Forum Thread

Is Obama Back-Tracking?

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 7 Posts
  • Democrat
    Meridian, MS
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I just heard on the Ed Show that President Obama is now putting the big 3 on the table in is efforts to reach a "Grand Bargain" with the Republicans. This is offering even more than in Ryan's latest budget. How can he do this? Didn't he campaign and then win based on his promise to protest middle and low income earners? If he goes forward with this in any way, I say shame on him.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    michaels39301 Wrote: I just heard on the Ed Show that President Obama is now putting the big 3 on the table in is efforts to reach a "Grand Bargain" with the Republicans. This is offering even more than in Ryan's latest budget. How can he do this? Didn't he campaign and then win based on his promise to protest middle and low income earners? If he goes forward with this in any way, I say shame on him.
    I wouldn't worry too much, michaels. I am a firm proponent of a grand bargain to help get our Government out of these endless budgetary wars, but I don't think that President Obama would make any deal that didn't strengthen the Big 3 for the long run. I assume that when you say "Big 3," you are talking about Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security. You have to remember that Senate Democrats will never allow something to get through their chamber that guts the system, so I wouldn't wouldn't think for a second that any compromise coming out will have draconian changes to those programs. What is most likely to happen is....nothing. No changes at all. However, I do wish that our politicians could finally find the guts to come together and actually address some of the pressing problems that we have as a society.

    When you talk about the big 3, one has to recognize that they are three distinct programs. I am a firm proponent for a Single Payer System, aka Medicare for All. I am also realistic and understand that this will not be happening for another ten to twenty years, or until the corporations are tired of paying any benefit at all and force it on the government. As much as I'd like it to happen before that, it most likely will not. So, what do we do in the meantime before we catch up with the rest of the industrialized world that has a single payer system? Obamacare is a good first step and he's not going to allow it to be gutted. One of my favorite aspects of the bill is what Mrs. Palin famously derided as "death panels," a derogatory term that understandably elicited an outcry, but I do have to wonder what is wrong with having a professional counsel a 90 year old and their immediate family of the pain they will endure if they are a "full code," which means being resuscitated at all costs. As tough as end of life decisions are, we have to recognize as a country that we spend billions a year on individuals to keep them alive for a few extra days. I may sound cruel, but we have to start having this discussion as a society. If progressives can win that argument, then we will eventually have Medicare for all.

    I also don't see President Obama ceding one inch with regards to Medicaid. Medicaid is set to expand under Obamacare and I just don't see him negotiating on something that he fought so hard to get enacted into law. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

    With regards to Social Security--the answer is easy: Tax ALL of one's income instead of their first $113,700. If our government does that, then Social Security will be solvent for years upon years to come.
  • Democrat
    Meridian, MS
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Great response jared, and yes, I was referring to the three programs you addressed. I so hope you are correct, at least I fully understand and agree with your suggestion that the Senate would not allow any system-ending law to pass. Still wonder what made Obama do this.
    I realize it was only a discussion and behind closed doors when he brought this up to mostly, if not all, Democrats but he has fought so hard to get things to where they are. I sure agree with your S.S. suggestion too. Who could/would object to having all of one's income taxed to rescue our country? Can I assume this would include capital gains too, or would you leave that as is?

    Again, thanks for your response and thought.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    michaels39301 Wrote: I just heard on the Ed Show that President Obama is now putting the big 3 on the table in is efforts to reach a "Grand Bargain" with the Republicans. This is offering even more than in Ryan's latest budget. How can he do this? Didn't he campaign and then win based on his promise to protest middle and low income earners? If he goes forward with this in any way, I say shame on him.
    I wouldn't worry too much, michaels. I am a firm proponent of a grand bargain to help get our Government out of these endless budgetary wars, but I don't think that President Obama would make any deal that didn't strengthen the Big 3 for the long run. I assume that when you say "Big 3," you are talking about Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security. You have to remember that Senate Democrats will never allow something to get through their chamber that guts the system, so I wouldn't wouldn't think for a second that any compromise coming out will have draconian changes to those programs. What is most likely to happen is....nothing. No changes at all. However, I do wish that our politicians could finally find the guts to come together and actually address some of the pressing problems that we have as a society.

    When you talk about the big 3, one has to recognize that they are three distinct programs. I am a firm proponent for a Single Payer System, aka Medicare for All. I am also realistic and understand that this will not be happening for another ten to twenty years, or until the corporations are tired of paying any benefit at all and force it on the government. As much as I'd like it to happen before that, it most likely will not. So, what do we do in the meantime before we catch up with the rest of the industrialized world that has a single payer system? Obamacare is a good first step and he's not going to allow it to be gutted. One of my favorite aspects of the bill is what Mrs. Palin famously derided as "death panels," a derogatory term that understandably elicited an outcry, but I do have to wonder what is wrong with having a professional counsel a 90 year old and their immediate family of the pain they will endure if they are a "full code," which means being resuscitated at all costs. As tough as end of life decisions are, we have to recognize as a country that we spend billions a year on individuals to keep them alive for a few extra days. I may sound cruel, but we have to start having this discussion as a society. If progressives can win that argument, then we will eventually have Medicare for all.

