Someone mentioned that cuts to our police forces here at home and then limiting guns for personal protection here at home do not jive. And, again, really glad billions-yes billions-have been spent in Afghan. Too many have shown that the mentioned US deficit matches too closely to what has been spent in the Bush/Obama fake, BS wars. That’s what it amounts to clear and simple. Sequester the fake/BS wars. Sequester Obama.

Is the basic assumption that what the Obama administration says about the sequester is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Personally, I’m hoping that my personal scenario has more likelihood then the Obama plan. As it becomes increasingly clear that eliminating the defense cuts is not going to be done with more cuts to the private sector and entitlements (and as Dems keep getting reminded that Obama does not have to face election agains and they do), and the MIC becomes strident with their poodles and demands they do something. A small consensus realizes the real answer is to end the sequester. They make a big deal of how much the deficit has been reduced already, how much it will grow in a weakened economy even with the severe sequester cuts. And Congress passes an elimination or a long term (past the next election) delay of the sequester cuts and dares the President to veto it.

Both are long shots, I just would be willing to bet on mine if only because mine does the least amount of damage. Both to the country and to most of the politicians who have to enact it.

“The first is that the pain of sequester…?” How about the pain of wasting trillions of dollars, driving to work? Congress smoking crack cocaine???

Just a mere 1.2 billion dollars today? How much tomorrow? Another billion or so? How about military cuts, protecting their monopoly, which fucks US????

Fuck sequester… End America’s servitude to the oil whores monopoly just like Mr. Scott’s servitude to master! Truth nothing but the whole truth!

Absolutely. Obama would never lie to us, mislead us in any way, nor deliberately change any of the programs for the US social welfare for worse.

I am dumbfounded how determined obama is to attack ss, just dumbfounded

Progressives are not going to want to cut entitlements to give more money to the military.

Which progressives is Jon referring to. The reality is that there are no REAL progressives left. Many Democratic politicians who calls themselves progressive actually want to cut entitlements and give more money to the wealthy. Just ask Pelosi, Wasser Schulz, Gillibrand, and others.

What we have here in America is the protection of a energy monopoly. Americans “porked” in the use of potential energy, < 1.2 Billion dollars wasted today.

Servitude by definition….

Sequestration this "Asslelepahnts," the universal single digit. One Index finger…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_finger#Uses

"…it can be an admonitory gesture."

No "it can be" in this instance.

He is itching for entitlement reform, all he needs is an excuse. We were spared last year from Simpson-Bowles because no agreement could be reached; instead they came up with the sequester. All the Repubs have to do is offer up some pittance type tax loopholes and he will raise my deductible to the pont of pain and called it fair and balanced. I’m rooting for the Repubs not to cave in on taxes, (shame on me) but that is the only peace of mind I have with respect to medicare.

Have you read the latest?

A whole entire STATE got permission to block grant that Medicaid expansion out to private insurance.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Ark-Gov-Beebe-announces-new-Medicaid-option-4310747.php

Surprise! If you thought a Medicaid expansion was going to lead to single payer- guess again. It’s more rent extraction.

Hey Perris, has the increase cost of transportation over thirty-forty years, decimated the purchasing power of people on fixed income? Has then increased cost of a barrel of oil from $56.61 to $147.50 had any effect on the purchasing power of the governed, who are not millionaires or billionaires?

Sequester is code for protect the corporations and fuck the American people, just as “compromise,” in 1857 translated into, protect the slave owners and fuck Scott!

It is gross and an insult to Americans of all walks of life, with any concept of history, at all!

Its called life extraction………

It seems to match the amount of money Americans have wasted in ten years of driving to work at dead end jobs?

6 trillions dollars or so? Who cares?

Servitude is leveraged.

Thirty years, not much if you adjust for inflation (by fixed income I assume you mean SS which does adjust for inflation).

http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm

Which is why those Democrats have to be reminded OVER AND OVER AND OVER that it won’t matter how much money Peterson and his friends give them if the republicans can run the ads that show THEY cut Medicare and Social Security. No district is safe if you screw over your base AND the majority of voters – especially if those voters are hurting. And frankly more and more traditional democratic voters are in pain.

