I'll Ask Again, In More Plain Words

[demwing]

1. Why did Obama bring up Medicare reforms while pushing a jobs bill?

2. When Obama says we need moderate reform to Medicare, while protecting current beneficiaries, why does he limit the field of protection? What happens to future beneficiaries?

3. Doesn't extending the cut on payroll tax deplete the Social Security fund?

4. The Jobs program will be paid for by cuts...cuts recommended by the super committee, and managed by a republican. What program do we assume is safe now, which will face the axe when Republicans have to come up with another 450 billions in cuts?

Bueller?...Bueller?

[gateley]

1. I only know the answer to #3, and it's basically 'yes' which

I heard from Bernie Sanders, although I think "deplete" is a bit harsh.

The rest you'll have to ask Obama. All we have are our opinions.

[mkultra]

4. Payroll is separate from med

[gateley]

7. I love your username! nt

[demwing]

28. agreed

it cuts into the SS fund, and I use deplete as defined here:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deplete

"To decrease the fullness of; use up or empty out...Deplete refers to using up gradually and only hints at harmful consequences: The campers' food supply was quickly depleted."

[KT2000]

2. the speech was his

start to the campaign.
Maybe he is trying to head off the republicans by using their talking points. Clinton often did that. But in Obama's case I think he is signaling his campaign policies.

[PATRICK]

17. Horrible politics

How is this not a gift to a platformless GOP? They CAN make it both ways against Obama. This is not the same when Clinton threw the poor under the bus at the behest of a GOP political adviser.

The poverty "reform" was sold maybe something like that Georgia chain gang revised model of reintroducing the poor into the workforce and even the participants felt pride and relief and hope in that component which I hear is melting away in the Depression while all the bad precedents have opened the door to just plain limiting welfare toward non-existence. There is nothing about tinkering with the financing that will concretely assuage the fears. "Tax cut" relief wasn't even acknowledged during the Obama stimulus so much so that many don't even know they have such cuts. That many is the supposed prime target again and again of centrist politics.

Having faith that this will actually benefit social security or medicare is the only thing carrying it forward. It comes at political cost everywhere not just to progressives. It does not pre-empt or render the GOP speechless. It gives them what they want, foam to foment useful lies and empowerment by precedent to really gut the social net.

An incumbent doesn't really run well on past or future promises but on the record and on the state of the nation. Real results pretty much better be damned good. Right now the campaign on both sides is a vying for attention in gridlock and avoidance of doing the right things by the people. Mere show is supposed to drive the hungry sheep forward. All we are being guaranteed is shearing and slaughter and maybe water for the survivors if we ever get anywhere at all.

Present politics/reality is madness no doubt. If Obama never becomes vulnerable enough for a despised, vacuous GOP to dredge up an alternative all campaigning except plain old noisemaking is moot. If he does sail pass that point guided by the mindless spectre of Reagan and some more serious 2016 dark horse trots in for the kill, they have so much to regret about their choices they won't be able to conceive of even doing that realistically. All Reagan had to do was despise the weak alternative and relish the Dem meltdowns even as his own mind visibly failed. Somehow there is a fatal reasoning that this must necessarily repeat itself- for a centrist Dem- with the true goofballs of the present hopeless field. Bob Dole was simply doomed by the booming economy.

[yurbud]

62. good plan: demoralize the base, embrace the unpopular ideas of your opponent, and

pander to the wealthy.

What could go wrong?

[KT2000]

64. Ohhh -

President Perry for one.

[yurbud]

65. why don't you guys just number your talking points so you don't have to waste time copy and pasting?

That might be a valid argument in the general election, but it ain't even primary season yet, so why don't you stow that shit?

If anything, criticism now could help get Obama's shit together for the general election.

[KT2000]

67. All I can say

is that your response was not consistent with the preceding conversation.

[tblue]

3. One thing Obama never does

is make us feel secure, like we're in good hands. Or that he's at least trying to protect us, or at least the least of us. Never.

Would he ever say, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself"? No! He'd say, "Fear the Republicans and their wrath. That's what I do."

