE them LOSE the House Majority and reduce their numbers in the Senate. Democrats move America forward - Republicans take us backward and are KILLING OUR NATION!

            by dagnome on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 10:48:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Boy do you have your economics backwards (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mokurai

            shrinking deficits are by definition bad for GDP and economic growth as the Govts deficit = the private sector's surplus.

            Clinton rode one the largest debt bubbles in history and he set the stage for the criminal banking behavior of the 2000's with his repeal of Glass steagall and the commodities futures modernization act.

            Private debt bubbles are unsustainable and bad for the economy in the long run as depressions are essentially private sector debt deflations., Clinton should not be applauded for his role in this.

            http://static.seekingalpha.com/...

            http://soberlook.com/...

            "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens. The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it. If we can afford full employment killing Germans, we can afford full employment during peace-time.

            by Auburn Parks on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 12:39:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No argument on repeal of G-S (6+ / 0-)

              (other than that he enacted the Republican'ts' agenda--it wasn't his legislative initiative, nor his wife (but Sen. Phil Gramm's) subsequently enriched, sitting on Enron's board). But as far as the economics go, I'd respectfully suggest you may have your history backwards. I remember those times fairly well myself and the US economy was so energetic, even in semi-3rd world Oklahoma, a kid could get a job flipping burgers at McDonald's or other fast-food joints for double-digit hourly wages (I saw the pleas on their marquees).

              But inflation (which Rs usually go nuts about and besides, Greenspan (R-Ayn Rand) was still on the job at the Fed)) remained low and Big Dog created 22+ million jobs here at home. I don't think the dot-com bubble created all those jobs and the government debt/deficits were coming down so much/fast that the only problems worth discussing in America at the time was whether the president should be impeached for having a girlfriend and whether Elian Gonzales should be sent to live w/ his father in Cuba or handed over to a bunch of wingnut grifter relatives he'd never seen before.

              That's what I remember from the Clinton Boom.

              Now, if there was a private debt bubble, even as the public debt was being reduced mightily (achieving the first balanced budgets since LBJ), I'd ask what you would have had Clinton do about it. I remember Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" comment in the mid-to-late 1990s, but what I think I understand about central banking is that he's the one with his foot on the economy's gas/brake pedals. And woe to the president who tries to influence the (at least, nominally) independent Fed chairman.

              Of course, when W was (s)elected, after spending his entire campaign season talking down the economy, suddenly Greenspan and the conservative, corporate, compliant media didn't think deficit-reduction mattered anymore and the "problem" of paying off (virtually) all US government debt (forecast to occur in 2012) was about the only one they "solved". If Clinton presided over a bubble, then he was certainly (I guess you think) lucky or smart to schedule it to pop on W's watch. But I don't think it was luck.

              I think it was W's change in policies--massive tax cuts for top income earners (while pretending they're for the middle-class), massive defunding of federal and state government initiatives (and the economic stimulus they provide), and reaping the results of his own bad-mouthing of the economy. Certainly, ignoring Clinton-era warnings about international terrorism, as well as his own advisers' PDB, led to NYC's skyline being changed forever for the worse and (at least) two ill-advised and worse-executed wars, funded on the credit card we were well on our way to paying off. These were/are economic disasters I (and most Americans) would trade in a heartbeat for the Clinton '90s.

              Economically (and I do have an MBA, so I don't perceive myself as a complete idiot on the subject), I think it matters what is being deficit-spent on, but--rather than attending to our D+ infrastructure or real improvements in public education (rather than more defunding--and grifting for private and religious schools), as just a couple of possible examples--W's focus was on shoveling our tax dollars to his wealthy friends and well-connected donors to launch the 0.01% into orbit, esp. by laying off workers here and sending their (former) jobs overseas.

              My bottom line is this...if you're not a millionaire or a fetus, Republican'ts don't give a shit about you.

              "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

              by bartcopfan on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 04:01:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Evidence you are ignoring about the private (0+ / 0-)

                debt bubble that Clinton benefited from:

                https://research.stlouisfed.org/...

                http://static.seekingalpha.com/...

                Please review the evidence before repeating the same false claims.

                What can be done about private debt? Easy, much higher capital requirements, income verification, Income ratio's, there are a ton of ways to reign in bank lending and consumer or private debt. But that would hurt bank profits so they don't allow Congress to do that.

                And just so you know, the budget was back in deficit before the bush tax cuts. Thats what happens when the private sector saves money, some other sector must spend more than its income, usually that the Federal Govt as thats where dollars come from.

                http://soberlook.com/...

                "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens. The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it. If we can afford full employment killing Germans, we can afford full employment during peace-time.

                by Auburn Parks on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 04:49:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  CLINTON should have done this? (0+ / 0-)
                  What can be done about private debt? Easy, much higher capital requirements, income verification, Income ratio's, there are a ton of ways to reign in bank lending and consumer or private debt. But that would hurt bank profits so they don't allow Congress to do that.
                  Actually, I'm not certain that we're on opposite sides of this argument. My recollection is that these were tools in Greenspan's toolbox that he chose not to use. Recalling what I learned in history about the crash of 1929 and the Great Depression, I wanted him to start increasing margin requirements on stock purchases, but that never happened or even AFAIK got serious consideration. I knew things had gone nuts in the mid-aughts when I saw TV commercials offering 125% home equity loans. Again, was Clinton supposed to insist that Greenspan do...stuff? Especially when we have since found that Greenspan was even more opposed to gov't intervention than we'd already suspected, due to his previously-obscured Objectivist views?

                  I guess I'm not sure who the 'they' is that "don't allow Congress to do that". The banks? I don't have lots of doubt about that; as Dick Durbin said, "they frankly own the place."

                  After reviewing some of your links, I couldn't help noticing that the fastest-growing public debt came under St. Reagan and GHWB, then again under W. If those were glorious times for the nation and Clinton presided over America-the-Hellhole, I won't be able to convince you otherwise. I just disagree. And I'd love to put it to a vote.

                  "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

                  by bartcopfan on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 08:35:13 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Don't leave out the very essence of (0+ / 0-)

                    the great boom of the '90's.  The dot.com bubble.

                  •  WRT to Greenspan, Clinton, the Fed and regulating (0+ / 0-)

                    bank lending.....Greenspan and the Fed board of Govenors  are not elected representatives, therefore the ultimate responsibility for their actions fall on the elected leaders who appoint and confirm them.

                    As Bernanke explains under oath:

                    "We are the Agent of the Treasury, we will do whatever they tell us to do"

                    http://www.3spoken.co.uk/...

                    Greenspan has said essentially the same thing referring to Congress.

                    So yes, I expect my elected representatives to represent the people. Clinton the corporate Dems do not, they are only slightly less bad than Cons.

                    "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens. The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it. If we can afford full employment killing Germans, we can afford full employment during peace-time.

                    by Auburn Parks on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 04:58:17 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  And Yes, I was referring to the banks owning the (0+ / 0-)

                    place.

                    "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens. The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it. If we can afford full employment killing Germans, we can afford full employment during peace-time.

                    by Auburn Parks on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 04:58:40 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  "I couldn't help noticing that the fastest-growing (0+ / 0-)

                    public debt came under St. Reagan and GHWB, then again under W."

                    You are correct with Ronnie his average annual budget deficits were:

                    4.3% of GDP

                    And with those deficits and his private debt bubble of thhe S & L's the economy went from 10% unemployment to 5%

                    H.W. Bush had smaller average annual deficits:

                    3.975% of GDP

                    and W had historically small average deficits:

                    2 % of GDP

                    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/...

                    https://research.stlouisfed.org/...

                    So lets at least get our facts right.

                    "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens. The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it. If we can afford full employment killing Germans, we can afford full employment during peace-time.

                    by Auburn Parks on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 05:10:00 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  According to your STL FED link, the recession (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      raspberryberet, rabrock

                      started in January of 2008, a full year before the "Kenyan Usurper" took the oath of office. I certainly believe the facts indicate that the blame for the recession should go to W, not the guy trying to clean up the mess. Granted, PBO allowed President Snowe (et al) to vastly limit the size of the stimulus (to about 1/2 to 1/3 of what Krugman and others called for at the time), thus we're now still in an era of painfully-slow growth which is extending unemployment; deficits; and real, human pain unnecessarily. But Republican'ts won't permit any better and aren't being blamed nearly enough to change it.

                      I must say, you seem very willing to overlook W's "contribution" to our current situation ("...W had historically small average deficits...."). Yes, if you disregard that he came into office with budget surpluses 'as far as the eye could see' and that his (mis)administration's mishandling of the economy, including lax financial oversight by his regulators, enabled the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression). You also seem very willing to blame PBO just because he was the poor bastard standing there when the stuff hit the fan.

                      This next part may fit better below your next comment, but I'll put it here since it applies to the "W's deficits" comment above as well.

                      I don't have strong feelings about running relatively small deficits.  2% would be perfectly acceptable, simply as an amount. My issues, which I--apparently unsuccessfully--tried to convey in a previous comment, are, economically, about what the deficit is being spent on and, politically, that they only matter if a Dem is presiding over them. If it was investing in American infrastructure, medicine, R&D, and educating its people, I have no problem whatsoever with that and would even encourage it.

                      But that's not what W did w/ it. He gave it to the already-wealthy and they hoarded it, destimulating the economy. He blew it on wars of choice, esp. Iraq, driving up deficits (which, again,  obviously only matter when there's a Dem in the White House) and increasing costs, but w/ no return on investment. Then his anything-goes regulators failed to rein (like what controls a horse) in the anything-goes banksters. And when that party crashed, say w/ Lehman Brothers' failure in the fall of '08, he was close enough to the end of his term that the consequences fell on his successor.

                      Now. (Wow, these have really turned into 1000x more effort than I wanted to expend....) If you want to talk about private debt in terms of people's increased credit card and student loan debt, I'm game. My understanding is that going back to St. Reagan's era, when he did his reverse-Robin Hood act to take from the poor and middle-class to give to the well-off (including his and (guess who?) Greenspan's inter-generational sleight-of-hand on Social Security (raising retirement ages (it's already 67 for me) and cutting benefits)), families understandably tried to increase their income, first by sending women into the workforce (piggybacking on feminist callings of the time), then by charging up their credit cards. You (IMHO) rightly express concern about the limits of the latter tactic.

                      I'm not so partisan that I can't criticize a Democrat. I've already noted that Clinton enacted too much Republican't legislation and that PBO allowed his opponents to restrict his legislative freedom more than I think (even he would now agree) he should have. Since you apparently think WJC and PBO would/should have exercised free rein (again w/ the horse thing) and demanded that their Fed Chairmen acquiesce to their dictates, I guess I can criticize them for not dictating Fed policy (and goodness help the manufactured outrage industry had Democratic presidents even pretended to try to actually exert such influence).

                      But Clinton certainly didn't perceive his "free rein", shocked that his presidency hinged on the Federal Reserve and a bunch of fucking bond traders?  You accurately read the organizational chart, that the president appoints the Fed chairperson, but I don't think the dashed lines of authority agree w/ you.

                      And I'll be damned if I'm gonna point a bigger finger of blame at WJC & PBO than at Reagan/GHWB, W, and the congressional Republican'ts.

                      "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

                      by bartcopfan on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:07:54 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I never said W was not responsible. And I never (0+ / 0-)

                        said that Dem presidents are more to blame than Con presidents. Don't argue with strawmen please, thats what wingers do.

                        My original statement was that your understanding of economics is backwards. You were praising Clinton's surpluses, Surpluses are bad for the economy.

                        Deficits are by definition good for GDP and the private economy.

                        You obviously don't understand the difference between the currency issuer (Congress) and the rest of us currency users. This is what is backwards in your framework. And this is what I have tried to point out. But you don't seem to want to accept the obvious logic. Perhaps you would be better convinced by reading and seeing regular mainstream dignitaries say essentially the same thing I am saying. Please enjoy:

                        http://www.dailykos.com/...

                        "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens. The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it. If we can afford full employment killing Germans, we can afford full employment during peace-time.

                        by Auburn Parks on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 03:04:56 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  OK, I THINK we're converging on a solution. (0+ / 0-)
                          My original statement was that your understanding of economics is backwards. You were praising Clinton's surpluses, Surpluses are bad for the economy.

                          Deficits are by definition good for GDP and the private economy.

                          Or at least down to the crux of the matter.

                          Basically, my belief is in counter-cyclical budgeting (which I think is essentially Keynesianism); that the (federal) gov't should run large deficits during recessions to help stimulate demand and much smaller deficits (or even relatively-small surpluses) during economic expansions to help prevent overheating/inflation of the economy. This is what I saw WJC as doing and why I praise(d) him. In this way, the budget is roughly balanced over time (the business cycle). I also agree w/ your earlier comments about growing the money supply sufficiently to keep the economy moving, which I suppose would increase deficits (or reduce surpluses) slightly.

