A good move by Obama

Hah, maybe by the end of this term we'll have converted him into a full Republican. Wink

More than four months after President Barack Obama ordered agencies to weed out rules that stifle economic growth, the administration was releasing some details of its proposals. Overall, it was unveiling hundreds of regulatory changes that could save businesses billions of dollars and tens of millions of hours of work, the White House said in a written statement.The proposals would help reduce costs for companies and state and local governments while "maintaining the critical health and safety rotections that Americans deserve," the statement said.

Cass Sunstein, the White House regulatory chief, planned to describe the changes later Thursday morning in remarks to the conservative American Enterprise Institute.Obama issued an executive order in January requiring agencies to hunt for regulations that are outdated or could cost jobs. It came with the country mired in recession and just as Republicans took over the House, pledging to shrink government and kill regulatory burdens that hinder businesses from operating efficiently.

Discussion is locked
Reply to: A good move by Obama
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: A good move by Obama
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
a "full" Republican?

I hope not... we can't afford to spend all that money like the last guy did !

- Collapse -
The "last guy" spent about $850 billion that we don't have.

President Barry has at last count spent about $2.5 trillion that we don't have - without any real improvement in the overall economy (unless you're one of his new buddies in the financial industry - who are apolitical in the sense that they'll use any schmuck in the White House who will allow them to suck up more cash).

Housing values fall at 1% per month, the real unemployment rate (including those who have given up looking and those who can only find part time work) hovers at about 17% and real inflation (including food and energy costs, which the statistical liars in the government exclude from the "official" metric) approaches 10%. We continue to pursue a policy of
monetizing debt. From that article:

To summarize: a deficit can be the source of sustained inflation only if
it is persistent rather than temporary and if the government finances
it by creating money (through monetizing the debt), rather than leaving
bonds in the hands of the public.

In the late 1960s, the U.S. monetized a lot of debt needed to finance the Vietnam War and more significantly the expense for the expansion of the welfare state (Medicare/Medicaid, the "War on Poverty") that then President Johnson got passed into law. When the world objected by demanding payment for the bonds it held - then payable only in gold, then President Nixon severed the last links to the 1944
Bretton Woods system, turning the U.S. dollar into a true
fiat currency. The result of that was the late 1970s stagflation, with high unemployment, high inflation and very little real economic growth. Do you really think that there won't be a repeat here, only worse (think Germany in the early 20s, Argentina in the 80s or Zimbabwe in the 90s)? I know that there will be a repeat, only worse, for we have inflated our currency beyond the wildest dreams of those who have gone down this road before us. Let me ask you this: Back in 2008, banks had a total of $27 billion in excess
reserves at the Fed. Today, banks have a total of approximately $1.5
trillion in excess reserves at the Fed. So what is going to
happen when all of this money eventually hits the economy? The 1970s stagflation on steroids will happen, complete with the social unrest that has characterized any such hyperinflationary depression - unless we suddenly get a blindingly flash of common sense, which I doubt will happen.

There will be a third round of "quantitative easing", and QE4, QE5 ad nauseam - until the total collapse happens.

Enjoy the ride!

- Collapse -
RE: converted him into a full Republican.

Nice one James...laying the groundwork for a reason for you to endorse/vote for him.

- Collapse -
NO THANKS !!!!!!!!!!

Far too many leftist RINOs already.
Democrats can keep him in any form he transmorphs into.

Sounds like just another of his many empty platitudes.
If THE Obama really meant that, OBAMACARE wouldn't exist

- Collapse -
RINO, DINO, Mad Tea Partier

whatever else, just names meant to be insults, no real justification.

- Collapse -
My problem with labels is they mean nothing now a days.

These names are just gimmicks meant to create an artificial distinction between parties that, in practice, often follow similar policies.

- Collapse -
A slight disagreement

regarding the facts on TARP. You said: Then there is TARP. A monumental bailout of business. Bush and his top advisors engineered it and implemented it. Obama called it a bad idea, and then followed almost step for step in Bushes path.

The fact is that Geithner was in charge of monitoring Wall Street...his one main responsibility was to notify the Feds (Greenspan first until Bernake was named by Bush in 2006.....Greenspan was in place during the Clinton years and pushed the ARP housing loans, which actually created the mess we wound up with later on....Bernake was recommended by the 2006 Democratically lead House and Senate heads and gave Bush just enough information about him to get the appointment). Geithner either failed miserably in his responsibilities to report to Greenspan and./or Bernake or Greenspan and/or Bernake failed miserably in THEIR responsibilities to see what was coming down the pike. Henry Paulson also failed to follow up if he had the information so he isn't without some of the blame in this. Also Barney Frank (who heads up the committee in charge of monitoring this) had indicated just months earlier that Fannie/Freddie Mac were stable and in good shape, just to watch TARP have to bail them out numerous times already and yet has never been held accountable for his failures regarding this.

