Political Roundtable Part XIII

[DCZards]

And my last little pop to those that feel the ACA is a sustainable program. By eliminating it - the deficit will go down $337B and that includes that tax on the rich that was "supposed" to pay for it.

...and by repealing ACA and replacing it with the Republican plan the healthcare premiums of those 64 and older go through the roof. Reportedly 8x as much as that demographic is paying under ACA.

Not in agreement with the ACHA. I have stated that they shouldn't repeal the ACA until they have something better. I agree with Sen. Cotton, “Pause, start over. Get it right.” The ACHA as it is currently constructed sucks.

My point was - the ACA was never sustainable. That stands. It was the wrong way to approach a problem that still isn't solved.

My point all along is that if the Repubs were serious about having accessible healthcare for all Americans they would have worked with Obama (as he urged them to) to fix ACA so that it might be sustainable. That also stands.

[sfam]

But if his personal attacks on the judges are affecting their decisions, doesn't it prove that the judges are politically motivated?

The very notion that judges are using statements from Trump's surrogates as a means of divining the intent of his orders is outrageous beyond words. The executive order is what it is. The judges need to evaluate the words on the paper, not the intent behind them.

This is judicial tyranny and it will not stand. This will force Trump to take profound steps to stop judicial overreach. Trump's public tributes to Andrew Jackson are not accidental. The Judicial Branch has steadily expanded it's power without check for a hundred years. It's time for some pushback.

If you mouthed off to a judge at traffic court and she found you at fault and threw the book at you, would you think she was politically motivated?

That's different. In your scenario, the victim of the judge's wrath would be me personally. In this case, the victim is an executive order that could save lives. I realize you dispute the effectiveness of the executive order, and there are valid reasons to do so, but those considerations are completely irrelevant in the context of the judge's decision.

Completely irrelevant according to whom? Clearly not Muslims. Clearly not those affected. Clearly not the judges who evaluated this. That said I fully agree that in normal times, this type of action is completely in the purview of the President. That Trump has found himself in this situation is not due to politically biased courts. His actions have directly led to this.

Trump stated clearly he wanted a Muslim ban, even called it a Muslim ban even as POTUS, as did his staff. He then implemented it almost immediately upon coming to office, in a slapped together manner that made it clear he took in no evidence from the national security establishment. It just so happens that it turns out there is no actual factual case that can be made from a national security standpoint. The lack of evidence for the need, coupled with the intense negative impact, and the current and previous statements by the Trump administration led to this - not politically active judges.

That said, my point stands. If you're even in slightly gray area and berate the judge, I think 10 out of 10 people would expect the judge to rule against you.

[Zonkerbl]

I've read through a lot of court decisions as part of my job. If a judge thinks your proposed whatever (ruling, EO, whatever) is pretty much ok but just needs a little rejiggering, he or she will say so. Explicitly. Judges are extraordinarily good communicators. They are excellent at saying exactly what they mean.

If a judge says "This intelligent design BS is exactly the same crap I threw out last year but with some legal obfuscation thrown in that I'm not falling for because I'M A FREAKING PROFESSIONAL and I'm INSULTED YOU'D THINK YOU COULD FOOL ME" that's exactly what they mean. By the way that's not political. That's clarity in communication. "How dumb do you think I am?" is not a political statement.

I haven't actually read through the previous ruling but I get the sense that the judges who previously threw out Trump's EO on travel threw it out because it was fundamentally flawed and unfixable. They did not invite Trump to make a few marginal changes and resubmit it.

[sfam]

...and by repealing ACA and replacing it with the Republican plan the healthcare premiums of those 64 and older go through the roof. Reportedly 8x as much as that demographic is paying under ACA.

Not in agreement with the ACHA. I have stated that they shouldn't repeal the ACA until they have something better. I agree with Sen. Cotton, “Pause, start over. Get it right.” The ACHA as it is currently constructed sucks.

My point was - the ACA was never sustainable. That stands. It was the wrong way to approach a problem that still isn't solved.

