Political Roundtable Part XIII

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[gtn130]

This is complete opinion. And I am consolidating the views of multiple R factions. So, I guess I am wrong by default.

I still think The Repeal (capital R) is the political symbol they are shooting for... the taxes are secondary (or even tertiary).

It's also your opinion that Republicans would be steadfast in their efforts to repeal ACA even if it didn't involve a hefty tax cut for their donors.

That said, remember when you believed repealing ACA wouldn't result in a tax cut at all?

Additionally - it's laughable and completely incorrect when people intimate that there is this massive, organic groundswell among R voters to repeal ACA. The outrage over ACA stems 100% from the Republican arm of the media telling their viewers how awful ACA is for the last eight years! It stems from Ted Cruz shamelessly filibustering for hours and hours. It stems from every Republican representative, pundit, talking head and radio personality lambasting the law for nearly a decade now.

Is any of that good for their constituents? is any of that done in good faith? Will lives be improved by repealing ACA? We know the answers here.

Republicans are not acting in good faith. They are nefarious. Our current political climate is partly to blame, but an ideology that is incompatible with mainstream populism is just as much at fault here.

gtn, am I a Republican? No. So, start there.

Do you understand how are current tax structure hurts growth and additional revenues that we need? Can you wrap your head around that one? I need to know before we continue the debate.

Do the Rs want to cut taxes. Yes. Is that a good move? It depends on how it is done. Do I understand that just a straight cut to taxes in our current system makes the system even less sustainable? Yes.

Do I care what Ted Cruz says, no. That is dribble. Sorry.

What parts of the ACA did I say were bad? Which parts did I say were good?

Can we have a nuanced conversation or does it just have to be back to the "they are evil" conversation? Maybe you believe that ~ 1/3 of the population actually is evil (1/3 R, 1/3 D, 1/3 Other). If so, I would suggest you actually go out and have a conversation with one of them.

Do you think the Republicans want to repeal ACA because they believe doing so will make the lives of the general population better?

[gtn130]

And to the folks who think it's sacrilege or something to question mainstream Republican orthodoxy - do you all think the GOP platform will stay the same forever? That their principles will be exactly the same in 10, 20, 50 years?

Being a centrist isn't inherently good. The assumption that neoconservatism and neoliberalism equate to the two acceptable sides of the argument is wrong.

[FAH1223]

Watch on YouTube

'You're born into this generational poverty,' says a McDowell County resident at the town hall with Bernie Sanders where residents discussed the lack of opportunity in their community in recent years.

Watch on YouTube

Bernie Sanders and Chris Hayes talk to residents of McDowell County, West Virginia about how Obamacare has affected their lives and what would happen to them if it is repealed.

[dckingsfan]

It's also your opinion that Republicans would be steadfast in their efforts to repeal ACA even if it didn't involve a hefty tax cut for their donors.

That said, remember when you believed repealing ACA wouldn't result in a tax cut at all?

Additionally - it's laughable and completely incorrect when people intimate that there is this massive, organic groundswell among R voters to repeal ACA. The outrage over ACA stems 100% from the Republican arm of the media telling their viewers how awful ACA is for the last eight years! It stems from Ted Cruz shamelessly filibustering for hours and hours. It stems from every Republican representative, pundit, talking head and radio personality lambasting the law for nearly a decade now.

Is any of that good for their constituents? is any of that done in good faith? Will lives be improved by repealing ACA? We know the answers here.

Republicans are not acting in good faith. They are nefarious. Our current political climate is partly to blame, but an ideology that is incompatible with mainstream populism is just as much at fault here.

gtn, am I a Republican? No. So, start there.

Do you understand how are current tax structure hurts growth and additional revenues that we need? Can you wrap your head around that one? I need to know before we continue the debate.

Do the Rs want to cut taxes. Yes. Is that a good move? It depends on how it is done. Do I understand that just a straight cut to taxes in our current system makes the system even less sustainable? Yes.

Do I care what Ted Cruz says, no. That is dribble. Sorry.

What parts of the ACA did I say were bad? Which parts did I say were good?

