Mytzlplk
Governor
while considering quotes from alleged far left sites/sources a sin. When will republicans/cons come to understand that the truth doesn't care who utters it, but we should all care all about profuse lying like Faux Views does? The only mystery in the unholy marriage between Faux Views and the repub party, is who is acalling the shots, no? I think the worm turned on the repub idiots a long time ago.
Fox News has a long history of pushing Republican talking points -- sometimes keeping the GOP's typos http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/02/10/fox-passes-off-gop-press-release-as-its-own-res/147384 intact.
In uncritically presenting the GOP graphic, Fox ignored how Republicans and their media allies have routinely exaggerated the cost of the ACA. Indeed, Fox and others had previously claimed that the ACA's cost had "doubled" from $900 million over 10 years to $1.7 trillion, the chart's third number. In fact, the CBO found that the cost had actually decreased.
The Republicans' latest number of $2.6 trillion is also dubious. According to The Weekly Standard, that number is based on a "Senate Budget Committee analysis (based on CBO estimates and growth rates)." The Standard did not explain how the Republicans computed that number, beyond repeating the discredited claim that the original estimate showed "only six years of spending under the plan in the original 10-year budget window."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/07/29/fox-pushes-gops-dubious-claims-of-health-care-r/189008In uncritically presenting the GOP graphic, Fox ignored how Republicans and their media allies have routinely exaggerated the cost of the ACA. Indeed, Fox and others had previously claimed that the ACA's cost had "doubled" from $900 million over 10 years to $1.7 trillion, the chart's third number. In fact, the CBO found that the cost had actually decreased.
The Republicans' latest number of $2.6 trillion is also dubious. According to The Weekly Standard, that number is based on a "Senate Budget Committee analysis (based on CBO estimates and growth rates)." The Standard did not explain how the Republicans computed that number, beyond repeating the discredited claim that the original estimate showed "only six years of spending under the plan in the original 10-year budget window."