My point all along is that if the Repubs were serious about having accessible healthcare for all Americans they would have worked with Obama (as he urged them to) to fix ACA so that it might be sustainable. That also stands.

This might still happen. This may be Trump's salvation in a sense.

Lets say the AHCA fails - Ryancare as Trump supporters are calling it. What if Trump then says, OK, this failed, but we still have a problem. I want to work with whomever in congress is willing to fix the current healthcare system instead of replacing it?

Trump would get support from both sides to work on this, and Republican leadership wouldn't be able to stop him.

[Zonkerbl]

Not in agreement with the ACHA. I have stated that they shouldn't repeal the ACA until they have something better. I agree with Sen. Cotton, “Pause, start over. Get it right.” The ACHA as it is currently constructed sucks.

My point was - the ACA was never sustainable. That stands. It was the wrong way to approach a problem that still isn't solved.

My point all along is that if the Repubs were serious about having accessible healthcare for all Americans they would have worked with Obama (as he urged them to) to fix ACA so that it might be sustainable. That also stands.

This might still happen. This may be Trump's salvation in a sense.

Lets say the AHCA fails - Ryancare as Trump supporters are calling it. What if Trump then says, OK, this failed, but we still have a problem. I want to work with whomever in congress is willing to fix the current healthcare system instead of replacing it?

Trump would get support from both sides to work on this, and Republican leadership wouldn't be able to stop him.

We live in a bizaare upside down world where Trump having Bannon on his staff actually makes the better outcome, of Trump rejecting Ryancare and working up something more closely resembling a fix to Obamacare, more likely. Well, Bannon genuinely loves white people and Ryancare would hurt a lot of them so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But I am. I thought he was just a stooge manipulating poor white people to serve billionaire interests. But maybe he's genuinely representing the people who make up the Breitbart audience. Maybe I'm wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

Well, let's see how this resolves first. I imagine there's a third possibility that Ryancare and Obamacare both get rejected and we get the Conservative Review version instead, which would be interesting.

[sfam]

Regarding the cuts to UN peacekeeping missions, the UN has more missions now in more places, with more refugees and Internally Displaced Persons than any time in history.



Penny-wise and pound-foolish doesn't cover this. Cutting funding and sticking our collective heads in the sand doesn't come across as visionary or forward thinking. Nor does it seem to help make America Great. Instead it will lead to a myriad of very negative unintended consequences.

[sfam]

My point all along is that if the Repubs were serious about having accessible healthcare for all Americans they would have worked with Obama (as he urged them to) to fix ACA so that it might be sustainable. That also stands.

This might still happen. This may be Trump's salvation in a sense.

Lets say the AHCA fails - Ryancare as Trump supporters are calling it. What if Trump then says, OK, this failed, but we still have a problem. I want to work with whomever in congress is willing to fix the current healthcare system instead of replacing it?

Trump would get support from both sides to work on this, and Republican leadership wouldn't be able to stop him.

We live in a bizaare upside down world where Trump having Bannon on his staff actually makes the better outcome, of Trump rejecting Ryancare and working up something more closely resembling a fix to Obamacare, more likely. Well, Bannon genuinely loves white people and Ryancare would hurt a lot of them so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But I am. I thought he was just a stooge manipulating poor white people to serve billionaire interests. But maybe he's genuinely representing the people who make up the Breitbart audience. Maybe I'm wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

Well, let's see how this resolves first. I imagine there's a third possibility that Ryancare and Obamacare both get rejected and we get the Conservative Review version instead, which would be interesting.

It was near impossible for Obama to pass the ACA. It was not done in the dead of night, but had hearing after hearing after hearing. Deals were cut, compromises were made. And it was still a wafer thing passing.

That Trump, or more realistically Ryan thought they could jam this through is surprising. By most accounts the reasoning has more to do with the timing for their tax reform plan, which is supposed to get done by August. Unless they cut the taxes from the ACA, they are stuck dealing with an even larger tax cut for the rich issue in the tax reform/streamlining process.

