HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Republicans are saying th...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:36 AM

 

Republicans are saying they are willing to accept the sequester cuts.



Non-exempt defense discretionary funding sees a 9.4 percent spending reduction. This covers things, such as keeping military bases open, paying salaries and research and development.

Non-exempt mandatory defense spending sees the biggest cut of 10 percent.

Non-exempt, non-defense discretionary funding gets cut by 8.2 percent. This includes anything that Congress has to authorize each year, so programs like Head Start and AIDS assistance.

Non-exempt, non-defense mandatory programs see a 7.6 percent reduction. There’s not, however, much left to cut in this category because the large mandatory programs were largely shielded from the cuts. More on that right below.

Medicare is, well, Medicare – the health insurance program for America’s seniors. The sequester specifically limited Medicare cuts to 2 percent of the program’s budget.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/14/the-sequester-cuts-in-one-graph/

Boehner: We’re fine with defense cuts

The sequester put in place last year was supposed to be so unpalatable that both parties would have to come to an agreement. But House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) tells the Wall Street Journal that, now that tax increases are dealt with, the defense cuts in the deal don’t scare him.

He has significant Republican support, he said, for letting the defense cuts (along with drastic domestic spending cuts) take effect. “I got that in my back pocket,” he said. The sequester is “as much leverage as we’re going to get” to force Democrats to cut entitlement spending.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/07/boehner-were-fine-with-defense-cuts/

30 replies, 2112 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 30 replies Author Time Post
Reply Republicans are saying they are willing to accept the sequester cuts. (Original post)
dkf Jan 2013 OP
LeftofObama Jan 2013 #1
BainsBane Jan 2013 #2
reformist2 Jan 2013 #3
bemildred Jan 2013 #4
dkf Jan 2013 #5
bemildred Jan 2013 #8
dkf Jan 2013 #9
bemildred Jan 2013 #10
leftstreet Jan 2013 #7
alcibiades_mystery Jan 2013 #6
dkf Jan 2013 #12
alcibiades_mystery Jan 2013 #14
dkf Jan 2013 #15
pnwmom Jan 2013 #19
dkf Jan 2013 #20
pnwmom Jan 2013 #21
dkf Jan 2013 #22
theKed Jan 2013 #24
dkf Jan 2013 #30
pnwmom Jan 2013 #29
bemildred Jan 2013 #23
dkf Jan 2013 #25
bemildred Jan 2013 #26
dkf Jan 2013 #28
dawg Jan 2013 #11
dkf Jan 2013 #16
cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #13
BainsBane Jan 2013 #17
Waiting For Everyman Jan 2013 #18
pinboy3niner Jan 2013 #27

Response to dkf (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:46 AM

1. WTF is it with these assholes?

"The sequester is “as much leverage as we’re going to get” to force Democrats to cut entitlement spending. "


I just don't understand what they have against the American people! WTF have we done to make them hate us so much?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:25 AM

2. bullshit

Republicans hate defense cuts. This is pure posturing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:30 AM

3. Give MMS the power to negotiate prices and I'd totally call the Repugs bluff!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:38 AM

4. So, what was all that bullshit about the cliff?

An empty threat was it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:52 AM

5. They say the important part was the taxes, and now that its settled they are okay with the spending.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 12:26 PM

8. Right, they lost on the taxes, so now everything is OK.

So it really was all about taxing the rich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 12:28 PM

9. For them.

 

Honestly I am not sure if this is a bluff or not. But for Federal employees I imagine this is quite shocking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 12:30 PM

10. I'm just happy to see them clarify how little they care about spending. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:57 AM

7. Fiscal Bluff n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:55 AM

6. Good, then

Glad Obama made sure there were no SS cuts or Medicare benefit cuts in the sequester.