Can we have a nuanced conversation or does it just have to be back to the "they are evil" conversation? Maybe you believe that ~ 1/3 of the population actually is evil (1/3 R, 1/3 D, 1/3 Other). If so, I would suggest you actually go out and have a conversation with one of them.

Do you think the Republicans want to repeal ACA because they believe doing so will make the lives of the general population better?

I don't have an answer to that question. And I am not sure there is an answer with the fragmentation of the Rs.

I do believe that there is a part of the Rs that believe that the ACA and our entitlement programs are unsustainable. And I think they are very much correct. I think that there is a fragment that is just intent on repealing because it wasn't their program. And I think there is a fragment that just sees this as more federal government creep.

I don't think that how they have approached the problem is the right way though. And I do think it will cost them a majority at the mid-terms unless they get their collective sh&t together.

My opinion vs. R opinion: I feel that with the current group of candidates that were offered in the last election that there isn't a good way forward. I think Bernie set the tone and pulled Hillary left and Trump doubled down on "no changes". If you look at both sets of candidates - they have continually lied about healthcare, its costs and what can actually be done. Neither set have a good plan. One group has an unsustainable model. The other group is willing to leave out the lower income group.

If the Rs actually want to govern, they are going to need to come up with a plan that is better than the ACA. They haven't done that yet. If you read the CBO report, it is damning - https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52486.

On the other hand, Democrats didn't solve our problem with entitlements during the last Administration. They had a chance during the first 2009-2010 and choose to kick the can. Putting in place an unsustainable system and then crying foul when anyone touches it is equally poor governance. I think that is hard to swallow for Ds that have a hard time seeing the problems with their party.

[dckingsfan]

And to the folks who think it's sacrilege or something to question mainstream Republican orthodoxy - do you all think the GOP platform will stay the same forever? That their principles will be exactly the same in 10, 20, 50 years?

Being a centrist isn't inherently good. The assumption that neoconservatism and neoliberalism equate to the two acceptable sides of the argument is wrong.

I would ask the same about the Ds? Since they largely lost the blue collar vote, will they change?

Look back at the Ds & Rs in the 1860s and watch their transformation. Fascinating, no?

[DCZards]

On the other hand, Democrats didn't solve our problem with entitlements during the last Administration. They had a chance during the first 2009-2010 and choose to kick the can. Putting in place an unsustainable system and then crying foul when anyone touches it is equally poor governance. I think that is hard to swallow for Ds that have a hard time seeing the problems with their party.

It's unrealistic to have expected the Dems to solve our nation's entitlement problems in the two short years that they had control of the House, Senate and WH. Do you realize how hard it is to get legislation drafted, debated and passed, especially when you're talking about an issue as complex (and with as many differing opinions as to how to address it) as entitlements?

Obama and the Dems have never had a problem with Obamacare being touched. In fact, Pres. Obama said from day one that ACA was flawed and he welcomed efforts to fix or improve it. What the Dems have a problem with is repealing Obamacare and replacing it with a law that leaves 20 plus million Americans without healthcare coverage...and gives a massive tax break to the wealthy.

[dckingsfan]

On the other hand, Democrats didn't solve our problem with entitlements during the last Administration. They had a chance during the first 2009-2010 and choose to kick the can. Putting in place an unsustainable system and then crying foul when anyone touches it is equally poor governance. I think that is hard to swallow for Ds that have a hard time seeing the problems with their party.

It is entirely unrealistic to have expected the Dems to solve our nation's entitlement problems in the two short years that they had control of the House, Senate and WH. Do you realize how hard it is to get legislation drafted, debated and passed, especially when you're talking about an issue as complex (and with as many differing opinions as to how to address it) as entitlements?

Obama and the Dems have never had a problem with Obamacare being touched. In fact, Pres. Obama said from day one that ACA was flawed and he welcomed efforts to fix or improve it. What the Dems have a problem with is repealing Obamacare and replacing it with a law that leaves 20 plus million Americans without healthcare coverage...and gives a massive tax break to the wealthy.

But they didn't get it done. And that is the political reality.

I love the "massive tax break to the wealthy" comment. You are getting pretty good at compartmentalizing

How about if we just repeal the ACA and tax the 1% at 100% of income. Wait, we still wouldn't solve our spending problem.

