The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We won't ever be energy independent. Oil is sold by private companies to the most profitable location. Right now the U.S. is around tenth in oil exports even though we produce less than we use.

How about "significantly less dependent on foreign oil"?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Anybody else really tired of the 'Gang of Eight' or whatever number it ends up being for a given bill/session? The whole concept that somehow these people are the only ones that can craft or present bipartisan legislation just really drives me up a wall.

bipartisan agreement that it's stupid.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I hear a lot of contradictory things about how safe fracking is. Putting that off to the side, it would be wonderful to be a top energy - oil & gas producer (and teamed with Mexico and Canada).

It certainly changes the world dynamics if we become energy independent. I get Obama's base is more con vs pro but I think he should help us come to a middle ground.

How the US oil, gas boom could shake up global order - Open Channel

How is Obama's base more con vs. pro on increased energy independence?
The base is probably more pro environmental safety, but that's separate from energy independence (unless you believe that we can't extract more energy safely no way no how).

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We won't ever be energy independent. Oil is sold by private companies to the most profitable location. Right now the U.S. is around tenth in oil exports even though we produce less than we use.

Yeah, these guys aren't going to frack the hell out of the environment for 50/barrel oil. It'll always be expensive and we will never produce enough to lower costs. If costs drop, they will just hold off on looking for more.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

How is Obama's base more con vs. pro on increased energy independence?
The base is probably more pro environmental safety, but that's separate from energy independence (unless you believe that we can't extract more energy safely no way no how).

Yup, poorly stated. Obama's base is likely more con vs pro on fracking.

I don't know if we can extract/frack safely, have to read more on it. I have to believe (1) fracking will impact the aquifer and (2) big business have been known to lie.

[Edward64]

Is it me or does it seem that Obama is escalating tensions in Korean peninsula?

In the past, haven't we just said words and essentially ignored NK threats as rhetoric? It seems that we are now going out of our way to up the ante and show we aren't scared.

US Navy shifts destroyer in wake of North Korea missile threats - World News

The U.S. Navy is shifting a guided-missile destroyer in the Pacific to waters off the Korean peninsula in the wake of ongoing rhetoric from North Korea, U.S. defense officials said.

The USS McCain is capable of intercepting and destroying a missile, should North Korea decide to fire one off, the officials said.
:
On Sunday, The United States sent F-22 stealth fighter jets to South Korea as part of military exercises in a move aimed at further deterring threats from North Korea against its neighbor.
:
The F-22 jets' arrival follows other recent displays of air power by the U.S. in South Korea. Last week B-52 bombers and B-2 stealth bombers were sent to the country for the annual exercise.

[Dutch]

Sending a single destroyer is not exactly an escalation. I'd call that interpretation media-hype.

[Edward64]

Been reading a little more on fracking. Obama is certainly for the energy output of fracking but not sure about fracking itself. I suspect yes from how he highlighted it in his speech but probably doesn't want to come out and say it to give him some future wiggle room.

President Obama Gets It: Fracking Is Awesome - Forbes

In his State of the Union address tonight President Obama said:

“After years of talking about it, we are finally poised to control our own energy future. We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years. We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas, and the amount of renewable energy we generate from sources like wind and solar – with tens of thousands of good, American jobs to show for it. We produce more natural gas than ever before – and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it.”

Yes indeed, thanks to fracking, crude oil production in the United States is surging. From a low of 5 million barrels per day in 2008 output has shot up in a hyperbolic curve to 7 million bpd as of last week.

The last time America’s petroleum output was that high was back in 1992 — 20 years ago.

What’s more, U.S. imports of petroleum have fallen to the lowest level since 1999. (Below 10 million bpd today versus 14 million bpd in 2005.)

Due to a 12% decrease in gasoline consumption during the last four years of recession, we’re using less petroleum too.

The result is that our exports of petroleum products are up nearly 150% in three years to a record $140 billion. As hyperbolic as the increase in oil production has been, so has the decrease in our petroleum trade deficit, falling from $360 billion a year ago to an annual rate of $224 billion today (less than half the $500 billion annual oil deficity of 2008).