Since the Dems are notorious for pushing a panic button (never let a good crisis go to waste), THEY were the ones who recommended TARP and pushed for its immediate passage in order to 'save Wall Street and the Financial Institutions'. Since ALL presidents rely heavily on their advisors giving them correct information in order to make a decision, you cannot blame Bush for doing just that...even if the decision is wrong.

TARP started out as a 3-page document submitted by Paulson and the House expanded that and then voted it down in September 29, 2008. On Oct 1, 2008, the Senate expanded it via an amendment that now was up to 451 pages and passed it along with an additional $150 Billion...the House then passed that on Oct 3, 2008. Isn't it odd though that Geithner, who started all of this Wall Street mess by keeping quiet about it, ALSO CO-AUTHORED the Senate amendments, and is now the Treasury Secretary under Obama? And that TARP has not only cost the taxpayers billions more than originally planned for since Fannie/Freddie have unlimited resources now available to them, but that it's turned into such a dismal failure like so many other Democratic policies that have been put into place since the 2004 elections giving them control of both houses?


- Collapse -
Possible correction

which may be only temporary....I cannot find the link I originally had showing Geithner co-authored TARP so I withdraw that part of what I stated until I can locate it to show it to be true...however, he is reponsible for snowballing WallStreet into TARP either by inaction on his part or by deliberately withholding information because there is no indication that any authority figures in DC saw it coming when they should have.

- Collapse -
pray tell, how do these two rambling posts have anything...

... to do with my thesis that the actual US leaders in power, no matter what party, are actually doing pretty much the same thing ?

- Collapse -
There were only a handful

of conservatives riled up, as you say, over the birth certificate and college transcripts. The vast majority believed him over those things.

As far as Bush declaring spending and nation building was bad....if I remember correctly that was during the campaign and for the first 9 months of his presidency....then along came 9-11 and things changed. He felt it was our obligation to help rebuild parts of Afghanistan and Iraq because of, not only what was destroyed during the wars but also because he believed that if we helped the impoverished Iraqis over what Saddam had put them thru and what the Taliban had put Afghanis thru, we would have another couple of allies in the mideast.

As far as BO goes, who the hell EVER knows what HE's thinking or doing or even WHY. One day he's out campaigning right after UBL was killed and pushing his agenda for green energy again, and a week later he's giving the okay for oil drilling to resume and leases to be issued (can you SAY 2012 loud enough from his reelection advisors?)

As for my comments about TARP....YOU brought it up, I only expanded on your comments because I disagreed with your 'point the finger at Bush' when it was the Democrats that pushed it...he signed it because the pressure was on and he had to take their word for whatever crisis they were predicting. I really believe that if he had it to do over, and knew what he knows now, it wouldn't have happened. Vastly different attitudes considering that now EVERYBODY knows what ObamaCare is all about and BO STILL can't bring himself to admit it's a huge mistake.

- Collapse -
So we've said

<i>"That is why I have to laugh at, and ridicule the actions of many so
called conservative. Obama is doing the same things as what Bush did in
so many ways"

</i>And haven't some of us said the same, maybe even before YOU pointed it out?

So far my main objection to his administration has been the National Health Care Plan that was passed, creating what will become the biggest Socialist boondoggle this country has ever had to suffer from. That alone is enough to reject him next time around.

My personal objection is nothing he says can be trusted, therefore can't be believed till confirmed or proven wrong by other sources.

- Collapse -
Huh ?
And haven't some of us said the same, maybe even before YOU pointed it out?

As Don Rickles used to say... So what do you want... a cookie? Wink

So you don't trust Obama? I don't trust any contemporary politician at this moment. No democrat, no republican, no independent. I don't trust the platforms of any party right now. That doesn't mean that I condemn every single action by every politician. I'm not some nut case living in a cabin in Montana. I don't go out of my way to find issues to complain about. I will point out the inconsistencies in politics as they arise as I see them. Anyway, I still say there are more similarities between Bush/republicans and Obama/democrats than there are differences.

You and Obamacare.

