Jenksismyhero

It says the net provision costs are now 1.24 trillion. That's still up from the 900 billion initially. They say the gross will be 1.7 but will be lessened by various premiums, tax revenues and fees. I won't hold my breath on the government collecting all that. Edit: and it also doesn't account for "federal administrative costs" which is another X tens of billions.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 14, 2012 -> 09:53 AM) No one, most of them don't have ID's and the poor have very low turnout rates even before that. And no, the cost didn't damn near double, you're comparing 2 different lines. The $1.7 line has gone up by $50 billion...that line is "Gross spending" while the number being reported as the cost to the Treasury relative to the baseline of not establishing this program has actually gone down by $50 billion because of slowing health care cost increases. You're looking at the change from 2011 estimates to 2012 estimates. I'm talking about the 2009 estimate spouted by the administration to pass the bill (900 billion) compared to what it is now (1.7 trillion). I also like the footnote, to the initial number from March 2011 to March 2012, wherein it repeatedly states something like "subject to further change." Yeah, i'm sure that change is going to go down.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 14, 2012 -> 09:21 AM) 1. Make projections from 2011-2020. 2. Pass law based on those projections. 3. 2 years pass 4. Make projections from 2013-2022. 5. Discover shockingly that the total cost has changed when the years included change. 6. Ignore whether or not the bill is actually paying for itself. 7. Angry! Lol, more like 1. Sell people on an "absolute necessity" 2. Promise the moon 3. 2 years pass 4. moon no longer available, but go ahead with mission anyway 5. watch as minions brush it off like it's no big deal Edit: and I'd agree with you if it was a minor cost adjustment. This is damn near doubled. In 2 years. What happens 2 years from now? And 2 years after that. And 2 years after that. etc etc. You can talk all you want about the supposed savings, but the fact is we didn't need to push this particular plan through, it didn't address any of the REAL issues, and it just put another 20 million Americans on the government teat. And guess who those 20 million vote for?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 14, 2012 -> 09:23 AM) Really, we're losing tax revenue? Compared to the possible situation of several hundred thousand (or if you believe everyone other than Kap, 2k5, and romney) several million people going from employed to unemployed? Tax revenue is the biggest gain out of all of this, except for maybe a few more credit default swap payments out of AIG. Kept enormous numbers of people off the rolls of unemployment and Medicaid and instead kept them as active taxpayers. Well, i'm still in the boat that the world wouldn't have ended if these companies had been allowed to die.

f***ing Bush, ruining the deficit 3 years removed. http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com...r-10-yrs/425831

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 13, 2012 -> 05:28 PM) Last time you posted this I wondered aloud if Hot Air had done some more journalism and posted an update now that the numbers are better? I didn't see one, but I gave it about a 30 second search.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 14, 2012 -> 08:59 AM) I think this is where the disconnect is - people seem to think the deal is done. It isn't. What I guess I should have said wasn't that it WENT well, but that it is GOING well. It is very likely GM will pay most of that money back. Chrysler already paid almost all of theirs back, last I checked. We're still like 12-13 bucks away from the stock price we bought at. So there's a chance we break even, but we're still going to lose money on this. At the very least we'll be losing some tax revenue.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 14, 2012 -> 08:33 AM) Some random musings from RealGM re: Pau to Chicago... Dammit, here comes another 20+ hours of constant twitter checking.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7683943/...n-orlando-magic Ugh, seriously. f*** this guy. He's bordering on Lebron level of douchebaggery.

+10000

Pau stuff might be dead before it started. KC Johnson reporting that the Lakers don't have any interest in Boozer and the Bulls are having a hard time finding a 3rd team.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Mar 13, 2012 -> 03:43 PM) Boozer's not really a 20 PER player. And Watson sure as hell isn't a 17 PER player. Blasphemy! My numbers are concrete!! -Hollinger

Going by the PER metric, Bulls are giving up quite a bit there.

I was against it if you have to give up Noah Deng or Gibson. But Boozer and Watson? Yes please. We can find another back up PG (hello Mike James)

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 13, 2012 -> 09:29 AM) By what measure? That is not in the neighborhood of what I have seen. It's dependent on the current stock price of GM, but as of November it was 24 billion. $25/share now, so a little lower. http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/17/good...s-14-3-billion/ But as that article notes, there were some tax-maneuverings that are covering up the "real" cost. Edit: I guess I shouldn't have said "right now." I thought this article had come out in Jan or Feb. My bad.

Apparently Howard has said he'd stay on as an assistant, so that's good.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 13, 2012 -> 12:52 PM) Apparently in that situation they would amnesty Bosh. Yeah, the money would still be tight, but if you have Howard, Lebron and Wade you could pick up nothing but d-league scrubs and still win it all.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Mar 13, 2012 -> 12:30 PM) If that managed to happen I'd definitely quit watching the NBA, it would be a waste of time and I think every non Heat fan would feel the same way. Can the Commish veto a FA signing? Wouldn't that just call into question the entire lockout we just had? Wouldn't that do some serious PR damage and result in a ton of lost ratings? I can't imagine the league would ever allow that to happen.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 13, 2012 -> 12:11 PM) If Indiana can come back from their black hole, Illinois can come back, you just need to both make sure you have quality facilties and have coaches who understand the position they're starting at. And Illinois isn't in the same boat as Indiana. Illinois still has talent and they've got some guys already committed. They just need a coach that can relate to that talent and maximize it. Next year is going to be rough, especially with Leonard gone, but they should still be a tourney team. My dream scenario is whatever new coach (Stevens/Smart/Marshall), Smith from Simeon as an assistant, Howard as an assistant, and whoever else the new guy wants to bring. That's more of a transition than the straight up rebuild.

It's historical. UCONN was nothing until the last 20 years. I don't understand why people can't read that list (and the summary of the list) and understand that. Illinois is a top 15 job. Anyone that thinks otherwise is out of their mind. From the recruiting base to the fans to the tradition. There are a select few powerhouse programs (UNC, Duke, Kentucky, etc), and then there's the level just underneath and Illinois is there. Funny that people point to the last 5-6 years to prove how average they've been, yet they ignore the decade before that, when they won 5 conference titles in an 8 year period.

On the news this morning they interviewed the league president and he said they would be returning the money. At first I thought that was dumb, but seeing as it became a big news story (national play) and it's only $1200 bucks, I bet someone else will pony up the money for the PR boost.

Lol, yeah that was a poor argument. Wasn't there something in the last few years about red meat lowering cholesterol? Edit: http://news.menshealth.com/beef-good-for-y...art/2011/12/20/

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 13, 2012 -> 08:54 AM) Which study are you referring to? I don't know of one specifically off the top of my head, just seems like there are studies on red meat all the time.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 13, 2012 -> 08:13 AM) I wonder if there are people out there who would consider this moderation. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012...ises-red-flags/ Considering studies come out every year with completely different results (red meat is bad, no red meat is good!) I put little stock in these studies. Especially when you consider other factors - diet, activity, genes - play a much larger role.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 13, 2012 -> 08:46 AM) Yeah, but he has a valid point. I don't even necessarily disagree with it - as I said, I didn't really favor Obama's approach when he took it. I was just saying, hey, as it turns out, they executed their plan pretty well, and it worked out quite well in the end. FYI we're down 25 billion on that deal right now, depending on the stock price of GM.