This is an awesome accomplishment. And it is all thanks to fracking. Without the techniques of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, this Great American Oil & Gas Boom would simply not exist.

What’s more, as President Obama said tonight, “over the last four years, our emissions of the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet have actually fallen.”

That’s right, whether you think carbon emissions are dangerous or not, the fact is that they have fallen. According to this report from the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases fell 4.6% in 2011. Most of this decrease was due directly to the decreasing use of coal in power plants and the increase in combustion of clean-burning natural gas.

And thanks to fracking, there’s plenty more natural gas to displace coal.

Power plants are by far the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, accounting for 2.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions (67% of the total).

No wonder President Obama said tonight that “my administration will keep cutting red tape and speeding up new oil and gas permits.”

That’s music to the ears of the oil and gas industry.

But then why does the president have to go and mess it up? In his speech tonight he said:

“Indeed, much of our new-found energy is drawn from lands and waters that we, the public, own together. So tonight, I propose we use some of our oil and gas revenues to fund an Energy Security Trust that will drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good. If a non-partisan coalition of CEOs and retired generals and admirals can get behind this idea, then so can we. Let’s take their advice and free our families and businesses from the painful spikes in gas prices we’ve put up with for far too long.”

First of all, we don’t need any new federal bureaucracy, and we certainly don’t need any portion of the $10 billion in federal royalties from oil and gas production on federal lands to go into a slush fund from which bureaucrats get to pick pie-in-the-sky technologies to invest in.

As far as I can tell, this idea of an Energy Security Trust comes from this ill-fated house bill from 2009 that sought to tax carbon dioxide emissions and direct the tax into a trust fund that would pay for alternative energy research and (bizarrely) offset payroll taxes for poor families.

An energy trust fund is a terrible idea, and could well be considered a backdoor approach to reopen the debate on the national carbon tax. We don’t need either.

Society already benefits tremendously from cheaper, more plentiful American oil and gas. Thanks to fracking, lower natural gas prices already save consumers $100 billion a year – far more than any crumbs the federal government might want to dole out. What’s more, the energy industry doesn’t need the government’s help when it comes to investing in energy infrastructure or research and development. This year American oil and gas companies will make well over $100 billion in capital investments, with Chevron and ExxonMobil alone accounting for $70 billion.

Thanks to fracking, the United States can become not only energy independent of the rest of the world (oil will still be a global commodity with prices set on the world market) but definitely more energy secure. Fracking saves us money; fracking creates jobs; fracking reduces greenhouse gas emissions. God bless fracking.

[larrymcg421]

I'm convinced that if fracking were as safe as its proponents claim, it wouldn't have so many exceptions written into environmental laws like the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Air Act.

[Marc Vaughan]

Personally speaking I think Fracking and the Monsanto protection act are short-termist thinking which will eventually come home to roost in a very bad way environmentally speaking ... time will tell.

[SirFozzie]

You know, at some point, the Right of Right Wingers have to be so far right that they end up on the left side right?

(Rand Paul) has lent his name to fundraising pitches for the National Association for Gun Rights, a group that says the National Rifle Association is too willing to compromise on gun rights.

Rand Paul-backed group attacks Republicans - Kate Nocera - POLITICO.com

[Dutch]

I would say that support for the 2nd amendment (or support for any of the amendments) is a hardline centrist position.

[SirFozzie]

Well, you're welcome to that opinion Dutch.. of course, I think you'd be in a vast minority with that, but hell, it's America, you're free to be wrong (as am I)

[JPhillips]

If you want to be a hero Senator you can get away with Paul's games, but that means you won't be President. It takes a village, Rand, and you're burning the village down.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Well, you're welcome to that opinion Dutch.. of course, I think you'd be in a vast minority with that, but hell, it's America, you're free to be wrong (as am I)

I would hope we would all defend all amendments equally if a foreign enemy tried to strip us of any of them....even the ones we don't neccessarily understand. But you have to first recognize the diversity of our nation as a strength and not the selfish strength of your particular community to understand that centrist position.

[miked]

I think Dutch is right, in theory, that support of the amendments should be centrist. I think unrestricted, unequivocal support of something that was enacted 200 years ago with no idea what was to come is a little silly.