Health care is unaffordable, and the current costs are unsustainable. Employer based benefits are covering less and less, and costing more, and more. Baby boomers are getting closer to retirement which means loss of employer coverage and smaller expendable incomes. Even smaller still when Social Security fails. What specifically do you think is the solution?
- Collapse -
Specifics, IMO

Health care will get more expensive no matter what plan because research alone keeps people living much longer than was anticipated....and coverage will continue to be cut back as a consequence. Government run health care, including Medicare, is not an acceptable solution because any programs run by the Federal government always fail eventually. The only sustainable solution is competition in the private sector, which means giving people the ability to cross state lines, and choosing only the policies that are individually acceptable to the buyer. Any STATE run health care, such as Medicaid, should NOT have any Federal funding...the State alone should be responsible for their individual state, which means that Medicaid will be different for each state based on population and needs...and anyone who actually GETS Medicaid should also be responsible for paying a portion of that care, even if it means the person is on state assistance (welfare for most) and has their cash allowance be reduced in order to pay their 'premium'. If that means that the person has to find a job, even if it's parttime in order to pay for that, that's how it should be. Everyone should be responsible for taking care of themselves in some form and stop the insanity of full entitlements without paying for any part of it.

All people under the age of 50 currently should be taken off any Medicare or Social Security enrollment lists so they can begin taking care to establish their own coverage in both health care and retirement plans. Those over 50 will still be 'entitled' to both plans and as the oldest die and are removed from the programs, the costs for both will be reduced until there is nobody left and both programs disappear completely. although some 'budgets' being presented call for that age to be 55, I don't think that a normal retirement age of 65 and leaving only 10 years for people to plan and save is enough time.

- Collapse -
Questions regarding aspects of above

the State alone should be responsible for their individual state, which means that Medicaid will be different for each state based on population and needs..

I have to wonder, are states going to have a minimum time lived and worked in their state to qualify? Otherwise, everyone will move in retirement and overwhelm the states with the best plans. Of course, this means you can't move out of state for any reason when you retire without losing coverage, since I sincerely doubt your former state will cover you elsewhere.

- Collapse -
Multiple questions and answers
I have to wonder, are states going to have a minimum time lived and worked in their state to qualify? Otherwise, everyone will move in retirement and overwhelm the states with the best plans. Of course, this means you can't move out of state for any reason when you retire without losing coverage, since I sincerely doubt your former state will cover you elsewhere. Right now, the very fact some doctors restrict the number of new medicare patients except for those who are already their patients and age into medicare coverage force people who retire to remain where they are sometimes.

Two different topics. The first pertains to already have people who move into another state that offers better welfare benefits, which includes medicaid. That's been happening for over 40 years that I know of and pertains to people way younger than retirement age and who have kids. Most people of retirement age don't qualify for Medicaid because they get Medicare instead. The second pertains to MEDICARE...the majority of doctors who NOW are restricting NEW Medicare patients has happened in the last year and a half since ObamaCare was passed. Eliminate OC and I believe the restrictions would be lifted...especially if a new plan goes into effect, such as I mentioned to be done with both Medicare and SS over time.

And if everyone under 50 quits paying medicare taxes right now, how long before medicare stops? Besides, they've supposedly paid in by law for 30 years already, now they just shrug that off without a compliant? You mention that 10 years isn't enough to plan for retirement and save enough. Even good paying jobs, at least blue collar, you're going to need most of your working lifetime to save enough for retirement and retirement medical cost, if you can at all. Just imagine what one heart attack would do to almost anyone's private savings, or cancer treatments. As noted before, without some coercion, insurance companies are not going to be lining up to insure older people with existing health concerns. There is not enough time to make money of them before the odds are the individual will start costing more than the insurance company can make off them.

The percentage of a person's paycheck that goes into Medicare and Social Security is extremely low because it goes by quantity...a large number of people paying it with a good majority of those people already over 50 and not retired yet. The money paid by people out of their paychecks under the age of 50, yes, would be used to sustain the two programs for people on those programs; however, as those people pass away and are taken off the list, the percentage of paychecks needed could be reduced. Politicians increasingly state that there already isn't enough money being taken from working people to keep both programs sustainable because there AREN'T ENOUGH PEOPLE STILL WORKING. Medicare deductions from payroll aren't being matched by the employer like Social Security requires, so with the duplicated funding by employers for SS, there should be enough to finish that program....Medicare would be the only program that will still be 'helped' by working people in full, and that percentage of pay is really low compared to what gets taken for SS from one person's paycheck. Knowing that it would last another 10 to 15 years (depending on what gets passed) I don't think there would be many who would object strongly to helping on a temporary basis since it would finally come to an end.