I’m dead serious. They need to be reminded that they will be facing voters whose earned benefits they just cut for stuff like elimination of a tax cut or loophole that will be put back in place within two years. And they aren’t stupid enough to buy that. They need to be told over and over that the majority of Americans (all of them regardless of party) DO NOT WANT THIS. Over and Over until it begins to break through the Village bubble.

Well it is broader then the agreement granted Scott, but they are working it. And being allowed to do it.

Let’s see how much of the media play it as a success.

As far as I can tell this is the entirety of the President Obama’s strategy when it comes to the sequester. The administration seems to be banking on the fact that once the sequester starts it will do real destruction to the economy. This destruction will get the public up in arms. That in turn will make the Republicans fold.

It might not be that he’s so much interested in getting Republicans to fold as he is interested in getting the public to fold. It seems like he’s using the immediate threats now in order to get people to go along with the long-term threat of cutting things like Social Security.

Oh it may very well end up being a disaster. It’ll also be a disaster that costs us TIME. All , I suspect, so the Federal Government can get to relinquish actually paying for the general welfare of its citizenry(I personally think Obama picked the Medicaid option figuring he could shift it onto state governments eventually.)

“The sequester is likely to be the least bad option for some group …”

In reading comments on a number of boards, it seems a lot of those paying attention see the sequester cuts as the “least bad option.” They all mention something on the list they are happy to be rid of and the ripple effect that may eventually get to them seems far away.

We need to focus on ALL of these people, not just the Democrats.

The good thing about the Social Security issue is that even the majority of Middle Class Republicans oppose these cuts.

We need to keep reminding everyone that the Defense Department is larger than 10 countries combined and that it lost at least 60 Billion over the last decade in the ME. It is so large that it can’t even be independantly audited and won’t be until 2017. It needs to be cut, not Social Security. It’s an argument we can, no, must win.

“…I’m rooting for the Repubs not to cave in on taxes …”

The notion that I may be calling my unopposed teaparty congress critter to “save Social Security” is nauseating.

Obama is nothing more than a captive in a game played on behalf of his masters. There is nothing he can do, unless he wants to meet the fate of his predecessor, JFK. Nothing will happen until they, too, feel the pain. Unfortunately, our pain does not matter to them. So we will have to wait now. It is definitely coming, it is just a question of time, a cycle of history.

Personally, I believe ACA will be seen as a disaster overall relatively quickly. It is possible it delayed us from single payer, although I think that would have been more possible if American manufacturing companies had looked ahead and lobbied for it before turning to outsourcing and Insurance/Pharma to become more successful and powerful lobbying wise then them. Might it have happened in this decade – maybe. But either way it is going to happen within the next two decades no matter what.

From your lips to God’s ears. My family has good insurance however, I worry about my children.

I agree with you. But, I am sorry to say that there is no threat to the faux progressives like Pelosi, Obama and others from the Democratic base. The Democratic base is very naive. Even if Obama goes on national TV and tells his base that his only aim in life is to cut Social Security, the Democratic base will still manage to blame the Republicans for cutting Social Security. The power of the label “Democrat” is very strong. To this naive Democratic base, the label “Democrat” makes makes even a fiscal-conservative like Obama be perceived like a hardcore progressive.

The real reason why the Democratic politicians no longer need to be truly progressive is the Democratic base’s naivete. Period.

Insurance companies have been consolidating in order to maximize profits from the Medicaid expansion.
LINK, LINK

As indicated in the article in your link:

Because private insurers would likely charge more than the state would pay for coverage under Medicaid, the new option might end up costing the federal government, and ultimately Arkansas, more than the traditional expansion of the state’s Medicaid program, Beebe said.

As of 2010 California did not impose any Medical Loss Ration on Medicaid, so insurance companies aren’t limited in what they can skim off the top. The ACA allows HHS to set a MLR for Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D (not in place yet, however) but I haven’t seen anything about a similar provision for Medicaid.

