I'm willing to have our economy suffer *some* harm for one SC judge. Ending NAFTA will not "destroy" our economy. You've been on year long streak of crazy hyperbole statements Loki.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Printable View
I'm willing to have our economy suffer *some* harm for one SC judge. Ending NAFTA will not "destroy" our economy. You've been on year long streak of crazy hyperbole statements Loki.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
His policies add up, you know. Let's destroy TPP, TTIP, NAFTA, pick fights with China, Mexico, and Canada, call for policies that result in a trillion dollar deficit, etc. But one judge!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I just heard an NPR announcer inadvertently laugh at Trump. They must have a very challenging job.
In other news, the tax plan could be worse. Obviously hard to evaluate without details, but it seems like there's some good and some bad. The good: eliminating most itemized deductions (that mostly help the wealthy), reducing headline corporate tax rates, increasing the standard deduction significantly, etc. The bad: eliminating the estate tax, probably not eliminating enough corporate tax deductions to offset the rate decrease, making the brackets for individuals too chunky, and not beefing up rules to keep individuals from incorporating to get the new 15% rate. It's probably not revenue neutral, which I'm not a bit fan of, but without detailed scoring it's hard to know how bad it would be.
Doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of making it through Congress, though.
Why not? The GOP control Congress and that seems to tick a lot of GOP boxes. Take the estate tax, you think it's bad to eliminate it (and I agree), but the "death tax" has long been hated by the GOP in Congress. It's almost as if that's been thrown in to smooth its ride on a partisan basis.
Elements of it might get passed under reconciliation but other bits are wildly unpopular and Congressmen won't support it - e.g. eliminating a bunch of deductions.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
So the bits that actually make the most sense and are most needed?
Sums up what's wrong with Congress. To pass the tax cuts without shutting down the deductions is insane.
In case you weren't paying attention during the Trumpcare caust, the High Fructose Caucus and the so-called moderate Republican caucus in the House have wildly separate ideas on what is good and what is of Satan. Then there's the Senate on top of that. I'm sure Wiggin has a more verbose take.
The GOP has controlled Congress for a while. Ryan in particular is a budget and tax wonk and has been working for years to try and get superior versions of this passed by Congress. He hasn't managed it. Trump hasn't created enough political capital on the Hill to try and persuade/push Congress-critters where Ryan was not able to.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Yes but they didn't control both Congress and the White House.
They don't control enough of the Senate.
Do you really think Obama would have vetoed that budget if Ryan had managed to pass it? He couldn't even come CLOSE to passing itQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The President has political capital (even if it is isn't much in Trump's case) and powers of patronage and bargaining etc that people like Ryan do not. I think having a President who opposes Ryan and a President who agrees with him should make a difference.
Though it may not be enough of a difference.
[QUOTE=RandBlade;187602]The President has political capital (even if it is isn't much in Trump's case)/quote]
He does have some, yes. You'll note that what I said is that he doesn't have ENOUGH.
Ryan actually has substantial powers for patronage and bargaining as Speaker himself.Quote:
and powers of patronage and bargaining etc that people like Ryan do not.
It could. But is this a President who agrees with Ryan or is this a President who is ignoring Ryan and pushing his own new (and nowhere near as thoroughly researched and prepped) plan? Looks like the latter to me. Trump isn't helping Ryan get his reforms passed, he's doing the exact same things he did elsewhere, muscling around as the new Big Cheese and expecting them to fall into line because they're Washington insiders and he was elected to be an outsider.Quote:
I think having a President who opposes Ryan and a President who agrees with him should make a difference.
Rand is also forgetting one key fact: a president's leverage vis-a-vis Congress comes mainly from his popular support. Trump has 40% approval.
I thought how approval was still very high among Republican voters.
Lower than in Bush's first term.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/203198/pr...ald-trump.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/pr...orge-bush.aspx
In his first term didn't Bush get education and tax reforms through from memory?
In Obama's first term he got healthcare reform through.
Is Trump going to get anything substantial that requires Congress during his first term?
If he doesn't that's going to be pretty damn pathetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
He can always redefine "substantiatial".
God knows I don't have much optimism or hope for this administration but it might be a bit premature to be asking whether he's going to accomplish anything substantial in the entire first term.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No it isn't...I don't stand by anything. Narcissism is strong with this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
This is real, right?
“It will allow insurance companies to require people who have higher health care costs to contribute more to the insurance pool that helps offset all these costs, thereby reducing the cost to those people who lead good lives, they’re healthy, they’ve done the things to keep their bodies healthy,” explained Brooks. “And right now, those are the people who have done things the right way that are seeing their costs skyrocketing.”
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...able-care.html
That's the modern GOP in a nutshell. If you get sick, it's because of your lifestyle. In which case, you should probably go in a ditch somewhere and die.
My non smoking non drinking mom's 6 year battle with throat cancer was totally a result of her lifestyle :rolleyes:
Same goes for my dad and his rectal cancer that so wiped out my parents savings that my mom lost her house after he died.
GOP is controlled and supported by assholes, murderous assholes.
Somebody ought to tell the GOP we already do that. People who actually use their insurance see their rates go up. Choobs should be happy though. I recall he used to champion smokers and fat people paying more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I actually think they should too. Not by government mandate of course but if you are those things you will likely cost the insurance pool more money.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Just like you would if you have some genetic condition. Or cancer. Or a serious mental illness. Let's force women to give birth to severely disabled children and then force them into homelessness because of unaffordable healthcare rates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. If enough people banded together and decided it was important enough they could be cared for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That being said, the genie is out of the bottle now. We aren't going to be able to politically make pre-existing conditions un-coverable. But we certainly can *and should* charge people more for unhealthy behavior. Just like you would charge someone more for car insurance if they keep getting speed tickets.
Except the GOP is conflating unhealthy behavior with illness as a way to justify screwing the seriously sick. All while opposing abortion, I should note. You don't see how evil it is to force someone to give birth to a severely disabled child and then refuse to provide the mother and child sufficient healthcare coverage?
Incidentally, how many people have to band together to do this in a place like North Carolina, one of the most gerrymandered states in the country?
You keep trying to broaden the argument further. I've already said the genie is out of the bottle, we aren't going back to the way it was before. I also don't care what the latest push that probably won't amount to anything, that the GOP is currently doing. I'm asking from an insurance/policy perspective do you think people who deliberately make unhealthy choices should pay higher premiums? People choose to smoke, they choose to be fat. Just like people choose to speed and choose to drive while intoxicated. Why are you so you opposed to it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The answer to that would be that though the principle sounds reasonable it's actually the individual evaluation which makes the difference. How does your argument of choice holds up for a morbidly obese young adult? The 'choices' leading to the condition there are not so unequivocally those of the person who is made responsible.
But let's say you are right; why no higher premiums for people who drive cars, work in office jobs, have children or live in multi-storey houses? The health risks these people take on a daily basis surely are big enough to warrant a healthy surcharge on their premiums.