The Supreme Court has held time and again that the right to bear arms is not without limits. So seeking where those limits should be seems pretty reasonable.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I would say that support for the 2nd amendment (or support for any of the amendments) is a hardline centrist position.

Don't bother with the liberals... now that Obama is in office they don't care about the 4th amendment much either.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by panerd

Don't bother with the liberals... now that Obama is in office they don't care about the 4th amendment much either.

Arguably the Patriot Act didn't do much for the 4th either.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Arguably the Patriot Act didn't do much for the 4th either.

Absolutely agree. Both parties choose which part of the constitution they wish to destroy when "their guy" is in office. This was my point exactly. For at least our lifetimes the 2nd amendment has been a big staple of the right and the 1st/4th of the left. My point being now that Obama is in office the 4th means nothing anymore.

Like Dutch said don't know how any of these are up for debate but if you choose to strongly defend free speech and the right to bear arms you are somehow labeled as "unelectable". Kind of sad actually that you need to shit on the Constitution to be "electable"

"Obama is wrong on the 4th amendment BUT" or "Bush is wrong on the 4th amendment BUT..." nonsense that allows both parties to slowly take away freedoms.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

Absolutely agree. Both parties choose which part of the constitution they wish to destroy when "their guy" is in office. This was my point exactly. For at least our lifetimes the 2nd amendment has been a big staple of the right and the 1st/4th of the left. My point being now that Obama is in office the 4th means nothing anymore.

Like Dutch said don't know how any of these are up for debate but if you choose to strongly defend free speech and the right to bear arms you are somehow labeled as "unelectable". Kind of sad actually that you need to shit on the Constitution to be "electable"

"Obama is wrong on the 4th amendment BUT" or "Bush is wrong on the 4th amendment BUT..." nonsense that allows both parties to slowly take away freedoms.

I'm pretty sure just about every liberal who posts in this thread does not like the Patriot Act, so your typical act of making inaccurate assumptions and grouping people together is unnecessary.

And the original post about Rand Paul was just saying that it's pretty extremist to say that the NRA is too willing to compromise. You can like the 2nd Amendment and think that's a pretty crazy position to take.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm pretty sure just about every liberal who posts in this thread does not like the Patriot Act, so your typical act of making inaccurate assumptions and grouping people together is unnecessary.

Why confine it to "this thread"? The renewal of the Patriot Act got a good deal of votes from Democratic Representatives and Senators.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm pretty sure just about every liberal who posts in this thread does not like the Patriot Act, so your typical act of making inaccurate assumptions and grouping people together is unnecessary.

And the original post about Rand Paul was just saying that it's pretty extremist to say that the NRA is too willing to compromise. You can like the 2nd Amendment and think that's a pretty crazy position to take.

Nah I was actually talking about the Congress and their voting records (which are hard to dispute but I guess you can explain some of the flip flopping in between presidents) but I guess I am the only one making assumptions.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Why confine it to "this thread"? The renewal of the Patriot Act got a good deal of votes from Democratic Representatives and Senators.

He prefers ad hominem responses when he gets his panties in a wad.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Why confine it to "this thread"? The renewal of the Patriot Act got a good deal of votes from Democratic Representatives and Senators.

Well, the response by Dutch was to a liberal on this board and Panerd said, "Don't bother with the liberals." So even if you were to show that liberals elsewhere supported it, that's kind of a worthless response if liberals on this board do not.

However, if you look at the roll call votes for the renewal of the Patriot Act, while many Democrats did support it, there were also many that voted against and those were liberals.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

Nah I was actually talking about the Congress and their voting records (which are hard to dispute but I guess you can explain some of the flip flopping in between presidents) but I guess I am the only one making assumptions.

So when you told Dutch not to bother with liberals, you thought Dutch was talking to a Congressman and not SirFozzie?