As far as having enough time to save for retirement and retirement medical costs...first, investing in yourself for retirement is a way better solution than having a government entitlement that isn't sustainable at all. Second, medical costs....if a person could cross state lines to compare health insurance costs and purchase ONLY the plan that fits their needs, the cost will come down considerably because you can pick and choose a plan rather than have one-size-fits-all that is currently most states only offer two or three insurance companies so there is little or no competition whatsoever like there is for car insurance. Most people 50 and under don't have 'pre-existing conditions' that would be a factor...and those that do, or those that have a family member with one, would still be able to get coverage more expensively but still competitively cost-wise. Although OC claims that all with pre-existing conditions are 'guaranteed' coverage, he neglected to mention that the policy to cover that is extremely more expensive than other insurance because it is also a one-size-fits-all plan. Insurance plans that can cross state lines can be tailor fit to your needs and altho the policy might cost more, it would still be way less than OC's because of the competition among insurance companies.

Side note, over 20 years ago I asked around about an insurance policy I could buy then, start paying for and be paid up (no more premiums) at 65, that would give me medical coverage for uncovered expenses when I retired. Guess what, no one offered such. I was talking about paying premiums for 30 years with no benefits until I retired at 65, then I'd be covered without premiums. Even then, you couldn't buy it. I haven't looked since, but I've not heard of any such available. That's what you need. No one offered it because they wouldn't take a chance on the uncertainty of future costs. That's more true than ever, since as you pointed out there are new treatments all the time.

I agree that something like that should be made available...and perhaps with more people back to work and the ability to have more money thru new policies going into insurance companies via crossing state lines to compete and compare, it will eventually happen. Something else that many people don't realize is that life insurance policies have equity built into them (not term policies)...If you have a policy that initially at age 25 was $35,000, it now has cash 'borrowing' power of triple that (or more) by age 60. If you only need to leave the 'principle' amount alone and take the rest out to pay for something catastrophic, you have that ability. If you own a home, you have equity in that, but it doesn't need to be touched if you have that life insurance policy...if you have to pay 6% interest on what you've 'borrowed' on that policy and never pay it back before you die, only the interest goes against the original $35K after the insurance company takes out the loan repayment (which is first deducted from the excess of $35K that you started off with). A funeral costs somewhere around $10-15K or less depending on your wishes, so there is enough to pay for that, the house has equity and your heirs get whatever there is.

As I have 10-15 years to plan ahead and there are many more options that people just don't think about because they get into panic mode over a change when they listen to the politicians use scare tactics.
- Collapse -
So everyone at 50 should be able to pay their own way

if told you ain't getting nothing.

- Collapse -
Roger C....Everyone at age 50 and younger

already understands that if something isn't done right now to correct something that should have never happened in the first place, there isn't going to be anything in those funds for them anyhow....and the smart ones are already planning ahead to take care of themselves. Obviously, the law has to be changed to allow insurance purchasing to cross state lines to make it competitive and less expensive than the plans they currently have available in each state since with only one, two, or three companies to choose from in each state, the prices AREN'T competitive and the plans DON'T let you only pick the coverage that you want/need. If some really decide to NEVER buy health insurance, then they will have to have a law written in each state that says the hospital/doctor automatically gets a judgment lien on assets. Just as you aren't allowed to hide assets in someone else's name before filing bankruptcy, you shouldn't be allowed to hide assets that way when you owe a medical bill. Each state should have the ability to not only institute 'rules', laws, etc., they will have a much smaller number of people accounts to monitor than the Federal government and the IRS, so this shouldn't be all that hard to implement and maintain on a state level. Each state already monitors and maintains Medicaid recipients, and there is far less abuse and fraud with that program than there is with Medicare, run by the Feds. And if you aren't 'documented' you get nothing so the people paying aren't funding freebies. If entitlements were gutted for those undocumented, entitlements would get down to a manageable and enforceable situation both personnel-wise and economically.

- Collapse -
Re insurance across state lines

Ok, these seems to be very important and personal to you.

- Collapse -
RE at age 50 and below

...........already understands that if something isn't done right now to correct something that should have never happened in the first place, there isn't going to be anything in those funds for them anyhow....and the smart ones are already planning ahead to take care of themselves.

Actually, since it's been said since the mid 1970's or before that social security would go insolvent before people starting to work would reach 65 (roughly 2020) then it seems you're right. We should have all saved 10% to 25% of our salary, no matter what perceived hardship it caused. I wonder how many 20 to 50 years old right are saving over 10% of their salary? And I wonder more how many are in the below $50K income families.

CNET Forums