                          So. Where I see the crux of your and my disagreement is this, is it always true that:

                          Surpluses are bad for the economy....Deficits are by definition good for GDP and the private economy.
                          I would agree wholeheartedly that surpluses are terrible during weak growth, like we have now, and worse under recessionary conditions.  But those weren't the conditions under which WJC was running them.

                          During strong growth/expansion, deficits/stimulus would cause inflationary growth and eventually overspeed the economy--yet this is what slavish adherence to the "god" of the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) Republican'ts claim to worship (for everyone but themselves) would demand. You appear to endorse this as well: "deficits are by definition good for GDP and the private economy." Is that really what you mean? Because I think that would be terrible economics.

                          [Of course, a BBA would be just as terrible during a recession, when it would demand gov't cuts just when they were needed most. This used to be known as Hoover economics, since that's what he tried during the Depression and it made things worse, just as contractionary policy today (like the gov't shutdown and state/local gov't layoffs) makes the economy worse.]

                          My position is that deficits and surpluses both have their places in fiscal policy, deficits during recessions to stimulate recovery and surpluses during strong expansions to prevent inflation. Slavish devotion to either no-matter-what is poor economics and poor policy. And devotion to the wrong one (surpluses during recessions or deficits during expansions) is even worse.

                          So, is that a straw man argument?

                          "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

                          by bartcopfan on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 04:27:21 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  "deficits are by definition good for GDP..." (0+ / 0-)

                            This is a true macro economic statement. So its not terrible economics, its an economic tautology. Raising taxes or cutting spending is by accounting definition bad for GDP as GDP is Govt spending + Non-Govt spending - net imports.

                            Yes, there may be times when it is appropriate to run a surplus. Maybe the Clinton period was one of those times. But we have to recognize what was happening that made a surplus possible. A giant private debt bubble.

                            I would much prefer to have low private debt growth and high deficits as the method by which the money supply grows along with economic activity.

                            You seem to cheer on a high private debt low govt deficit model. This is the same model that conservatives use. Like I said, your economics are backwards. High levels of Private debt do nothing but exacerbate income inequality as more and more income goes to creditors over time to service existing debt. Its not economically healthy for the private sector to spend more than its income because we are all revenue constrained.

                            The US Dollar comes from the US Govt, so the responsibility should be Ours collectively to provide enough money and income to maintain full employment ad price stability. Because, We The People are not revenue constrained.

                            "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens. The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it. If we can afford full employment killing Germans, we can afford full employment during peace-time.

                            by Auburn Parks on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 04:53:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Funny, I can't STAND what conservatives do. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rabrock, RevBobMIB
                            You seem to cheer on a high private debt low govt deficit model. This is the same model that conservatives use.
                            I don't know how many ways I can say the federal gov't should have run up MORE debt after W's Great Recession, esp. when we could have borrowed at essentially 0% interest rate (and, hell, still can!). I was/am pissed that PBO allowed Snowe and his other mortal enemies to constrain him to a $700B stimulus (about half of which was tax cuts) when I'm arguing it should have been $2 TRILLION and focused on extending unemployment benefits, keeping state and local gov'ts funded so they wouldn't have the layoffs they did instead, and making direct payments to individuals (not banks) so they could stay in their homes rather than lose them in foreclosure; yet somehow I can't escape your claim that I'm a monomaniacal deficit hawk....

                            OK, instead of bitching uselessly, I'll ask you to please educate me on the private debt bubble WJC ruthlessly inflicted on America. Who or what borrowed it? What did they spend it on/invest it in? Who or what lent it? What should Vile Bill have done instead?

                            "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

                            by bartcopfan on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:05:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The Govt doesn't borrow money in the sense (0+ / 0-)

                            I assume you are using, there is no ""we got lucky that interest rates are so low so we can borrow more". The amount of interest we pay on Govt liabilities (Cash, Reserves, and T-bonds) is a political decision. The Fed and TSY are ultimately responsible for how much interest spending goes on.  Per the 1951 TSY-FED accord.

                            But I certainly agree with everything you are saying in your first paragraph (Minus the bit about borrowing and interest rates). So I'm not arguing with you about that stuff.