[larrymcg421]

So let's take a look at those voting records:

In the Senate, there was one Democrat who voted against the Patriot Act in 2006 when Bush was Pres and voted for when Obama was Pres

Levin (D-MI)

However, there were 5 more that went the opposite way (supporting it under Bush, opposing it under Obama)

Baucus (D-MT)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Udall (D-NM)


In the House, there were 10 Democrats who voted against the Patriot Act in 2006 when Bush was Pres and voted for when Obama was Pres

Collin Peterson
Corinne Brown
Gary Ackerman
George Butterfield
Jay Inslee
Joe Baca
Nick Rahall
Nita Lowey
Stephen Lynch
Susan Davis

However, there were 5 more that went the opposite way (supported it under Bush, but opposed)

Brad Sherman
Gene Green
Marcy Kaptur
Rick Larsen
Robert Andrews


So you have a grand total of 11 Democrats who suddenly supported it when Obama came into office against 10 Democrats who suddenly opposed it when Obama came into office. Everyone else who was in office in both 2006 and 2011 voted exactly the same both times.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Sending a single destroyer is not exactly an escalation. I'd call that interpretation media-hype.

An uptick in the rhetoric. I don't recall us using "clear and present danger" before.

North Korea warns its military allowed to wage nuke strikes against US - World News

North Korea escalated its provocative rhetoric on Thursday, warning that its military is authorized to wage "cutting-edge smaller, lighter and diversified" nuclear strikes to protect against the United States.

"The moment of explosion is approaching fast. No one can say a war will break out in Korea or not and whether it will break out today or tomorrow," read the statement of an unnamed military spokesman.

The statement was carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Wednesday that North Korea's latest provocations are "a real and clear danger and threat" to U.S. interests and Washington is taking them seriously.

[PilotMan]

The only reason there is a supposed escalation is because nobody is paying attention to NK anymore. They have to keep upping the ante just to get a response. I really want to see them attempt something where China doesn't just smack them down for being stupid.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

Absolutely agree. Both parties choose which part of the constitution they wish to destroy when "their guy" is in office. This was my point exactly. For at least our lifetimes the 2nd amendment has been a big staple of the right and the 1st/4th of the left. My point being now that Obama is in office the 4th means nothing anymore.

Like Dutch said don't know how any of these are up for debate but if you choose to strongly defend free speech and the right to bear arms you are somehow labeled as "unelectable". Kind of sad actually that you need to shit on the Constitution to be "electable"

"Obama is wrong on the 4th amendment BUT" or "Bush is wrong on the 4th amendment BUT..." nonsense that allows both parties to slowly take away freedoms.

Almost everyone, including Rand Paul, agrees that there should be some limits on what arms can be owned by civilians. The argument is about where to draw the line. That isn't an argument of strict constructionist vs. radical liberals. Rand thinks assault weapons are fine, but RPGs and .50 caliber machine guns aren't, the crazed liberal just adds assault weapons to Paul's list. You can disagree with that, but the difference isn't nearly as stark as you would like to portray.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Almost everyone, including Rand Paul, agrees that there should be some limits on what arms can be owned by civilians. The argument is about where to draw the line. That isn't an argument of strict constructionist vs. radical liberals. Rand thinks assault weapons are fine, but RPGs and .50 caliber machine guns aren't, the crazed liberal just adds assault weapons to Paul's list. You can disagree with that, but the difference isn't nearly as stark as you would like to portray.

You hit on what annoys me so much about politics. Everybody characterizes their opponent as being diametrically opposed to them when in reality, the differences are far narrower. Nobody is willing to determine where in the middle is the right place, they just characterize a shift in any direction to be tantamount to a move to the full extreme position.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If you want to be a hero Senator you can get away with Paul's games, but that means you won't be President. It takes a village, Rand, and you're burning the village down.

Ten hours later...

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Almost everyone, including Rand Paul, agrees that there should be some limits on what arms can be owned by civilians. The argument is about where to draw the line. That isn't an argument of strict constructionist vs. radical liberals. Rand thinks assault weapons are fine, but RPGs and .50 caliber machine guns aren't, the crazed liberal just adds assault weapons to Paul's list. You can disagree with that, but the difference isn't nearly as stark as you would like to portray.

So which is it?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

Ten hours later...



So which is it?

The point of the first is that Rand is backing ads hitting the GOP leadership. He can't win the nomination if the GOP establishment is pissed at him. Ron was his own guy, but he didn't go out of his way to anger party leaders.