    I also don't see President Obama ceding one inch with regards to Medicaid. Medicaid is set to expand under Obamacare and I just don't see him negotiating on something that he fought so hard to get enacted into law. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

    With regards to Social Security--the answer is easy: Tax ALL of one's income instead of their first $113,700. If our government does that, then Social Security will be solvent for years upon years to come.
    I just like to react on your last line; I suggest instead of taxing low incomes; get rid of some of the most wasteful programs of the government, like closure of a lot of bases, army, navy, airforce and projects whichswallow huge amounts for which we get nothing back, like the F35, Abrahams tanks, rusting new navy ships etc. Then introduce efficiency in the medical services and stringent control of doctors cost. Start taxing churches; property tax, income tax etc. By doing this we will have a surplus instead.
  • Democrat
    Lawrence, MA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Obama originally campaigned on a slogan of - "Yes! We can ." He should have gone all the way and said. " But we're not going to. "As the the nation ( the Republicans in particular) shift more and more the right it allows the Democrats to trail right along slightly behind them and become more right wiing themselves while still claiming the center. A nation based on two antagonistic sections of the economic body functions poorly when the voice of the majority has no real outlet.The Right wing thinks it is in good shape when the opposition is silenced . But the nation is then like an ocean liner that is listing bady to one side.....A poll on the Rachel Maddow's show last night said the 32% of Americans are anti capitalist......one third ....Where is the voice of this one third ? .......Attention ostriches! Heads back in the sand.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote: I just like to react on your last line; I suggest instead of taxing low incomes; get rid of some of the most wasteful programs of the government, like closure of a lot of bases, army, navy, airforce and projects whichswallow huge amounts for which we get nothing back, like the F35, Abrahams tanks, rusting new navy ships etc. Then introduce efficiency in the medical services and stringent control of doctors cost. Start taxing churches; property tax, income tax etc. By doing this we will have a surplus instead.
    I whole heartily agree with you, Dutch. I am a firm proponent of draconian cuts to our military and using those savings to invest in programs here at home. The only problem is that members on BOTH sides of the aisles have their pet projects and bases back in their home districts. Republicans and Democrats love those because they create jobs for the members of their home districts at the expense of America investing in many other projects that would have a far greater benefit to society as a whole.

    We already have stringent control of doctor's costs with Medicare and Medicaid. The Federal Government tells the hospitals, etc. how much they will spend that that's it. What we need is stringent control of private insurance costs. Whenever you have a for profit company deciding who gets what health care, then you are destined for prices that seem like they are on a runaway train. The one thing I wish that Obamacare did more of would be addressing this issue, but it is still a good first step in that direction.

    As much as I'd like to see church's taxed, I just do see it ever happening. Not in the short term at least. We already have a federal income tax, but I am a proponent of raising tax rates on nearly everyone. Taxes are at the lowest point they have been in generations and if American's want the Federal programs that they have grown to love, then we have to be willing to pay for them. That doesn't mean that it should be skewed disproportionately towards the poor. In fact, I believe that the poor shouldn't be paying any taxes at all. I think that we need to address capital gains and the other ways that the rich are able to skirt the system to their benefit. I agree with Warren Buffet when he says that there is no reason his tax rate should be so much lower than his secretaries.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote: I just like to react on your last line; I suggest instead of taxing low incomes; get rid of some of the most wasteful programs of the government, like closure of a lot of bases, army, navy, airforce and projects whichswallow huge amounts for which we get nothing back, like the F35, Abrahams tanks, rusting new navy ships etc. Then introduce efficiency in the medical services and stringent control of doctors cost. Start taxing churches; property tax, income tax etc. By doing this we will have a surplus instead.
    I whole heartily agree with you, Dutch. I am a firm proponent of draconian cuts to our military and using those savings to invest in programs here at home. The only problem is that members on BOTH sides of the aisles have their pet projects and bases back in their home districts. Republicans and Democrats love those because they create jobs for the members of their home districts at the expense of America investing in many other projects that would have a far greater benefit to society as a whole.

    We already have stringent control of doctor's costs with Medicare and Medicaid. The Federal Government tells the hospitals, etc. how much they will spend that that's it. What we need is stringent control of private insurance costs. Whenever you have a for profit company deciding who gets what health care, then you are destined for prices that seem like they are on a runaway train. The one thing I wish that Obamacare did more of would be addressing this issue, but it is still a good first step in that direction.

    As much as I'd like to see church's taxed, I just do see it ever happening. Not in the short term at least. We already have a federal income tax, but I am a proponent of raising tax rates on nearly everyone. Taxes are at the lowest point they have been in generations and if American's want the Federal programs that they have grown to love, then we have to be willing to pay for them. That doesn't mean that it should be skewed disproportionately towards the poor. In fact, I believe that the poor shouldn't be paying any taxes at all. I think that we need to address capital gains and the other ways that the rich are able to skirt the system to their benefit. I agree with Warren Buffet when he says that there is no reason his tax rate should be so much lower than his secretaries.
    Sure, I know not too many of the things I've said would fly; but I just about can guarantee that there will be no actual defense cuts; they already again signed a multi million contract with Nortrop-Grumman for the Navy this week etc.; this goes on like nothing is being controlled. On the church thing, I see a simular happening here in FL; they are buying up land like crazy, guess what for?. Sorry to say, pure bussiness ventures; so they laugh all the way to the bank without paying a cent taxes.
    Related to doctors cost see my past blogs; doctors still overcharge and get huge kickbacks from the pharma boys; What do they charge medicare for sitting 2 hours in their waiting rooms? What do pills really cost? No I do not agree with you about this, I can compare this what they charge in Europe for the same thing, which my wife does all the time. No it is a total rip off here!!!