Obama '08?

I don't know how you can deny the massive federal deficit and massive 'promised benefits' that our country finds ourselves in today. These weren't implemented in the last 10 years that I've been able to vote; they were implemented in the last 50 years that YOU were.

If people over 50 years had done a better job of electing leaders with enough sense to pay as you go and be good stewards of the enviornment many, many, many of our problems today and the burden you've laid on your children's, and grand-children's, and great (great, great, great?) - grandchildren's backs is reprehensible.

My generation isn't as pissed as they should be...but they're getting there.

In 40 years, if my generation hasn't been able to do any better than yours, I hope my children/grandchildren feel the exact same way.

Then I misunderstood your position on healthcare. I had the impression you were holding out for single payer, Medicare - like legislation. Or were you thinking it would be free?

I know it won't be free....I just want it paid for.

I would prefer something like Medicare for all (in general, I'd like some extras, like incentives to create more doctors, etc), assuming that it was paid for.

The problem I have with previous generations is that they haven't paid for these entitlements they think they now have 'earned.' I mean, they allowed the SS trust fund to be raided for the last 30 years so even that program, while it looks good on paper for another 40-70 years, in reality there is no trust fund so it's really going to start causing problems this year. Medicare is paid for right now....but in 7 years it baloons to levels that we currently have no plan to pay for.

My #1 priority is fiscal responsibility. If that means sacrificing universal health insurance, then so be it. Fiscal responsibility first.

It is very similar to Romneycare, which is very popular in MA. It will, however, need to be adjusted soon. It presently pays pretty much what the doctor bills, which is not sustainable.

(Good afternoon. As a total aside, I invite you to visit the thread started years ago called Supreme Court Candidates. It has been dormant since May of 2009.
Justice Stevens has indicated his intention to retire after the Court's current session - which I think would be early 2011, giving President Obama another chance to nominate a candidate. Liberal replacing a liberal, perhaps. Where it gets interesting is the fact that Justice Stevens is the only Protestant on the Court dominated by Catholics and Jews.
Stop by that thread if you have any interest).

Here's your topic. I am really going to have to take time to describe link posting.

http://able2know.org/topic/34108-1

This is interesting, our govt authorizes the murder of a US citizen.
Since this admin promised "hope and change" does this mean we can expect them to sanction the murder of other American citizens.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36208306/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/

I can't figure out why they announced it. Wouldn't that give him time to dig in somewhere?

I think, Irishk, that the LA Times broke the story.
I am not sure, MM, what you point is. The United States, as is noted in the article, targets people regarded as "terrorists." Mr Anwar al-Awaki seems to fit that description. Whether you or I agree with that policy is probably not germane.
It seems to me that there are some folks who are troubled over the fact that he is a U.S. citizen who seems to have become a terrorist threat to his country of birth.
I would appreciate you expanding on your thoughts about this. Thank you.

I read about it in the New York Times. Comments were interesting...a mix of outrage and good-it's-about-time.

Maporsche wrote:



That is exactly why Obamacare is unsuuprtable.

Here is what Dr. Bernanke had to say about the future of our economy yesterday.
It mirrors maporsche's comments.



What about the longer term? The economist John Maynard Keynes said that in the long run, we are all dead.5 If he were around today he might say that, in the long run, we are all on Social Security and Medicare. That brings me to two interrelated economic challenges our nation faces: meeting the economic needs of an aging population and regaining fiscal sustainability. The U.S. population will change significantly in coming decades with the combined effect of the decline in fertility rates following the baby boom and increasing longevity. As our population ages, the ratio of working-age Americans to older Americans will fall, which could hold back the long-run prospects for living standards in our country. The aging of the population also will have a major impact on the federal budget, most dramatically on the Social Security and Medicare programs, particularly if the cost of health care continues to rise at its historical rate. Thus, we must begin now to prepare for this coming demographic transition.6

The economist Herb Stein once famously said, "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop."7 That adage certainly applies to our nation's fiscal situation. Inevitably, addressing the fiscal challenges posed by an aging population will require a willingness to make difficult choices. The arithmetic is, unfortunately, quite clear. To avoid large and unsustainable budget deficits, the nation will ultimately have to choose among higher taxes, modifications to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, less spending on everything else from education to defense, or some combination of the above. These choices are difficult, and it always seems easier to put them off--until the day they cannot be put off any more. But unless we as a nation demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility, in the longer run we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth.