I really do not understand what he understands his job to be. Good leadership is so totally lacking.

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. When you say "us", do you mean you and the o.p.? I've never felt more secure

in my life. You can only speak for yourself, because you sure as hell don't speak for me or the 81% of liberal Dems who approve of this president.

Just a note of caution for future broadbrush declarations. Kindly don't include me in your "us". ;)

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Solomon]

21. Well there you go.

"I hate this fucking President."

That's just sad.

[Tarheel_Dem]

45. Good thing I missed the deleted reply. Today may have been my banning day.

:hi:

[sofa king]

30. Then you have no idea what he's doing, or what he's done.

Go ahead. Spell it out for us, exactly why you hate this President. Try to give linked citations.

I'll bet you can't even read my reply to this second paragraph before you simply fire off one of Karl Rove's one-liners instead. If you do try to spell it out, all you can point to is right-wing press releases, the President's pre-negotiation statements (which he uses to lure Republican leadership into actual negotiations), and the comments of other uninformed readers here.

If you knew what he was actually doing, then you would see that everything the President is doing is directed toward permanently dismantling the Republican Party's base of support. He may not be a Democrat, but President Obama hates the Republican Party and is one of the most adept American politicians we've ever been blessed with, and he has done more in the past 30 months to wreck the GOP's stranglehold on American politics than Democrats have managed to do in the past 30 years.

So stop being an ignorant fool and learn what your President is doing to save this country. Only then can you float a stupid statement like yours and make it stick.

[Cal33]

32. I remember in 2008 when candidates were running for the presidency, the general

consensus of what the job would be like was: whoever wins the presidency
will need years just to clear out the mountain of crap that GW Bush has
unloaded onto our nation. I think Obama is still wading in the manure
right now, and the opposition party is piling on more of it, to make
sure that he never gets out of the mess, while trying to put the blame
on him for having created it.

[Itchinjim]

33. Whatever.

[Wait Wut]

34. He isn't a Democrat...

...because he didn't come here and say, "I'm a Democrat..."

I'm a Democrat and I LOVE this fucking President!

See...I even added an exclamation point to make my statement more profound.

[PATRICK]

15. I felt more secure

during the Cuban Missile Crisis. And no, I won't engage in a what if the current leadership was managing that one kind of useless debate. It's about feelings, better knowledge and maybe how I've changed.

If I knew then what I know now I would have been much more non-confident and frightened. WE felt we were in good hands and seemed to realize that as a vast majority. Now that I know better about the madness of the whole thing, Cold War included, and a few more things about the leaders with feet of clay and other things to do better than sanity I imagine, yes my feelings of security would be pretty much nil.

Would ANY of our modern leadership not be succumbing to stupid pressures and fears that somehow are more important than rights, lives, or the welfare of anything good and real? Obama's main irritation is time and again stated on DU not for being in a tough spot but a very gratuitous, even enthusiastic supporter of the main ills that are driving us toward many crises far less possible to stop or resolve, if not too late already. Well, it is too late already but it would be nice if the combined actual talent of the human race could be directed toward a dignified attempt OR a better world. Or if even a silver were permitted without suppression. Or some survival instinct other than mindless greed were in play.

My faith has been more restored in the fooled majority but removed from the betrayal of mythical leadership. My feeling is that we ARE in a helpless state careening to disasters and that only the people might do something to change it.

I can't feel more secure, and the stakes this time are not about some finger wavering over a button but the inevitable rush of nature in crisis and likely a matching meltdown in human civilization which probably only seems divorced from natural reality because we face the antics of a few hundred billionaires rather than the Communist bloc. Obama is not the One to blame, but no, he is not helping my confidence in the slightest, nor has he ever really chosen to do so. I feel my job, my health care, my pension, my family, my nation, my world under constant real threat and they ARE. Ignorance was bliss. No longer. A younger person maybe has a less spoiled experience horizon.

And thanks to utter lack of sane progress we still have the grand possibility of nuclear exchanges(almost seems a sideshow now) and the chipping away at unfulfilled treaties is more privileged than proliferation, but the putrid disease continues. Certainly more progress there than in actually getting sane political choices in America.

