The Warrior Monk has spoken.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/us/politics/jim-mattis-defense-secretary-trump.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
I think I’m done with Trump as well. The only reason I voted for him was his opposition.
Mattis was the only one in the Administration worth anything.
Yeah we all kinda saw what we wanted to see in 2016.
Oh well…at least now I can be angsty again
Yep, totally agree with General Mattis’s take on the whole Syrian deal.
This is a low spot.
Thank you, General Mattis, for your service.
At this rate, we’ll all,get a turn at a cabinet level post.
On one hand, I believe Mattis thinks like a Marine and wants to be involved in Syria and the middle east. On the other hand, I believe Trump and Congress wants to pull back and consume a lot of our resources. I do believe Mattis was a great general, but SECDEF is a different job that requires more in some area and less in other areas.
I think Mattis was a great SECDEF during the transition between Obama and Trump, because I felt that Obama had turned a blind eye on global events such as Syria. And Trump needed someone with a lot of knowledge and expertise on how to handle a complex conflict with so many players involved.
Trump is working the CEO of America. Just like any other CEO if your staff doesn’t play ball you get rid of them.
Do any of you work for a major corporation? The turn over can be relatively high, especially if there is any kind of change going on.
Business as usual in Corporate America.
As for Mathis… what makes him so great as a SEC DEF. Did he reverse all the Sh%$ Obama did to the MIL? Nope. So he is just another politician but with a cult following.
President is not a CEO. And I don’t want the country ran like a Corporation. Yes there is something to be said for the Fiscal responsibility side that is like business but that is about the extent of it.
I do, and he need to make a profit so we can stop paying for this gay sh%$ like welfare and Medicaid.
I agree 100% Trump has changed his staff many times of the last 2 years to conform to his vision. I think if Bush 43 had changed his staff following 9/11, and got rid of his Dad’s friends, his presidency would have been a lot better.
The Secretary of “whatever” works directly for the President! They are appointed by him to work together for a common goal! And while everyone is rowing in the same direction, if you start paddling the other way, you get thrown overboard. That’s called team building!
That’s exactly what he is! He is the Commander in Chief, the Chief Executive Officer of the Executive Branch.
Also agree 100%, I do believe welfare and Medicaid has a purpose, but not how its being used right now! The US pays like $40 Billion a year to Indians through the Bureau of Indian Affairs yet average Indians are poor, we just committed to paying Mexico and Central America $10 Billion in aide, The US gives hundreds of billion away every year in foreign aide. Its not just a penny out of our paycheck like they want us to believe. Its the reason we are broke! Its the reason we cant get $5 Billion to build a wall, yet Obama got $1.3 Trillion for Obamacare.
Yep. There’s one boss and you sing from his hymnal or move on.
I agree, what are all the successes Mattis fans can list?
He was without a doubt the finest general officer I ever served under. His performance early in Afghanistan and then in Iraq were outstanding. He was an excellent military leader at the operational level.
Ideologically, I’m with you. But it’s a drop in the bucket of what’s coming. And it isn’t poor people living on the dole that is going to be the cause. It is you, it is your parents, it was your grandparents. It’s all of us that are paying into social security and not reforming healthcare in such a fashion that old people can afford it without needing Medicare.
I.O.U.S.A. did the math in an apolitical fashion, and we can’t simply grow or cut our way out of this unless you start talking about cutting people who have paid into it for thirty or forty years. Nor can we have tax our way out of it. It will wind up being a combination of taxes and pretty severe cuts. Or we’ll choose to inflate ourselves into poverty.
Until a politician stands up and says “you’re going to pay more taxes, and get fewer benefits,” I’m going to assume that he is either a liar or uninformed.
Trump may be a CEO, albeit one who drove off an actually competent one and who made less money than the S&P average…but if he is a CEO of this country, he’s like Jeffrey Skilling.
I feel it’s important to read his resignation letter. Seams like he is upset with how we treat our allies now. And i can’t say i blame him, this whole ordeal has been a stain on the honor of the US.
The honor of the US was already stained after Obama. We need to get out of stupid wars. If anything our allies have been all lip service for a long time. They don’t pay for NATO, they don’t unite against Russia and China. Everyone sits on their hands and waits for the USA or yellow vests to get them stirred up a little. If anything our allies need a reset on what is happening in this world and stop promoting socialism over freedom and the effort to keep it.
Well, he didn’t. The annual cost at the moment is within several billion of what Medicare Part D(Bush’s healthcare bill,) costs around $110 billion. However cost is irrelevant to me, because even if it costs nothing, the government should not be in the business of delivering goods and services.
I would also argue that insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are who got the ACA passed, and are a large part of why Republicans were never actually going to overturn it.
I’ve missed whether or not Trump is implying that he can build he whole wall for $5B? A decade ago it was suggested that at minimum it would cost $25B…by a person advocating for it.
If not, what are we doing? Put that money straight into CBP…the Mexicans’ proclivity towards smuggling via tunnels should make us question the whole idea. We’re going to stop a ten billion dollar industry with a five billion dollar wall? I think we should step back and consider the return on investment and political capital we’re spending on this stupid thing.
I believe $10 billion is the standard number for the wall.
Not sure whether the wall is the right choice, but the drugs and potential threats that are coming over are no joke. One has to wonder if it’s time for another Punitive Expedition.
But, in reference to the original topic, Mattis leaving is not a good thing. I voted for Trump because I trust Pence. People like Mattis built up trust in the effectiveness of the administration, vs people like Devos who have zero experience in their areas, despite my agreement with her ideology. And, I know that a fair number of people really like/respect Mattis… I think this is going to make a lot of people think twice about showing up in 2020.