The problem is neither side has a solution. You can insure the 20M and add on another 15M on top of that - you just can't pay for it. The problem is healthcare in the US is systematically broken.

The "massive tax break to the wealthy" is just political. It isn't a solution. Nor is the Rs - we are reducing the deficit by $337 billion. It still doesn't get you to where you need to be...

[DCZards]

I love the "massive tax break to the wealthy" comment. You are getting pretty good at compartmentalizing

How about if we just repeal the ACA and tax the 1% at 100% of income. Wait, we still wouldn't solve our spending problem.

The problem is neither side has a solution. You can insure the 20M and add on another 15M on top of that - you just can't pay for it. The problem is healthcare in the US is systematically broken.

The "massive tax break to the wealthy" is just political. It isn't a solution. Nor is the Rs - we are reducing the deficit by $337 billion. It still doesn't get you to where you need to be...

Actually, I think both sides have parts of the answer. It’s just a question of if and when the Repubs and Dems can come to the table and negotiate and compromise in good faith—and in the best interest of the country. That’s the only way, imo, that the best ideas for reforming healthcare, entitlements, our tax system, etc. will actually become law.

I know this sounds unrealistic. But one can hope, right.

[sfam]

Talk about Chickens Coming Home to Roost! So the CBO scores the AHCA - TrumpCare if you will - stating24 million less will have coverage.

Trump and Price's response? Believe us! Really, we're right! Ignore that!

Their credibility is gone now. Who believes anyone is going to take them at their word?

Who are you gonna believe, the CBO or Trump?

[sfam]

I love the "massive tax break to the wealthy" comment. You are getting pretty good at compartmentalizing

How about if we just repeal the ACA and tax the 1% at 100% of income. Wait, we still wouldn't solve our spending problem.

The problem is neither side has a solution. You can insure the 20M and add on another 15M on top of that - you just can't pay for it. The problem is healthcare in the US is systematically broken.

The "massive tax break to the wealthy" is just political. It isn't a solution. Nor is the Rs - we are reducing the deficit by $337 billion. It still doesn't get you to where you need to be...

Actually, I think both sides have parts of the answer. It’s just a question of if and when the Repubs and Dems can come to the table and negotiate and compromise in good faith—and in the best interest of the country. That’s the only way, imo, that the best ideas for reforming healthcare, entitlements, our tax system, etc. will actually become law.

I know this sounds unrealistic. But one can hope, right.

This approach requires Republicans to agree with the basic premise of the ACA - that everyone should be covered. Over time this becomes a "right." Why is it a problem to cover everyone as a right, you ask? I dunno, this is the decision the rest of the developed world has come to, and has resulted in far better care for far lower prices. Clearly there are objections though.

Fixing the current system is relatively easy to do. The problem is doing so would ensure the tax increases that helped pay for the ACA stay in place (the massive tax gains we hear about for the top 1% with TrumpCare), and again, you codify a new right.

[gtn130]

Talk about Chickens Coming Home to Roost! So the CBO scores the AHCA - TrumpCare if you will - stating24 million less will have coverage.

Trump and Price's response? Believe us! Really, we're right! Ignore that!

Their credibility is gone now. Who believes anyone is going to take them at their word?

Trump is blaming all of this on Paul Ryan. That's how Breitbart is covering it, at least.

Trump is in a tough spot because he wants to keep congress on his side without alienating his base, so he has to simultaneously support the bill while demonizing it and congressional Republicans through Breitbart.

The scary thing is it could lead to a sea change down the road where traditional congressional neocons are primaried by right-wing Trump acolytes.

[sfam]

Talk about Chickens Coming Home to Roost! So the CBO scores the AHCA - TrumpCare if you will - stating24 million less will have coverage.

Trump and Price's response? Believe us! Really, we're right! Ignore that!

Their credibility is gone now. Who believes anyone is going to take them at their word?

Trump is blaming all of this on Paul Ryan. That's how Breitbart is covering it, at least.

Trump is in a tough spot because he wants to keep congress on his side without alienating his base, so he has to simultaneously support the bill while demonizing it and congressional Republicans through Breitbart.

The scary thing is it could lead to a sea change down the road where traditional congressional neocons are primaried by right-wing Trump acolytes.