[Myrina]

37. Oh God, here we go with the Statistical Police again ...

One thing I learned in college is that statistics & poll questions can be - and are - built & manipulated to support desired outcome of the questioner. So, please do tell "us", who specifically is this "81% of liberal Dems" that keeps getting trotted out, and what specificially was the question they were asked, and when was it asked?

Because if you recall, on 9/15/01, approximately 95% of America approved of W.

[Number23]

44. Gallup.com has the answers to all of your "questions"

[Tarheel_Dem]

47. I'm glad you learned something in college.

;)

[Skittles]

55. MYRINA KNOWS THE SCORE

yes INDEED

[demwing]

56. From Gallup

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149225/Obama-Weekly-Average-Approval-Holds-Term-Low.aspx



I see Liberal support for Obama at 68% (not 81%), and that's down 11 points from June.

[OwnedByFerrets]

48. You feel secure?? In this fucking economy? Must be nice.

[Tarheel_Dem]

49. It is.

;)

[OwnedByFerrets]

50. Here, have some smug with that wink.

[Tarheel_Dem]

51. Why, thank you. I think I will.

:hi:

[demwing]

52. Thanks for bringing added value to this thread

:sarcasm:

Yeah I know - winky winky you're welcome....whatever

[Tarheel_Dem]

53. In order for that to happen, the thread would have had to have value to begin with.

;)

[demwing]

54. Back you go

winky winky

[woo me with science]

59. And here it is on display for all to see...again:

the compassion of the Third Way.

Self-centered, dripping contempt for people who are actually suffering - the same sort of crap posted every day at Free Republic.

[demwing]

60. I knw there was a reason I had that poster ignored

I just needed the reminder

[Exilednight]

63. I was thinking the same thing. Sounds like one of those "I got mine, fuck you" types.

[gateley]

8. Disagree. I've never felt more secure with the resident in the WH

than with Obama.

[SwampG8r]

11. i have no security issues with this president

he tucks me in every night and stays until im asleep

[Tx4obama]

13. Speak for yourself. I feel totally secure now that Obama is president. n/t

[woo me with science]

19. Millions jobless, foreclosed upon, and watching this President lead a bipartisan attack

on Social Security, Medicare, and the remaining safety nets.

Those who are feeling quite secure are pretty damned fortunate and ought to cultivate some empathy.

[MissDeeds]

22. Agreed n/t

[COLGATE4]

35. Agreed, +1. K&R

[Myrina]

36. +1

n/t

[Evergreen Emerald]

5. Because he wants to win the election

He will need republican support for Congress to pass a bill. He created a bill using republican ideals. If it passes it will strengthen the economy sufficiently for re-election (although on the backs of the middle class...and he has to sell his soul to do it).

If Congress does not pass the bill (or one similar) he has a campaign issue: the republicans are willing to tank the economy to win an election.

It is good strategy to win an election. It is bad for America if he is joining the republicans in the race to the bottom.

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. How is this Jobs Plan ...

Strengthening the economy ... on the backs of the middle class?

[ClassWarrior]

10. How is creating a bill using your opponent's ideals a "good strategy to win an election?"

"The losing strategy is to move to the right, to assume with Republicans that American values are mainly conservative and that the Democratic party has to move away from its base and adopt conservative values. When you do that, you help activate conservative values in people's brains (thus helping the other side), you offend your base (thus hurting yourself), and you give the impression that you are expressing no consistent set of values, which is true! Why should the American people trust somebody who does not have clear values, and who may be trying to deceive them about the values he and his party's base hold?..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

[Evergreen Emerald]

38. interesting editorial.

When I said that using opponent's ideas is a good strategy to win an election I was thinking about the arguments on DU and what Gibbs has said in the past: the democrats have no where to go and will support Obama despite his trek to the right. And the independent voters will be less willing to buy the media argument that he is left-wing and more willing to support him.

Regarding the editorial: I believe that term "progressive" was used to replace liberal after the republicans successfully redefined it as a dirty word. I do not necessarily agree with the editorial that Obama has gotten rid of the notion of left and right and center. I believe he is purposefully trying to work within the frame defined by the republicans and reinforced through the media.

For example, he allowed them to define the American problem as the deficit despite the fact that the issues is creating jobs. It is and has been since his election--yet for the past year the republicans diverted the talk to "deficit." They successfully slowed the economy through their re-framing of the issue and Obama did not fight for reality but rather worked within their framework, thereby helping them unseat dems in the last election and continue the economic down slide.

In his speech he did not highlight "liberal (progressive)" ideas: he used the republicans ideas when talking about how to pay for a jobs bill by messing with "entitlement programs" (another successful use of language redefinition by the republicans).

I fear is his helping the republicans lead us in the race to the bottom.

[ibegurpard]

58. exactly!

[democracy1st]

12. dayum near everything he's done has been republican,has it worked?

[Skittles]

57. you do understand he is not running as a republican

don't you?

[vaberella]

16. I'll see if I can answer.

Answer 1:

I believe it has to do with this article in politifact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/25/barack-obama/obama-says-medicare-and-medicaid-are-largest-defic/ So Obama was talking about this since the primaries. And also comments made below.

Isn't Medicare/Medicaid/and basically everything medical (because he mentioned the other programs as well) associated with getting everyone on an electronic system and updating the online system to allow better transparency for patients but also lowering the amount of waste in the medical system as far as tests go and medical mistakes. He's been talking about that since before HCR. It cuts down on waste---and brings in massive of number of new specialized jobs. All hospitals would have people handling that new database. Not to mention he had said he wanted Medicare to be similar to Veteran benefits so that would lead to a separate department--since Medicare is not run like Veteran's.


Here are some reasons for medicare reform that Obama has talked about and mentioned in this article---which answer some other parts of what you wanted for answer 1. Keep in mind that medicare/medicaid is far from perfect. So--there is a lot of room for changes and reforms and Obama himself has talked about these things in the past---much of which have been ignored through misinterpretation.

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/what-if-medicares-drug-benefit-was-more-like-the-vas/
http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2011/04/using-medicares-clout-to-negotiate-drug-pricesdid-obama-put-that-back-on-the-table.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/President44/story?id=6606536 <---Of course here people assume Obama will be eliminating medical transcription jobs---but you have to wonder how the the hell they came up with that sort of correlation which is far from true.


Answer 2:
Because hello...future beneficiaries will be going under way of the changes as they take place. Electronic medical system of sorts is more of a 5-10 year platform of change. While Current beneficiaries won't see immediate changes---the noobs might well be entering a new system of the way things used to work. As with any change there are unknown problems that can arise. I don't see what the big deal is. Not to mention the new format will have to be distributed and explained these are all platforms that will affect everyone.

Answer 3:

Yes and no. what it does is that it doesn't promote the 75 year solvency that could happen with an increase. However, it's only 75 years and we have to look at long long term. Additionally this 75 year solvency is seen as a regressive tax on workers. Now there's no proof to the extent at which a cut in payroll tax will affect Social Security. It's a risk but there's no real knowledge. However, if there is a roll back in the Bush tax cuts, which are expected.

Answer 4:

I don't know much about the super committee. However, from what I've read on how Obama interprets cuts, it's in ways to cut down on costs---as in waste within our programs. Medicare/Medicaid and the such are littered with fraud which costs the government quite a bit of money. So in cutting down on fraud on various reform measures that can be nipped in the bud. He's explained this a few times actually what he means by cuts. It has nothing to do with cutting the social program down to nothingness or a shell. It has to do with making sure that we cut down wasteful cost---which is best for us all since that's also our tax money being lost. Reform can be positive, it is not always negative---it just depends on how it's executed and by whom.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. 75 year solvency comes by lifting the cap. That only counts on

'worker's' incomes over 100,000. How is that regressive, in any way? Everyone pays it now on every dime up to the gap. Why not have those making such large incomes pay it on the rest of their large income as well? No reason at all. Oh, I forgot. The reason they will not is centrist/Republican ideology says 'don't do the right thing, ever'.