Read the comments of the HEAD of the Federal Reserve--Dr. Bernanke--

H2O man--I think there may be some people--very few--mainly wonks in public service who understand Obamacare. Some of these people do not, I am afraid, understand the UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES of Obamacare.

Be that as it may, H20, if you are interested in seeing what the "threat" of Obamacare is causing in the USA, go to the "Real Clear Poliltics" site. As an introduction, I will reference part of that site to show you how the Democratic Candidates are in very very bad trouble in the elections forthcoming(November)

Here are the current polls for Governor--Note that ONLY TWO of the governors races show Democrats in the lead. The others in the lead are Republicans.

**************************************************************
Email This Page to a Friend | Print This Page

Latest Election Polls
Election 2010 PollsState of the UnionHealth CareAll Latest PollsWednesday, April 07
Race (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Massachusetts Governor - Baker vs. Patrick vs. Cahill Rasmussen Reports Patrick 35, Baker 27, Cahill 23 Patrick +8
Massachusetts Governor - Mihos vs. Patrick vs. Cahill Rasmussen Reports Patrick 38, Cahill 33, Mihos 15 Patrick +5
Georgia Governor - Republican Primary Insider Advantage Oxendine 26, Handel 18, Deal 9, Johnson 5 Oxendine +8
Connecticut Governor - Foley vs. Lamont Rasmussen Reports Foley 44, Lamont 37 Foley +7
Connecticut Governor - Foley vs. Malloy Rasmussen Reports Foley 44, Malloy 35 Foley +9
Illinois Governor - Brady vs. Quinn PPP (D) Brady 43, Quinn 33 Brady +10
Pennsylvania Senate - Democratic Primary Quinnipiac Specter 53, Sestak 32 Specter +21
Pennsylvania Governor - Democratic Primary Quinnipiac Onorato 20, Wagner 13, Hoeffel 15 Onorato +5
Generic Congressional Vote Gallup Republicans 46, Democrats 46 Tie
Generic Congressional Vote Rasmussen Reports Republicans 47, Democrats 38 Republicans +9
Pennsylvania Governor - Corbett vs. Onorato PPP (D) Corbett 45, Onorato 32 Corbett +13
Pennsylvania Governor - Corbett vs. Hoeffel PPP (D) Corbett 46, Hoeffel 31 Corbett +15
Pennsylvania Governor - Corbett vs. Wagner PPP (D) Corbett 43, Wagner 30 Corbett +13
Michigan Governor - Republican Primary EPIC-MRA Hoekstra 27, Cox 21, Snyder 15, Bouchard 13 Hoekstra +6
Michigan Governor - Hoekstra vs. Dillon EPIC-MRA Hoekstra 40, Dillon 33 Hoekstra +7
Michigan Governor - Cox vs. Dillon EPIC-MRA Cox 43, Dillon 34 Cox +9
Michigan Governor - Democratic Primary EPIC-MRA Dillon 22, Bernero 15, Smith 11 Dillon +7
Michigan Governor - Hoekstra vs. Bernero EPIC-MRA Hoekstra 42, Bernero 29 Hoekstra +13
Michigan Governor - Cox vs. Bernero EPIC-MRA Cox 42, Bernero 29 Cox +13
Tuesday, April 06
************************************************************************

I don't know, H2O, if these candidates for governor truly understand all of the
incredible lawyerese involved in Obamacare as well as the unintended consequences, but I am sure that the Republican candidates who are in the lead are happy.
*************************************************************************

If this rundown fascinates you, H2O, go to "Real Clear Politics" and click on Polls. You will find that almost all the Democrats who are running for Senate seats are either far behind Republicans or almost neck and neck. The only Democratic candidate who has a wide lead at this time, is Murray(Or). Senator Reid is way way behind either of the possible Republican candidates.

Obama may come to wish, on Nov, 3rd, that he had never attempted to ram through a bill which was opposed by a majority of the American People.

I'd be lying if I said I believed that the government numbers on Obamacare were accurate. I do not think our politicians have the cojones to actually make the hard choices when they have to. That will add significantly to the cost. I only hope we raise taxes our cut benefits to keep the program paid for.

You are absolutely correct-maporsche. I think those people who are in favor of Obamacare are delusional.

l. Obamacare attempts to do TOO MUCH at one time. A more measured approach is in order. The moaners who cry that we need radical change immediately are not aware of the fact that we do have the best Health Care in the world. Some try to compare the USA with countries like Norway with regard to Health Care. That is completely ridiculous since Norway is nowhere as diverse as the USA. Diversity always brings problems. Ask the Germans who are trying hard to fit 10% of their population( immigrant Turks) into their health plans.