[Edward64]

I don't think the comment about the AG is appropriate as president and I'll take it as a joke that went a too far. The WH hostile work environment is a surprise.

I do think in a earlier time, Obama (color not withstanding) would be more akin to JFK and Clinton than Carter.

Obama rekindles talk about boys club after comment about California attorney general - The Washington Post

President Obama reopened the debate Thursday over whether his administration is too influenced by men after praising the looks of Kamala Harris, California’s attorney general and a possible future gubernatorial candidate.

“You have to be careful to, first of all, say she is brilliant and she is dedicated and she is tough, and she is exactly what you’d want in anybody who is administering the law, and making sure that everybody is getting a fair shake,” Obama said at a party fundraiser in Atherton, Calif., a wealthy suburb of San Francisco. “She also happens to be, by far, the best looking attorney general in the country.”

As the crowd laughed, Obama added, “It’s true! C’mon.”
:
:
Since early in his first term, Obama has been accused of running a West Wing dominated by men, many of whom he has known for years.

Female staff members complained internally about the macho feel of the West Wing in his first term, and Obama reportedly took their concerns seriously.

In his book “Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President,” the writer Ron Suskind quoted former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn as saying the West Wing “would be in court for a hostile workplace.”

“Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women,” Dunn was quoted as saying.

She later said Obama, after being told of the women’s concerns, addressed them.

But Obama’s early selection of men to fill key Cabinet positions in his second-term administration revived the criticism.

[Edward64]

Not sure what to think yet but the Second (or is it Third) Act is just starting.

Obama budget would cut entitlements in exchange for tax increases - The Washington Post

President Obama will release a budget next week that proposes significant cuts to Medicare and Social Security and fewer tax hikes than in the past, a conciliatory approach that he hopes will convince Republicans to sign onto a grand bargain that would curb government borrowing and replace deep spending cuts that took effect March 1.

Obama will break with the tradition of providing a sweeping vision of his ideal spending priorities, untethered from political realities. Instead, the document will incorporate the compromise offer Obama made to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) last December in the discussions over the so-called “fiscal cliff” – which included $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction through spending cuts and tax increases.
:
:
Through that pact and earlier agreements, Congress and Obama have already agreed to reduce the annual budget deficit – how much more the government spends than it collects — by $2.5 trillion over the next decade. If left in place, the deep spending cuts that took effect March 1, known as sequestration, would reduce the deficit by an additional $1.2 trillion over the same period. That would be just about enough to keep deficits from rising and to stabilize the debt, as measured as a percentage of the overall economy.

Obama’s budget proposal, however, would eliminate sequestration and replace it with a variety of other deficit reduction measures, together worth $1.8 trillion, according to White House estimates. The deficit, which is projected this year to be equal to 5.5 percent of the size of the economy, would shrink to 1.7 percent of the economy by 2023. By comparison, the House Republican budget — which would curtail spending on dozens of programs for the poor, repeal Obama’s health-care law and partially privatize Medicare for people now younger than 55 — aims to eliminate the deficit by 2023. A more liberal plan passed by Senate Democrats would make the deficit 2.2 percent of the size of the economy by that point.

The budget is more conservative than Obama’s earlier proposals, which called for $1.6 trillion in new taxes and fewer cuts to health and domestic spending programs. Obama is seeking to raise $580 billion in tax revenues by limiting deductions for the wealthy and closing loopholes for certain industries like oil and gas. Those changes are in addition to the increased tobacco taxes and more limited retirement accounts for the wealthy that are meant to pay for new spending.

The budget proposal slices $200 billion from already tight defense and domestic budgets. It would cut $400 billion from Medicare and other health programs by negotiating better prescription drug prices and asking wealthy seniors to pay more, among other policies. It would also generate $200 billion in savings by scaling back farm subsidies and federal retiree programs, among other proposals.