[demwing]

27. I appreciate your answers, even if I don't agree

Only 1 other reader (so far) has attempted an answer.

1. Why did Obama bring up Medicare reforms while pushing a jobs bill?

A. "Isn't Medicare/Medicaid/and basically everything medical (because he mentioned the other programs as well) associated with getting everyone on an electronic system and updating the online system to allow better transparency for patients but also lowering the amount of waste in the medical system as far as tests go and medical mistakes. He's been talking about that since before HCR. It cuts down on waste---and brings in massive of number of new specialized jobs"

Where are the numbers showing a "massive of number of new specialized jobs"? Again, this is a separate issue. It isn't a part of the Jobs Bill, and I don't see how it helps sell the Jobs Bill.

2. When Obama says we need moderate reform to Medicare, while protecting current beneficiaries, why does he limit the field of protection? What happens to future beneficiaries?

A. "Because hello...future beneficiaries will be going under way of the changes as they take place. Electronic medical system of sorts is more of a 5-10 year platform of change. While Current beneficiaries won't see immediate changes---the noobs might well be entering a new system of the way things used to work."

So let's pick a lane. Either the President wants the consummate change you described, or the moderate reform he mentioned, but didn't define. None of what you describe in answers 1 and 2 sounds like moderate reform, so how can we accept that the impact on future beneficiaries will not be cut related? It seems like a pretty important point. If the President was going to bother to bring it up, he should have clarified the point. He's not a poor speaker, so the muddy waters hear come off as intentional obfuscation.

3. Doesn't extending the cut on payroll tax deplete the Social Security fund?

A. "Yes and no."

Let's just stick with "Yes." The effect may be major or minor, but why, when Soc Security is under attack for being underfunded, are we talking about reducing funding to Social Security?

Again, what the hell does this have to do with creating a demand for workers?

4. The Jobs program will be paid for by cuts...cuts recommended by the super committee, and managed by a republican. What program do we assume is safe now, which will face the axe when Republicans have to come up with another 450 billions in cuts?

A. "it just depends on how it's executed and by whom"

Yeah. Exactly my point...

[DCBob]

18. To capture a few moderate GOPer votes so this thing passes.

Its not that complicated.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Moderate GOP!!!!! Yeah, that's a rare and glorious bird you seek

And when you find one, it is really hard to 'sex' them properly. What methods do you apply to tell the 'Moderate Republicans' from the 'Centrist Democrats'?
The 'Moderate GOP'. Just so funny. 'I'm a moderate allied with radical right wing obstructionist racist, but I myself am moderate.' What tripe. Moderate, but in a Party of extreme radicals. Would those 'moderates' remain Republican no matter how deep into radicalism their fellows fall? Do you, personally have any standards about that? I mean, if the GOP was actually pushing for say, impeachment, would those Republicans who went along with it more quietly be 'moderate impeachers'? If they voted to Impeach, would they still be 'moderate' in your eyes? If there is a line, where is it?
Or are they 'moderate radicals' just because they tell you they are?

[DCBob]

24. yes. agreed. I suppose I should have said non-terrorbagger Republican.

I suspect there are a few Obama could peel off to get this passed.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ibegurpard]

26. I think you know the answers already

[demwing]

29. I have a strong belief

but I am cautiously open to hearing differing opinions

[TheKentuckian]

31. The answers are self evident, the creativity is required to spin beneficial answers.

[demwing]

39. Unfortunately true

but very few have even tried to do that much here

[quiller4]

40. See items answered below:

1- Medicare must be reformed to remain solvent. Addressing this issue is key to support for jobs package from blue dogs and more than a few Rs.