2. There is NO government plan on a large scale with which I am familiar which adhered to the original cost prediction when it was first proposed.

Now, Maporsche, note this report from Wikipedia--especially the first line-

Costs and funding challenges

Medicare and Medicaid Spending as % GDPThe costs of Medicare doubled every four years between 1966 and 1980.[42] According to the 2004 "Green Book" of the House Ways and Means Committee, Medicare expenditures from the American government were $256.8 billion in fiscal year 2002. Beneficiary premiums are highly subsidized, and net outlays for the program, accounting for the premiums paid by subscribers, were $230.9 billion.

Medicare spending is growing steadily in both absolute terms and as a percentage of the federal budget. Total Medicare spending reached $440 billion for fiscal year 2007 or 16% of all federal spending and grew to $599 billion in 2008 which was 20% of federal spending.[citation needed] The only larger categories of federal spending are Social Security and defense. Given the current pattern of spending growth, maintaining Medicare's financing over the long-term may well require significant changes.[43]

According to the 2008 report by the board of trustees for Medicare and Social Security, Medicare will spend more than it brings in from taxes this year (2008). The Medicare hospital insurance trust fund will become insolvent by 2019.[43][44][45][46] Shortly after the release of the report, the Chief Actuary testified that the insolvency of the system could be pushed back by 18 months if Medicare Advantage plans that provide more health care services than traditional Medicare and pass savings onto beneficiaries were paid at the same rate as the traditional fee-for-service program. He also testified that the 10-year cost of Medicare drug benefit is 37% lower than originally projected in 2003, and 17% percent lower than last year's projections.[47] The New York Times wrote in January 2009 that Social Security and Medicare "have proved almost sacrosanct in political terms, even as they threaten to grow so large as to be unsustainable in the long run."[48]

If anyone does, I'm sure it isn't Obama.

Okie- Today's Chicago Tribune has a column by its lead commentator, John Kass, to the effect that Barack Hussein Obama was not able to answer a "softball" question when asked who his favorite White Sox Baseball player was. Please keep in mind that Obama lived on the South Side of Chicago, where the Sox are based for many years. John Kass suggested that he ( Obama) had no clue as to who his favorite player was since he did not have a teleprompter!

Victory for Obama on Chinese Currency

China Set To Let Currency Appreciate

In the very public disagreement among China's leadership about what to do with its currency, the country's central bank appears to have won its push for a "stronger but more flexible currency," reports the New York Times. Just as Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner gets ready to fly to Beijing, the NYT reports that the Chinese government will likely announce over the next few days that it will allow greater fluctuation of the yuan, which wold come hand in hand with a "small but immediate" appreciation in its value. Analysts say China's leaders seem to have come around to the idea that they had to do something. "The Chinese feel the whole sentiment is against them, so they feel they need to show they are globally engaged," one economist said. Even if the appreciation of the yuan, also known as the renminbi, is small, it would still mark a victory for the Obama administration, which has been under strong pressure to be more forceful when discussing currency policy with China.


Read original story in The New York Times | Thursday, April 8, 2010

Obamademocrats are greedy for power over their fellow human beings. Attaining that power is their END. They will continue to utilize whatever MEANS serve their ends. They will not be be concerned with whether or not their means and processes for achieving their ends adhere to the rules of law or of ethics, or of morality. For them, their ends suffice to justify their means.

mm, the troubling aspect of this is the hypocrisy of the administration, Obama, and the Democrats, with respect to this policy. If this was Bush doing this, I think we both know what the rhetoric would be, but since this is the Obama administration doing this, no problem at all. I endured watching the talking heads justifying this action as well. I was saying, isn't this unconstitutional, how do you sanction the murder of a man without a trial and the proving of guilt, let alone allowing the court to assign punishment under the law. Yet, we had Democrats condemning Bush for capturing non-citizen enemy combatants, some on battlefields, for the purpose of extracting information to save lives, and accusing Bush of torture and all manner of other stuff. Also, you had Democrats going into hysterics over Bush gathering information on suspicious phone calls to foreign terror cells, etc. But ordering the CIA to murder a U.S. citizen without due process to include arrest, trial, and proving of guilt, no problem.