I guess we're settled, then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 12:55 PM

12. 2% medicare cut is in there.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 02:20 PM

14. Not to benefits

Try again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 02:53 PM

15. I'm curious what the difference is...

 

What cut would be considered a benefit cut vs a cut in reimbursements?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #15)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:30 PM

19. If Social Security recipients had to pay more that would be, in effect, a benefit cut.

But if the hospital had to improve its efficiency and lower its overhead, that would result in a cut in reimbursements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #19)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:28 PM

20. No...what is the cut in Medicare benefits that isn't a cut in reimbursements.

 

I pointed out that there is a 2% cut in Medicare and the person seemed satisfied that it wasn't a cut in benefits but a cut in reimbursements. How else do you cut Medicare?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:35 PM

21. You are talking about two different things.

"what is the cut in Medicare benefits that isn't a cut in reimbursements."

"I pointed out that there is a 2% cut in Medicare and the person seemed satisfied that it wasn't a cut in benefits but a cut in reimbursements."

First you talk about a cut in "Medicare benefits" and then you talk about a "2% cut in Medicare."

It is possible to cut Medicare by 2% without affecting the Medicare benefits individuals receive, by requiring the providers to lower their costs by 2%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:53 AM

22. My point is, that seems to be the only way to cut medicare that I can see.

 

How do you purely cut medicare benefits?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:11 AM

24. By reducing the cost of medicare

on a per-person basis by 2%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #24)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:57 PM

30. And what mechanism does that?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:11 AM

29. Cutting medicare benefits would likely lead to cutting medicare overall

unless you did something like RAISING the reimbursements per procedure paid to the providers.

However, the reverse isn't true. If you lowered the reimbursements paid to provider, that wouldn't necessarily have to reduce any benefits provided to the patients.

Cutting the overall Medicare budget and cutting Medicare benefits to consumers isn't the same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #20)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:07 AM

23. The idea suggested was raising the eligibility age.

(Which is by the way, a recipe for disintegrating the system, we must make it universal, not shrink it.)

We HAVE to do something about the exponential growth of costs for medical services. Another idea was to switch from fee-for-service to some less fragmented (and less corruption-prone) reimbursement scheme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:21 AM

25. Raising the eligibility age doesn't seem reasonable for a 2% cut...too drastic.

 

I'm just curious what the dreaded medicare cut looks like. I would have said the only way to cut medicare costs would be things like reimbursements as cost containment needs to be the goal as you have mentioned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #25)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:35 AM

26. That's because it isn't.

There is plenty of bloat in our health care system, and that is the place to look for savings. Private health care has proved to be very inefficient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:47 AM

28. Agree 100%.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 12:41 PM

11. We are going to do *everything* wrong.

Too much austerity too soon. It is feeling an awful lot like 1936 right now, and it won't take much more in the way of more tax increases and spending cuts to bring economic growth to a screeching halt.

Meanwhile, we just made most of Bush's unaffordable tax cuts permanent. While I agree that a major tax increase on the so-called middle class would not be a good idea right now, those tax cuts needed to eventually go away - preferably in a gradual manner beginning after the economy had fully recovered. Now, that additional revenue is permanently unavailable and Bush has succeeded in, if not starving the beast, at least making it really hungry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 02:54 PM

16. I'm with you.

 

Well we can never be accused of having a heavy hand with central planning. Our plans are pretty non-existent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 12:58 PM

13. To them, anything that would depress the economy is worth a try

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 03:39 PM

17. If only we had a superhero to deal with Republicans

[link:|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 03:43 PM

18. They're bluffing. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Waiting For Everyman (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 08:44 AM

27. Indeed they are

Republicans are apoplectic over the prospect of defense cuts under sequestration. Buck McKeon, chair of the House Armed Services Committee, said the cuts would be disastrous to national security and to the U.S.economy...

The disastrous impact of sequestration
By REP. BUCK MCKEON | 6/24/12 9:32 PM EDT
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77760.html

Boehner suddenly pretending that the GOP is fine with those defense cuts is laughable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread