And if he liked the conclusion of the CBO, he would be citing it in his talking points. Conservatives are shameless hypocrites.

S2U,
I know facts elude you sometimes, but perhaps you should do some research on your own before forming your opinion. Obama is not being honest in his assessments. Case in point:

A group of Republican senators, led by Jeff Sessions and Judd Gregg, are accusing the Democrats of double-counting Medicare tax hikes and spending cuts as both extending the solvency of the program and paying for expanded healthcare coverage. So they asked the CBO for its opinion.

Here is the CBO’s response:

The key point is that the savings to the HI trust fund under the PPACA would be received by the government only once, so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending on other parts of the legislation or on other programs. Trust fund accounting shows the magnitude of the savings within the trust fund, and those savings indeed improve the solvency of that fund; however, that accounting ignores the burden that would be faced by the rest of the government later in redeeming the bonds held by the trust fund. Unified budget accounting shows that the majority of the HI trust fund savings would be used to pay for other spending under the PPACA and would not enhance the ability of the government to redeem the bonds credited to the trust fund to pay for future Medicare benefits. To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government’s ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government’s fiscal position.

Pay special attention to the last sentence.

@MichelleF: I apologize for stepping over the line into saying something purely political, but…

I assume the CBO didn’t count the savings twice, so basically an administration accountant may have made a wrong assumption or an error in their analysis… mission accomplished?

MichelleF, it seriously sounds as if you are attempting to speak about healthcare SPECIFICS. That, of course, is UNACCEPTABLE!!! Those SPECIFIC questions mean you are AGAINST healthcare reform and HATE the POTUS.

What a JOKE of an argument people!!! WAKE UP!!! But yes, this is seriously the defense and REASONING of the POTUS and progressive’s.

Let’s imagine for a minute a CEO of one of those EVIL CORPORATION’S was attempting to pull an accounting trick similar to this (an Enron or WorldCom cookie jar reserve, fictitious/shell entity, manipulation gimmicks, etc). When confronted about the SCAM, instead of elaborating on the accounting issue, the CEO said, I can’t talk specifics; just remember my goal is to make money.

You’ve got to be kidding me!!! OK, now multiply the # of people affected by about ~1million AND substitute the amount of MONEY with 1/6th of the US economy. THIS IS SHAMEFUL!!!

@same2u: To be fair, back during the Ronald Reagan/Tip O’Neill years, the CBO was often painted as an arm of the Democrat majority and at that time, when it didn’t serve the Republican’s interest, they’d often question their analysis.

I agree, Mr. Chairman. The Cheekago way seems to have gotten to the cbo, finally. It was just a matter of time…

WaterLoo says:
March 18, 2010 at 7:03 pm

Someone’s about to lose their cap lock privileges.

WaterLoo – I MUST insist THAT as A matter OF protocol, YOU capitalize EVERY other WORD. Thank YOU.

Olby – I see YOU’RE still TRYING for A coherent THOUGHT. Good FOR you, I’M in YOUR corner!!

the CBO must perform the analysis under the assumptions provided. Garbage in, garbage out. It’s the credibility of the assumptions that must be challenged.

How they did an analysis of a bill before it is finalized is another mystery for the ages…

Here’s a link to an analysis decrying the inaccuracy of the CBO–when it’s projections were used to support Bush’es tax cuts: http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/issuebriefs_ib154/

The bottom line: the bill doesn’t address the cost of treatment, only who pays. 10% more people covered with same number of people paying–or perhaps even fewer. The rest is sleight of hand.

I think this is all a smoke screen. This is what the Dem’s want the public to focus on and not Obama’s claim that “we are going to fundementally change this country” and when Polosi said, “this is only the start of the legislation” or when Obama said, ” i am for a single payer system, we can’t get there overnight, but i will happen. Canada didn’t start out as single payer either”. The libs are attempting to do a total makeover of this great country and fortunately, the folks are waking up to it. I just hope it’s not too little too late.

Olby Sucks says:
March 18, 2010 at 7:11 pm

I agree, Mr. Chairman. The Cheekago way seems to have gotten to the cbo, finally. It was just a matter of time…

—

Last I checked, Jeff, Chicago was solvent. That’s much more than we can say about your home state of California under its Republican governor.

Don’t call Arnold a Republican. We don’t claim him!

MichelleF says:
March 18, 2010 at 11:57 pm
Don’t call Arnold a Republican. We don’t claim him!

There’s an R next to his name and he was supported by the Republican party during his last election.

You say that Republicans don’t claim him, yet the party’s actions say otherwise.

Good news!!

Caterpillar: Health care bill would cost it $100M.

http://www.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/03/caterpillar-health-care-bill-would-cost-it-100m.html

On the plus side, the IRS is adding tons of jobs!!!!

America passes a milestone! We now have more poeple employed in government than manufacturing and construction.

The saying God Bless America has never been more true!!!

More about the smoke and mirrors of the CBO report.

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/EXCLUSIVE__Democrats_plan_doc_fix_after_reform.html?showall

Democrats will be pointing to this preliminary CBO score as if it is engraved on stone tablets. Republicans will proclaim their respect for the CBO and proceed to argue that its estimates should not be taken too seriously in this instance. This may come as a surprise, but I think the Republican argument is closer to correct. To crow, as did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, that the package is “a triumph for the American people in terms of deficit reduction” is premature at best, delusional at worst.

That’s none other than Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus — no conservative acolyte she — in an op-ed today entitled in the print edition, “Score one for skepticism.”

Did you support the Bush Tax Cuts Michelle?

Did you support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Did you support Medicare part D?

None of those items were “paid for”, and turned what was a Budget Surplus in 2000 into an $8 Trillion dollar deficit before Obama was sworn in.

It’s only NOW, that you have a problem with the Congressional Budget Office’s accounting techniques?

But hey, what did your Hero, Dick Cheney say about all this?

“[Paul] O’Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush’s economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from “the corporate crowd,” a key constituency.

O’Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. “You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: “We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due.” A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.

Source: [X-ref O'Neill] Adam Entous, Reuters, on AOL News Jan 11, 2004

–Cobra