The ONLY good part is that the unfettered greed of some of these people will ultimately lead to the single payer system. The bottom line is that once people understand that a privatized system that extract money from them and the government without guaranteed benefits is worse then any pretend death panel boogeyman that the right can cook up the country might actually get a system that works instead of one meant to enrich a few people.

More and more people are waking up to the idea that there is ONE party- the party that acts on the behest of the rich, powerful and well connected. Eventually there will be a tipping point and people will seek out alternatives no matter how pie in the sky those alternatives may seem. If the Democrats can’t their act together then they’ll deserve their demise. You can’t continually say one thing and do another while wringing your hands that the mean ol’ Republicans made you before people start wising up.

Jon, thanks. Encouraging that the Dems will hold on not “chaining the CPI.” Hope you’re right.

Pot/hemp legalization suddenly looks less bad. It’s got right left traction and brings in tax revenue, while it cuts spending on the prison-industrial-complex.

… X 2

… X 2 again

USians wising up seems to be taking a long time… at some point USians “wising up” must switch to USians acting up and pushing back … G.W.Bush and B.H.Obama showing why…I am hoping the acting up and pushing back will begin at some point not too long in coming…

In this case it should have said Arkansas imposes no MLR. CA doesn’t either but the comment was about AR. Also, per the report in my link, the ACA does not provide any MLR requirements for Medicaid.

You say, More and more people are waking up to the idea that there is ONE party

I wish that I could hold on to your level of optimism. As a realist though, I harbor doubts about what you are suggesting. I feel that most all people are deluded into thinking that one party is actually fighting hard for their sake.

I’m sorry Jon but your reasoning is flawed .Obama ,as Clinton , is a pitchman for Wall St. ,and certainly doesn’t have the autonomous latitude to defy Rubin and play political games with austerity .Moreover ,unless he doesn’t care about using this one-year window to establish his prez legacy ,he would never further depress the economy and put himself in contention with Hoover as the worst prez in modern history .Austerity cannot be course-corrected any quicker than inflation .

I have no inside knowledge ,but my reasoning skills are impressive .

LBJ declared War on Poverty and no one assassinated LBJ.

But if Republicans cut Social Security with just enough Democratic votes to pass, can’t you go after all the Republicans for cutting Social Security in the next elections?

It matters not if Obama is involved, he won’t be running for office again, and he merely did what the voters wanted: cut government spending.

Elections have consequences and the majority of voters voted for huge cuts to government spending because they want entitlement cuts, believing the Republicans that Republican voters are not getting entitlements because Social Security and Medicare are not government programs.

Elections have consequences. And we have elections every two years. Something I notice progressives fail to pay attention to.

Elections have consequences and the majority of voters voted for huge cuts to government spending because they want entitlement cuts, believing the Republicans that Republican voters are not getting entitlements because Social Security and Medicare are not government programs.

Uh I dare you to find a single poll that suggests the majority of ANYBODY wanted entitlement cuts besides the Pete Peterson brigade.

The majority of the country wanted and continues to want tax increases on the rich, cuts to defense and STRENGTHENING of programs like Social Security, not cutting.

And no matter how many times the politicians in DC may say otherwise they won’t get to rewrite history to blame this on the electorate. Don’t worry we’ll remember their names in 2014.

If the GOP spins this as “Obama is purposely making the sequester worse to play politics” they could easily muddle the waters on blame.

How could anyone, even you guys, doubt that Obama is purposely making the sequester worse to create leverage for another tax hike? He’s been offered more than one way to make the same amount of spending cuts but with less damage. He’s made it completely clear he’s not interested in anything but what he calls “balance,” which is his term for “tax hikes.” He gambled that Republicans would hate the sequester’s effect on the military enough to give him tax hikes. It’s been his strategy since he proposed the sequester in 2011. What other way is there to see this? From his point of view, it made perfect sense, except that he underestimated the Republicans’ willingness to endure defense cuts in order to rein in spending at least a tiny bit.