The proposal to change the formula to calculate Social Security payments, also originally part of the offer to Boehner, would generate $130 billion in savings and $100 billion in revenue, a result of the impact of the formula change on other government programs. But it is the change in Social Security payments to most recipients that is likely to generate the greatest outcry from the Obama administration’s traditional allies.
:
Two upcoming debates will provide opportunities for lawmakers and the White House to revisit those cuts and debate Obama’s budget offer. This summer, Congress will once again be forced to raise the federal debt ceiling or risk a default on the national debt. Republicans in February decided not to mount a fight over the debt ceiling, as they had in 2011, and it is not yet clear whether they will oppose an increase this time. In addition, Congress and the White House will have to agree to a new budget plan at the end of September.

Although it is conciliatory, the White House argued that Obama’s budget should not be seen as list of options that Republicans can choose from. It made clear that the GOP must accept nearly the entire offer of tax hikes for spending cuts in order to strike a deal.

[JPhillips]

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict the GOP says this is DOA.

[Edward64]

I get a lot of people would say this is a waste of money but I've always had a fondness for NASA and would support the use of $2.6B tax payer money to fund this. I think the science/technology that comes out of this would be cool.

President Obama to direct NASA to grab an asteroid, send astronauts - The Washington Post

The next giant leap in space exploration may be a short hop on a small space rock.

Next week, President Obama will request $105 million in NASA’s 2014 budget for a mission that would capture a small asteroid, tug it near the moon, and later send astronauts to study it and grab samples.

The asteroid-capturing robot could launch as soon as 2017, with astronauts flying to meet it near the moon by 2021, according to a NASA briefing presented to Congress last week.
:
:
Crews visiting the captured asteroid could conduct experiments in extracting water, oxygen, metals and silicon, all valuable materials that would help future astronauts “live off the land” during long missions.

On Friday, Senator Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), a big NASA booster, championed the project, saying it “combines the science of mining an asteroid, along with developing ways to deflect one, along with providing a place to develop ways we can go to Mars.”

Under the plan, an Atlas V rocket would launch the robotic craft toward a 20- to 30-foot-wide asteroid. Upon arrival, the craft would deploy a big bag, stuff the asteroid into it and start motoring toward the moon. The Space Launch System and Orion would later deliver the human crew.

A 2012 study estimated that moving an asteroid to the moon could take six to 10 years, pushing the timeline for a human asteroid landing beyond 2021. NASA would ultimately need $2.6 billion for the robotic capture phase, according to the study from the Keck Institute for Space Studies, and billions more for the human mission.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I get a lot of people would say this is a waste of money but I've always had a fondness for NASA and would support the use of $2.6B tax payer money to fund this. I think the science/technology that comes out of this would be cool.

President Obama to direct NASA to grab an asteroid, send astronauts - The Washington Post

If they're going to that kind of stuff, might as well just target the moon rather than waste time roping in an asteroid.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

If they're going to that kind of stuff, might as well just target the moon rather than waste time roping in an asteroid.

I actually think its a worthwhile project - possibly more so than the moon (unless you're building a moon base with a manufacturing capacity) ...

My reasoning is simply that asteroids have potentially travelled huge distances so might tell us information about remote regions they've travelled through in some manner etc. all of which we might not discover any other way at present.

[Edward64]

Not sure how much doing similar on the moon would cost but suspect it is more than asteroid.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Not sure what to think yet but the Second (or is it Third) Act is just starting.

Obama budget would cut entitlements in exchange for tax increases - The Washington Post

Any word on what the tax increases are?

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict the GOP says this is DOA.

It depends on what the proposed tax increases are. Obama already got his tax hikes on the rich (not to mention the "surcharge" on top of that they will also be hit with due to Obamacare).

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Any word on what the tax increases are?



It depends on what the proposed tax increases are. Obama already got his tax hikes on the rich (not to mention the "surcharge" on top of that they will also be hit with due to Obamacare).

Boehner rejected it and admitted he hadn't read it.

Why the hell Obama is so desperate to be seen as the one who will cut SS and Medicare is beyond me. If it happens in a bargain, fine, but just like 2010 and Medicare, in 2014 the GOP will run endless commercials saying Obama wants to cut SS, and this time they'll be right.

Oh, and it would also be good if we tried to give people jobs. Shockingly, contractionary fiscal policy is contractionary.