3- Medicare will not change for current beneficiaries where higher income seniors already pay somewhat higher premiums. For future beneficiaries expect means testing such as the increasing of deductibles and co-pays for higher income seniors. The proposals coming out of think tanks talk about changes for seniors with incomes over $85,000 and use a claw back on tax returns to effect the increase of the deductible on the same group of higher income seniors who are already charged higher premiums. Current Part A deductible is $1132. Under some proposals, the hospital deductible would rise to $1500 and then $1725 for those with incomes over $85,000 and $107,000. The Part B deductible for these higher income seniors would rise from $162 to $202 and $227.

If higher income furture beneficiaries pay more for theis services then lower income future retirees can be better protected.

[demwing]

41. I appreciate your speaking to the Medicare portion, but am confused

A previous poster referred to a series of changes in Medicare that are entirely different from the changes you discussed.

Are there multiple changes proposed? Are one or both of you just speculating as to potential changes, or do you have some source for the figures you "quoted." If there are no settled on sets of changes, how can anyone be positive that they know how these "modest reforms" will affect future beneficiaries?

[FrenchieCat]

42. In reality the way I see it, and I believe that Quiller4 made the post that I was going to make...

you can either have the Democrats reform Medicare
or have the Republicans do it.

You may believe there isn't any difference on how that would be handled,
but there would be.

So the fact is that there are some that will fight any change no matter if it is actually a good change,
and that's dangerous.

[demwing]

43. What you wrote is essentially true

but I want to point out that my OP didn't question Obama's party affiliation, loyalty, yada yada. I know there are sub-threads that go there, but the OP did not.

On that not, lets go back to the subject line...

I stated that what you wrote is "essentially" true. I qualified my response because I don't see either party leadership behaving in the way that their party traditionally governs.

The Republicans have lost their mother fucking minds. They are so far to the right politically that they seem to be inventing a direction beyond right and left. I don't even know what to call it...It's insanity, is what it is. Ultra-right insanity.

The Dem leadership for the last 20 odd years (and yeah, they've been very odd), has edged further to the right, and now we seem to be lurching in that same direction. Not a smooth dance, but a drunken stumble.

I blame 9/11.

What I mean is I blame fear...The US was like a prize fighter that had never had to show that he could take a hit at home, not since WWII. Ben Laden knocked us in the jaw and shook our confidence. We eventually went the full 12 rounds and won, but that one match changed the way we see ourselves.

We are afraid as a country, and when people are afraid, they tend to think and act like animals or Republicans. not surprising, since both responses come from the same area of the brain. Now, post 9/11, Democrats are behaving like the Republicans, and Republicans are behaving like the animals.

So when you say we can have Dems reform Medicare, or Republicans reform it, you are essentially correct - but the end result will not be so simple.

If our Modern Dems reform Medicare, we'll likely get old-school Republican results, and if our Modern Republicans reform it, we're likely to get the political equivalent of that National Geographic special where a pack of hyenas rips an old and tired zebra into bit sized shreds.

So if you're really wondering why some people are unhappy about the times in which we live, that's why.

There's an common saying that I hate: "It is what it is." I can't stand it. It's defeatist, and demoralizing, and self serving. It's also often the truth, and it applies to our current political state. You must know that the VAST majority of us who criticize Obama will accept that sentiment (it is what it is...) before the GE, and vote for Obama in November '12. Just don't pretend it's something better than what it is, because we know its not. And don't expect us all to freaking enjoy it, because many of us just won't. Once again, it is what it is.

[Avalux]

46. Does everyone remember Bush's exclusive deal with drug cos. on Medicare?

Obama has eluded to it on several occassions....cuts need to be made on the supplier side; inflated costs the govt pays drug cos. instead of cutting benefits to recipients.

[quaker bill]

61. We have known Medicare needs reform for 20+ years

Personally I am all for socialized medicine. The current system does nothing to control costs and "market based" solutions never will. When you have broken your arm, you do not take bids on who will set it most affordably. You go to the nearest emergency room and get it set, then you pay whatever they charge.

Reform is needed, the concern is always over what form the reform will take.

[yurbud]

66. How is Medicare ''market based"?

Don't they have a set fee schedule that is below a lot of insurance reimbursements?

If anything, medical providers should not be allowed to decide whether or not they will take Medicare patients, and that would have some market effect too.