Well, not 40 billion, 2.5 billion. https://www.bia.gov/news/opa/president-proposes-25-billion-budget-indian-affairs-fiscal-year-2018
It is kind of hard to nail down a set amount on what the Bureau of Indian Affairs spends on each tribal member. Some of the money goes to support the IHS, which reduces medicaid costs. Some of the money goes to support infrastructure on the reservations, those costs would be borne by local jurisdictions, if the reservations were part of the state.
There are about 5,200,000 Native Americans (not sure whether that includes Alaskan Natives) it is said that about 22% (1,440.000) live on reservations.
I think we should do away with the BIA and the reservations. One way would be to make each reservation an individual corporation and give each member carried on the tribal rolls a percentage of the stock based on the percentage of Native American blood each person has - for example, someone with 1% tribal blood gets 10 shares; 100% gets 1,000 shares… If the corporation sells any of it’s lands shareholders get a dividend based on their shares, if the casino makes a profit, shareholders get a dividend, etc. That takes care of the tribal lands.
Then we need to pay off everyone who is on the tribal rolls - Once again, base the payments on percentage of native blood, on tribal rolls. Someone 100% gets $200,000,00; someone 1% gets $2,000,00.
That way the Native Americans have a corporate income stream, and a one-time cash payment to start them on their way.
Then we have the problem of what to do with all the employees, of the BIA. On second thought, maybe better to leave things as they are.
How Obamacare Reduces the Debt by $143 Billion
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said that the ACA would reduce the debt by $143 billion. It added up the costs of both of the laws that implemented Obamacare. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) detailed the plan. The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (Public Law 111-152) passed new Obamacare taxes and budget reductions in other areas, which offset the cost of the plan.
The following five new ACA taxes would bring in an additional $567 billion in revenue:
Hospital insurance tax - $212 billion.
Non-compliance tax - $64 billion.
Cadillac health insurance tax - $32 billion.
Medical device and insurers tax - $107 billion.
Raising medical deduction limit to 10 percent - $104 billion.
Also, there were five areas where the ACA imposed a total of $477 billion in cost savings:
Reduce drug subsidies to the wealthy - $87 billion.
Reduce hospital DSH payments - $37 billion.
Reduce Medicare payments - $197 billion.
Reduce Medicare Advantage payments - $135 billion.
Service education loans directly. That eliminated the cost of the private loan servicer, Sallie Mae - $20 billion.
When the costs of $940 billion were deducted, the deficit would have been reduced by $104 billion. This would have been added back to the deficit if Trump had repealed and replaced Obamacare.
Obama Said It Cost $940 Billion
When President Obama signed the ACA on March 23, 2010, he said it would cost $940 billion over its first ten years (FY 2010 - FY 2019). The CBO made that estimate in its analysis completed March 18, 2010. A few days later the CBO lowered its cost projection to $938 billion based on a more detailed analysis. The estimate came from five cost areas that were not directly offset by revenues:
Expanding Medicaid and CHIP - $434 billion.
Tax credits to small businesses who provide insurance - $40 billion.
Setting up the health insurance exchanges - $358 billion.
Tax credits for those who can't afford insurance - $106 billion.
The CBO Said It Cost $1.76 Trillion
In March 2012, the CBO updated its Obamacare cost estimate to $1.76 trillion. The Senate Budget Committee Minority Office reported that this was two times more than the CBO’s original estimate of $940 billion. Did the cost of Obamacare spiral out of control? Did Obamacare proponents deliberately mislead us? No and no.
First, the original CBO estimate was for FY 2010 - FY 2019, a 10-year span. The updated CBO estimate was a for an 11-year span starting two years later, FY 2012 - FY 2023. The most expensive provisions of Obamacare didn’t take effect until 2014. That’s when mandatory health insurance coverage took effect. The biggest cost was expanding Medicaid and CHIP to include more low-income people. Here’s the breakout:
Expanding Medicaid and CHIP - $931 billion.
Small business tax credits - $23 billion.
Setting up exchanges and providing tax credits for those who can't afford insurance (combined) - $808 billion.
https://www.thebalance.com/cost-of-obamacare-3306050
The 1.3 trillion for the ACA, is an aggregate over a ten-year period.
Actually, somewhat correct. If big pharma had pulled the strings on its bought and paid for elected officials, the ACA would never have passed. As a result, in order to placate big pharma and get the act passed, things that would have controlled drug prices and lowered medicaid and medicare costs were axed.
So, yeah they helped, but actually it was a hindrance.
I’m really looking forward to seeing where this goes:
[i]Today, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed polices for 2020 to strengthen and modernize the Medicare Part C and D programs. The proposal would ensure that Medicare Advantage and Part D plans have more tools to negotiate lower drug prices, and the agency is also considering a policy that would require pharmacy rebates to be passed on to seniors to lower their drug costs at the pharmacy counter.
“President Trump is following through on his promise to bring tougher negotiation to Medicare and bring down drug costs for patients, without restricting patient access or choice,” said HHS Secretary Alex Azar. “By bringing the latest tools from the private sector to Medicare Part D, we can save money for taxpayers and seniors, improve access to expensive drugs many seniors need, and expand their choice of plans. The Part D proposals complement efforts to bring down costs in Medicare Advantage and in Medicare Part B through negotiation, all part of the President’s plan to put American patients first by bringing down prescription-drug prices and out-of-pocket costs.”[/i] https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cms-takes-action-lower-prescription-drug-costs-modernizing-medicare
Because unless I didn’t understand, that is pretty much what the original ACA wanted to do.