Trump is doing what most politicians do - check which way the wind is blowing. He certainly isn't supporting it. This AHCA may be the only thing Trump hasn't wanted to put his name on!

Trump really would be wise to throw away this bill and ask for Democrats and Republicans to fix the existing system. This would be a defensible fallback position if he can pin the blame on Ryan.

[Wizardspride]

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/323874-report-white-house-eyeing-even-deeper-epa-cuts

White House eyeing even deeper EPA cuts: report


The Trump administration is weighing even deeper cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency than previous versions of their budget outline suggested, according to a new report.

The EPA and agency chief Scott Pruitt did not fight the 25 percent cut the White House proposed in its first budget draft last month, Axios reported Tuesday, and officials are now considering cutting the agency’s $8.1 billion budget even further.

In talks with the administration, Pruitt only fought proposed cuts to the agency’s clean-up budget, something he told a group of mayors earlier this month he would do.

Instead, the ax looks set to fall hardest on EPA's climate change programs, with the staff there expected to leave the agency. Pruitt has repeatedly challenged the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, saying he doesn't believe carbon-dioxide is a major factor driving it.
"[EPA employees] just have to deal with it, because this was coming," one person told Axios.

But given Pruitt's acceptance of the rest of Trump’s budget plan, the administration is looking to cut the agency’s budget and its regulatory programs even deeper than before, according to the report.

[DCZards]

Talk about Chickens Coming Home to Roost! So the CBO scores the AHCA - TrumpCare if you will - stating24 million less will have coverage.

Trump and Price's response? Believe us! Really, we're right! Ignore that!

Their credibility is gone now. Who believes anyone is going to take them at their word?

Who are you gonna believe, the CBO or Trump?

Yeah, this is where Trump's lack of credibility comes back to bite him in the butt.

Americans will be reminded that it was Trump who told us, among other lies, that his inauguration crowd was the largest ever (which it clearly wasn't); that millions of illegal votes were cast in the last election (a claim that the Trump Admin. has yet to prove); and that Obama ordered the wiretapping of Trump Tower (not one shred of evidence has been presented to back up this very serious allegation).

[dckingsfan]

I love the "massive tax break to the wealthy" comment. You are getting pretty good at compartmentalizing

How about if we just repeal the ACA and tax the 1% at 100% of income. Wait, we still wouldn't solve our spending problem.

The problem is neither side has a solution. You can insure the 20M and add on another 15M on top of that - you just can't pay for it. The problem is healthcare in the US is systematically broken.

The "massive tax break to the wealthy" is just political. It isn't a solution. Nor is the Rs - we are reducing the deficit by $337 billion. It still doesn't get you to where you need to be...

Actually, I think both sides have parts of the answer. It’s just a question of if and when the Repubs and Dems can come to the table and negotiate and compromise in good faith—and in the best interest of the country. That’s the only way, imo, that the best ideas for reforming healthcare, entitlements, our tax system, etc. will actually become law.

I know this sounds unrealistic. But one can hope, right.

This approach requires Republicans to agree with the basic premise of the ACA - that everyone should be covered. Over time this becomes a "right." Why is it a problem to cover everyone as a right, you ask? I dunno, this is the decision the rest of the developed world has come to, and has resulted in far better care for far lower prices. Clearly there are objections though.

Fixing the current system is relatively easy to do. The problem is doing so would ensure the tax increases that helped pay for the ACA stay in place (the massive tax gains we hear about for the top 1% with TrumpCare), and again, you codify a new right.

sfam, would it not also require the Ds to agree with the basic premise of sustainable budgets? Fixing the ACA is easy. Fixing the overall budget, not so much.

Edit: I missed the Healthcare as a right issue.

I can give you the argument if you would like. The argument is that rights are defined as life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

In the case of Healthcare you are taking from one person and giving to another. Someone has to provide the care. Should they have to provide the care for free? Or should someone else (the tax payer) have to provide that care to them?

I guess the next thing would be housing. Is housing a right?

Someone has to build the house. Should that person provide those services for free? Or should some else (the tax payer) have to provide that care to them?

On the other side, I think most proponents of universal health insurance coverage, whether through the ACA, single-payer or other means, believe access to healthcare is a right.