                            Its not a private debt bubble that Clinton necessarily 'inflicted" upon America.

                            Here's the logic chain:

                            Dems and Cons believe deficits and "debt" are inherently bad and immoral....."leaving debt to our children etc"

                            and they believe surpluses are good and something to strive for.

                            This belief has led to politicians  and most Americans implicitly or explicitly cheering on private debt bubbles as the means for growing the money supply and the economy, because that means the deficit can be smaller.

                            The deficit should simply be at least as high as the trade deficit and thats the baseline, from there, the best rule of thumb is:

                            If unemployment is too high => the deficit is too small
                            If inflation is too high => the deficit may be too big

                            "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens. The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it. If we can afford full employment killing Germans, we can afford full employment during peace-time.

                            by Auburn Parks on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 05:43:48 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  There are only 4 rules that we need to understand (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    reasonshouldrule

                    economics

                    1) All income comes from spending an vice versa. Nobody gives away free money (except for the Federal Govt).

                    so Spending = Income

                    2) All larger economies have more money than they did as smaller economics. In other words, a growing economy needs a growing money supply. This is because population and productivity growth are deflationary, and deflations are depressions, so the money supply must grow at least as fast as producitivity and the population to maintain stable prices.

                    3) Fiat money comes from 2 places, private bank loans expand the money supply, and deficit spending.

                    You are free to prefer private debt and bank loans as the means of growing the money supply, and I will continue to prefer free money from the Dollar issuer via the deficit as a better means of growing the money supply.

                    Want to put that up for a vote still?

                    Private banks vs We The People?

                    "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens. The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it. If we can afford full employment killing Germans, we can afford full employment during peace-time.

                    by Auburn Parks on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 05:15:20 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  bartcopfan (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                raspberryberet

                You are right on the money on this issue, and I taught MBAs, so I know what you and the rest of us are talking about.  But you and  Auburn Parks are arguing different issues, and for the most part, your general points agree.

                However, Auburn Parks IS forgetting about the history.

              •  @ bart, as I say (0+ / 0-)

                If you are not OLD, RICH, WHITE, AND MALE, you are a total fool if you vote for a teatard republiskunk for any office any where.

          •  It was a bubble (0+ / 0-)

            that let inevitably to a crash.

            Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

            by Mokurai on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 02:01:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Remember how our discussion began? (0+ / 0-)

            You said this:

            "Clinton's legislation helped create the longest period of unbroken economic growth in American history."

            Referring to the massive Clinton tax increases in 93.

            Do you still believe that Clinton's tax increase was responsible for the huge private debt bubble that fueled the late 90's growth?

            Do you still think that was a good policy?

            Do you advocate for huge tax increases right now, keeping in mind that Clinton raised taxes on everyone, not just the 1%?

            Do you think tax increases would be good for the economy right now?

            "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens. The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it. If we can afford full employment killing Germans, we can afford full employment during peace-time.

            by Auburn Parks on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 05:02:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I honestly don't think that will work. (5+ / 0-)

      They have been so against absolutely everything about Obamacare (even going so far as to say Obama was "cooking the books" about the positive figures) that pretty much everybody will know it's bullshit. Hell, I'd bet even the Dittoheads would know it deep down.

      Why do I have the feeling George W. Bush joined the Stonecutters, ate a mess of ribs, and used the Constitution as a napkin?

      by Matt Z on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 11:13:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't see this happening till 2017 (4+ / 0-)

      at the EARLIEST. It won't be until after Obama's out of office and then when the dust settles they'll try to rewrite history that they might benefit from politically...such as it was their healthcare plan the whole time, etc. But for now they'll be on the "Obamacare failure" meme for the short-term while the guy they name after him is still in office because it'll benefit them politically.

    •  You can tell that the GOP wants... (5+ / 0-)

      to ignore this story. There was no mention of this report anywhere on Drudge today and Fox News had the shortest article ever about this (and I only found it by searching their website as it wasn't listed on the home page).

      Looks like that repeal tactic isn't going to work for the GOP so well this November...

    •  Sabotage (0+ / 0-)

      Hopefully if the GOP tries to take credit for fixing the computer problems associated with the roll out someone will have the courage to point out the Right Wing websites that specifically instructed hackers on how to sabotage the government website and the roughly 20 cases of hacking dectected by Homeland security.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site