Obama keeps stating that Medicare costs can be limited without reducing benefits.

Whoa. You’re claiming that Obama has ruled out benefit cuts in future legislation? Despite the document above? Despite widespread reporting that he offered benefit cuts? That’s…wow. I’m a bit ashamed of myself for wasting time with you. Sorry, everyone.

Reading your insults in defense of your “argument” is annoying. Again, I advise you to look up what ad-hominem means.

Berwick states at the end of 2011 that current expenses at 20/30 too much due to waste and stupid regulations. This has nothing to do with ACA projected savings of growth in future costs – much of which comes from slashing medicare advantage. Obama keeps stating that Medicare costs can be limited without reducing benefits. His Medicare director explains some of what he sees as potential savings. But you insist that he cannot be arguing that, instead he must be agreeing to cuts in Medicare benefits. This seems to be purely based on your assumption that the Admin wants to cut Medicare benefits in a grand bargain – which is your conclusion as well. You say they cannot be arguing for such savings in negotiations, but that is exactly what they are arguing.

Oh, and now you’ve adopted the Romney/Ryan game of distinguishing between “cuts” and “reductions to future increases”, ignoring population growth and medical inflation.

That is where the $700B in “cuts” comes from – from reductions in future costs.

Oh, and now you’ve adopted the Romney/Ryan game of distinguishing between “cuts” and “reductions to future increases”, ignoring population growth and medical inflation.

Hey, I’m sorry. Reading through your nonsense is excruciating, non-productive work. I point out your errors, you ignore that and make more errors in response. I’m not doing this anymore until the anti-Obama conspiracy/cult is ready to put me on their payroll.

So I guess that means you win!

As noted: Berwick made this claim at the end of 2011. The $700B in “cuts” were reductions to future increases. Berwick is discussing current expenditures.

There are cuts and then there are CUTS. Neither Obama nor his health care law literally “cut” a dollar from the budget of Medicare, which operates as a government-run health insurance plan for Americans over age 65.

Rather, the health care law instituted a number of changes to reduce the growth of Medicare costs. At the time the law was passed, those reductions amounted to $500 billion over the next 10 years. Time’s passage has only boosted that number.

WASHINGTON — The official in charge of Medicare and Medicaid for the last 17 months says that 20 percent to 30 percent of health spending is “waste” that yields no benefit to patients, and that some of the needless spending is a result of onerous, archaic regulations enforced by his agency.

And, as I said, we already cut provider payments and set up the IPAB to address this stuff. Hopefully they’ll find some savings, but it’s already law, the ACA already claimed the savings (and Republicans demagogued us over it, e.g. “$700 billion in Medicare cuts”) and therefore we can’t count it as savings in further negotiations with Republicans.

Sorry, but the key is the bullet point above that

No, that’s what would happen if the sequester took effect. (Which, remember, you declared that we aren’t allowed to consider @43). It’s fairly similar to what would happen now, except that middle class tax cuts are protected and the cuts to military spending are gone.

Because you assume any grand bargain must be on GOP terms.

If the GOP would have preferred a smaller bargain to a larger one, and they have to agree to a bargain for it to proceed, then, yes, insisting on a grand bargain in 2011 would have to be closer to their terms than ours.

@bob mcmanus, thinking again I’d have to agree with you. To some extent, I even want some kinds of caving–I’d prefer to see some token cuts in deductions combined with token cuts in spending and have the whole mess pushed out another year when the economy is hopefully stronger. And that’s basically because I have the complete opposite preference with respect to contradiction heightening.

Because you assume any grand bargain must be on GOP terms. Obama is trying to sell public and influential media on the proposition that one can cut the deficit and reform the social safety net by cutting tax expenditures for corporations and the wealthy and fixing waste in the programs. That’s the argument he has made consistently and in many forms for years. The “progressives” and Republicans insist that a grand bargain must cut social benefits and that subsidies of then wealthy cannot actually be cut. That is, they insist that Obama is either duplicitous or too weak to push his own program.

So we have this bizarre situation where the “progressives” line up with the GOP to defend vast payments to Humana and medicaid mills. It’s weird, but it’s consistent with the other reactionary elements of the “progressive” critique.

That’s a little ambiguous. There is the question as to whether Obama should take us over the fiscal cliff (if he doesn’t get Republican capitulation), and then there is the question as to whether he will.

Now Krugman, I think, believes Republicans will cave in a short period of time, before real damage is done. Krugman should be asked if Obama obstinacy is wise in case of full intransigence and obstruction, for say a year. That would crashing into the debt limit.

I think Obama will cave on top rates, but will get something Obama supporters can defend. I won’t like it.

My preference, as always, is contradictions heightened to the moon.

As to the thread more broadly, compare what you’ve quoted to the original question–”Would Obama take us over the fiscal cliff and keep us there?” If Obama is absolutely determined not to cave, no matter what, than the answer is obviously “yes”. You can argue that’s the right answer (as Krugman does) but as it is you’re just not paying attention to what other people in the thread are saying. You’ve jammed everyone into an “anti-Obama” and “anti-anti-Obama” dichotomy whether it fits or not.

You could look it up instead of assuming your conclusion.

WASHINGTON — The official in charge of Medicare and Medicaid for the last 17 months says that 20 percent to 30 percent of health spending is “waste” that yields no benefit to patients, and that some of the needless spending is a result of onerous, archaic regulations enforced by his agency.

Date December 2011.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/health/policy/parting-shot-at-waste-by-key-obama-health-official.html

So basically, you are speaking about something that you know nothing about and relying on your assumptions about the Obama Administration’s secret plans to defund Medicare to carry you through in the absence of even a single google search.

No, you didn’t. Go the the “Expedited Process for Consideration of Further Deficit Reduction”, Section 2, first and third bullet point.

Sorry, but the key is the bullet point above that with the “make permanent 10%, … ” rates which has a glaring omission of the top rate. The points you mention are nothing to do with tax rates – so your claim ” All of the Bush tax cuts would be kept. ” is false.
Apologies will be graciously accepted or at least accepted with surprise.

are links allowed? About yesterday’s press conferernce:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/11/obama-tax-hikes-and-fiscal-cliff.html
——————————–
“But has Obama given the Republicans sufficient reason to believe he won’t eventually roll over?

At least to me, that’s not yet clear. During his press conference, a reporter asked the President, “(W)hy should the American people and the Republicans believe that you won’t cave again this time?” This was Obama’s reply:

“Well, two years ago the economy was in a different situation. We were still very much in the early parts of recovering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. And ultimately, we came together, not only to extend the Bush tax cuts, but also a wide range of policies that were going to be good for the economy at the point—unemployment-insurance extensions, payroll-tax extension—all of which made a difference, and is a part of the reason why what we’ve seen now is thirty-two consecutive months of job growth, and over five and a half million jobs created, and the unemployment rate coming down. But what I said at the time is what I meant, which is this was a one-time proposition. And you know, what I have told leaders privately as well as publicly is that we cannot afford to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.”

But somehow God is beaming the secret info that Obama is sellout into your brain, right?