No economic rights can be found in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution. So, I think this is where it breaks down.

[gtn130]

I don't have an answer to that question. And I am not sure there is an answer with the fragmentation of the Rs.

I do believe that there is a part of the Rs that believe that the ACA and our entitlement programs are unsustainable. And I think they are very much correct. I think that there is a fragment that is just intent on repealing because it wasn't their program. And I think there is a fragment that just sees this as more federal government creep.

What exactly have Republicans done to earn this presumption of good faith? Why have you completely ruled out that Republicans don't have good intentions?

They're literally repealing a healthcare bill that will result in millions losing coverage; people will literally die. And rolled into this bill is a massive tax break for millionaires!

But yes, Republicans are far too fragmented for us to draw any conclusions here. So many competing forces in play! Who really knows what Republicans are motivated by! Probably something something FREEDOM something LIBERTY something something. All good stuff.

[gtn130]

Actually, I think both sides have parts of the answer. It’s just a question of if and when the Repubs and Dems can come to the table and negotiate and compromise in good faith—and in the best interest of the country. That’s the only way, imo, that the best ideas for reforming healthcare, entitlements, our tax system, etc. will actually become law.

I know this sounds unrealistic. But one can hope, right.

This approach requires Republicans to agree with the basic premise of the ACA - that everyone should be covered. Over time this becomes a "right." Why is it a problem to cover everyone as a right, you ask? I dunno, this is the decision the rest of the developed world has come to, and has resulted in far better care for far lower prices. Clearly there are objections though.

Fixing the current system is relatively easy to do. The problem is doing so would ensure the tax increases that helped pay for the ACA stay in place (the massive tax gains we hear about for the top 1% with TrumpCare), and again, you codify a new right.

sfam, would it not also require the Ds to agree with the basic premise of sustainable budgets? Fixing the ACA is easy. Fixing the overall budget, not so much.

Dude, all of this is fixable if there was bilateral agreement that healthcare is an inherent right.

Railing on and on about the cost of everything is not a worthwhile exercise, when we can effectively afford whatever we want as long we adequately prioritize it as a nation. The answer is always to cut military spending and raise taxes on the wealthy. We can literally afford whatever we want if we do those two things.

[dckingsfan]

This approach requires Republicans to agree with the basic premise of the ACA - that everyone should be covered. Over time this becomes a "right." Why is it a problem to cover everyone as a right, you ask? I dunno, this is the decision the rest of the developed world has come to, and has resulted in far better care for far lower prices. Clearly there are objections though.

Fixing the current system is relatively easy to do. The problem is doing so would ensure the tax increases that helped pay for the ACA stay in place (the massive tax gains we hear about for the top 1% with TrumpCare), and again, you codify a new right.

sfam, would it not also require the Ds to agree with the basic premise of sustainable budgets? Fixing the ACA is easy. Fixing the overall budget, not so much.

Dude, all of this is fixable if there was bilateral agreement that healthcare is an inherent right.

Railing on and on about the cost of everything is not a worthwhile exercise, when we can effectively afford whatever we want as long we adequately prioritize it as a nation. The answer is always to cut military spending and raise taxes on the wealthy. We can literally afford whatever we want if we do those two things.

Oh wow, at its current path, you realize that if we cut military spending to zero and tax the 1%, 100% of their income, we are still not on a sustainable path.

[dckingsfan]

I don't have an answer to that question. And I am not sure there is an answer with the fragmentation of the Rs.

I do believe that there is a part of the Rs that believe that the ACA and our entitlement programs are unsustainable. And I think they are very much correct. I think that there is a fragment that is just intent on repealing because it wasn't their program. And I think there is a fragment that just sees this as more federal government creep.

What exactly have Republicans done to earn this presumption of good faith? Why have you completely ruled out that Republicans don't have good intentions?

They're literally repealing a healthcare bill that will result in millions losing coverage; people will literally die. And rolled into this bill is a massive tax break for millionaires!

But yes, Republicans are far too fragmented for us to draw any conclusions here. So many competing forces in play! Who really knows what Republicans are motivated by! Probably something something FREEDOM something LIBERTY something something. All good stuff.

I have no reason to assume they are working in good faith. None.