Vote Dem in 2014 we won't fix the economy and we'll cut SS!

Fucking spineless morons.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Boehner rejected it and admitted he hadn't read it.

Why the hell Obama is so desperate to be seen as the one who will cut SS and Medicare is beyond me. If it happens in a bargain, fine, but just like 2010 and Medicare, in 2014 the GOP will run endless commercials saying Obama wants to cut SS, and this time they'll be right.

Oh, and it would also be good if we tried to give people jobs. Shockingly, contractionary fiscal policy is contractionary.

Vote Dem in 2014 we won't fix the economy and we'll cut SS!

Fucking spineless morons.

Medicare has to be reformed...SS does too, but it's a simple fix, but it will require some short-term moderate pains.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Medicare has to be reformed...SS does too, but it's a simple fix, but it will require some short-term moderate pains.

SS is a simple fix by either increasing retirement age, reducing benefits etc. I do not think Medicare is an easy fix.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Medicare has to be reformed...SS does too, but it's a simple fix, but it will require some short-term moderate pains.

I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing the politics of proposing the cuts knowing the GOP will say no and then giving the GOP ready made ads to scare seniors. It would be different if you believed the GOP would work with you, but this is the exact same plan they ran on in 2010 to devastating effect.

But at least David Brooks or the WaPo editorial board will write something nice about Obama.

[Dutch]

I wonder how President Bush's 2005 social security reform (privatizing investments for individuals) would be looking right now in this booming market?

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I do not think Medicare is an easy fix.

Where do I start, Medicare is extremely over legislated and has so much internal excess that the first place they (CMS) looks at is streamlining and trimming the fat.

They spend hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars on external agencies auditing Medicare payors and Medicare replacement plan payors, sometimes 2-3 times a year.

They have advisory committees and peer review committees that release weekly updates on changes/potential changes that nearly require a fulltime person at most plans to track, not to mention the strain it puts on medical providers. Often these 'change' proposals drag on for months, change annually or even more frequently. Why? Sometimes it is hard to figure out why, though I suspect many of the salaries that go to the committees that are in charge of these things could be well served spent elsewhere.

Despite all this going on within CMS, they still manage to never get their internal pricing calculators released on time, which creates hundreds of thousands of wasted dollars with health insurance companies and medical providers in rework when they do finally get them out. Who do those loses get passed on to? Yep, the consumer in higher healthcare costs, higher premiums and reduced benefits.

We are in the second quarter of 2013 and they have still not released their ESRD pricing logic and the pricing logic for multiple inpatient services (Psych, Long Term Care, etc) yet either.

They have mandated that state Medicaid agencies provide enhanced payments to PCP's that meet certain criteria for E&M services (I.E office visits) and preventive care (mostly immunizations) effective 01/01/2013, however state Medicaid payors are unable to pay those enhanced payments until CMS gives final approval of each states implementation, which will be July 1st at the earliest and knowing CMS, likely October. Once they give this approval, all claims that qualify from dates of service 01/01/13 and on have to be reconsidered to pay the enhanced payments. This will literally cripple payors if this has to be done claim by claim, vs. a mass payout, which appears how it will have to be done now.

I could go on, but basically Medicare is an easy fix......The agency (CMS) that oversees it just needs to look in the mirror and do some serious internal reorganization instead of continuing to bleed millions of dollars every year on all the preventable bullshit above.

Will this happen? Doubt it, because it simply makes too much sense.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

They spend hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars on external agencies auditing Medicare payors and Medicare replacement plan payors, sometimes 2-3 times a year. ... The agency (CMS) that oversees it just needs to look in the mirror and do some serious internal reorganization instead of continuing to bleed millions of dollars every year on all the preventable bullshit above. Will this happen? Doubt it, because it simply makes too much sense

And yet Congress micromanages the USPS.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Where do I start, Medicare is extremely over legislated and has so much internal excess that the first place they (CMS) looks at is streamlining and trimming the fat.

They spend hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars on external agencies auditing Medicare payors and Medicare replacement plan payors, sometimes 2-3 times a year.

They have advisory committees and peer review committees that release weekly updates on changes/potential changes that nearly require a fulltime person at most plans to track, not to mention the strain it puts on medical providers. Often these 'change' proposals drag on for months, change annually or even more frequently. Why? Sometimes it is hard to figure out why, though I suspect many of the salaries that go to the committees that are in charge of these things could be well served spent elsewhere.

Despite all this going on within CMS, they still manage to never get their internal pricing calculators released on time, which creates hundreds of thousands of wasted dollars with health insurance companies and medical providers in rework when they do finally get them out. Who do those loses get passed on to? Yep, the consumer in higher healthcare costs, higher premiums and reduced benefits.

We are in the second quarter of 2013 and they have still not released their ESRD pricing logic and the pricing logic for multiple inpatient services (Psych, Long Term Care, etc) yet either.

They have mandated that state Medicaid agencies provide enhanced payments to PCP's that meet certain criteria for E&M services (I.E office visits) and preventive care (mostly immunizations) effective 01/01/2013, however state Medicaid payors are unable to pay those enhanced payments until CMS gives final approval of each states implementation, which will be July 1st at the earliest and knowing CMS, likely October. Once they give this approval, all claims that qualify from dates of service 01/01/13 and on have to be reconsidered to pay the enhanced payments. This will literally cripple payors if this has to be done claim by claim, vs. a mass payout, which appears how it will have to be done now.

I could go on, but basically Medicare is an easy fix......The agency (CMS) that oversees it just needs to look in the mirror and do some serious internal reorganization instead of continuing to bleed millions of dollars every year on all the preventable bullshit above.

Will this happen? Doubt it, because it simply makes too much sense.

This. I worked for a contracting group doing some Medicare IT work for about two years in Baltimore. The amount of wasted taxpayer dollars I saw during my time there would have made most citizens vomit on the spot.

[Marc Vaughan]

Just allowing government health organisations to negotiate freely with regards to pricing for drugs would HUGELY reduce health costs in the US imho - it amazes me for a country so proud of its free-market roots it has a system wholly rigged purely to generate money for corporations.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Where do I start, Medicare is extremely over legislated and has so much internal excess that the first place they (CMS) looks at is streamlining and trimming the fat.

They spend hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars on external agencies auditing Medicare payors and Medicare replacement plan payors, sometimes 2-3 times a year.

They have advisory committees and peer review committees that release weekly updates on changes/potential changes that nearly require a fulltime person at most plans to track, not to mention the strain it puts on medical providers. Often these 'change' proposals drag on for months, change annually or even more frequently. Why? Sometimes it is hard to figure out why, though I suspect many of the salaries that go to the committees that are in charge of these things could be well served spent elsewhere.

Despite all this going on within CMS, they still manage to never get their internal pricing calculators released on time, which creates hundreds of thousands of wasted dollars with health insurance companies and medical providers in rework when they do finally get them out. Who do those loses get passed on to? Yep, the consumer in higher healthcare costs, higher premiums and reduced benefits.

We are in the second quarter of 2013 and they have still not released their ESRD pricing logic and the pricing logic for multiple inpatient services (Psych, Long Term Care, etc) yet either.

They have mandated that state Medicaid agencies provide enhanced payments to PCP's that meet certain criteria for E&M services (I.E office visits) and preventive care (mostly immunizations) effective 01/01/2013, however state Medicaid payors are unable to pay those enhanced payments until CMS gives final approval of each states implementation, which will be July 1st at the earliest and knowing CMS, likely October. Once they give this approval, all claims that qualify from dates of service 01/01/13 and on have to be reconsidered to pay the enhanced payments. This will literally cripple payors if this has to be done claim by claim, vs. a mass payout, which appears how it will have to be done now.

I could go on, but basically Medicare is an easy fix......The agency (CMS) that oversees it just needs to look in the mirror and do some serious internal reorganization instead of continuing to bleed millions of dollars every year on all the preventable bullshit above.

Will this happen? Doubt it, because it simply makes too much sense.

And yet its overhead is still lower than private insurers.

The reality is the country is getting older. The only way to solve that is some combination of raising taxes, reducing provider reimbursements or paying for fewer treatments.