[gtn130]

Trump is hoisted in his own petard. Both rulings that have come out against his "Travel Ban" - literally calling it a "Muslim Ban", used the words of Trump ("I think Islam hates us...we can't let those coming in who hate us...you don't know who is who...") and his staff against them. Stephen Miller indicated the new EO is just the same as the last one, but is a "watered down" version. They used Guiliani's "Trump asked me for a legal way to make a Muslim ban" language and other similar comments.

But perhaps maybe the larger point here is why would Trump expect a positive ruling after personally questioning the ethics of every judge he's encountered? Where else is this a good idea? He was at it again last night calling these judges politically motivated.

But if his personal attacks on the judges are affecting their decisions, doesn't it prove that the judges are politically motivated?

The very notion that judges are using statements from Trump's surrogates as a means of divining the intent of his orders is outrageous beyond words. The executive order is what it is. The judges need to evaluate the words on the paper, not the intent behind them.

This is judicial tyranny and it will not stand. This will force Trump to take profound steps to stop judicial overreach. Trump's public tributes to Andrew Jackson are not accidental. The Judicial Branch has steadily expanded it's power without check for a hundred years. It's time for some pushback.

Do you have any idea how strong your biases are?

[Zonkerbl]

Point to me the time when Republicans had control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

Regulation is an executive branch function. Bush was in charge of this. Again, Republicans rarely take blame for anything. Agreed both sides were involved, but something should be said for being in the leadership position, or not.

Do we need to put percentages here (51R/49D) - is one side slightly more culpable? Not sure where you are going with the argument - both sides had to screw up in a big way and look the other direction.

I hate to disappoint you guys but the housing crisis had nothing to do with either party. The entire industry decided that the housing market had fundamentally changed and industry standard "rules of thumb" that were used to keep loans from going to people who couldn't pay them back were no longer necessary.

They were wrong. Neither Republicans nor Democrats had anything to do with it. Yes the financial industry put together some instruments to take advantage of the "new reality" in the housing market and it made things worse when "old reality" came crashing down. But regulations wouldn't have had any effect on this one way or the other. Not the regulatory framework we had in place at the time anyway. We didn't regulate these things because nobody - on either side - thought we needed to.

[Zonkerbl]

Regarding the cuts to UN peacekeeping missions, the UN has more missions now in more places, with more refugees and Internally Displaced Persons than any time in history.



Penny-wise and pound-foolish doesn't cover this. Cutting funding and sticking our collective heads in the sand doesn't come across as visionary or forward thinking. Nor does it seem to help make America Great. Instead it will lead to a myriad of very negative unintended consequences.

Well, or you could see this as the UN expanding operations because none of their voting members (besides the US) really bear the full cost, so we get more than the socially optimal amount of military adventurism worldwide. Maybe tightening the US purse strings a little will make everybody in the UN a little more realistic about when military intervention is truly necessary.

[sfam]

Read on Twitter

Just a comment on this, if you were looking to eliminate development funding but wanted to really target whatever waste exists, you'd go after the larger USAID programs. You would not be cutting the Inter-American Bank, African Development Foundation, Overseas Private Investment Corporation or USIP. It is interesting that it looks like the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Republican added development agency (which does great work), does not appear to be cut.

[sfam]

Regulation is an executive branch function. Bush was in charge of this. Again, Republicans rarely take blame for anything. Agreed both sides were involved, but something should be said for being in the leadership position, or not.

Do we need to put percentages here (51R/49D) - is one side slightly more culpable? Not sure where you are going with the argument - both sides had to screw up in a big way and look the other direction.

I hate to disappoint you guys but the housing crisis had nothing to do with either party. The entire industry decided that the housing market had fundamentally changed and industry standard "rules of thumb" that were used to keep loans from going to people who couldn't pay them back were no longer necessary.

They were wrong. Neither Republicans nor Democrats had anything to do with it. Yes the financial industry put together some instruments to take advantage of the "new reality" in the housing market and it made things worse when "old reality" came crashing down. But regulations wouldn't have had any effect on this one way or the other. Not the regulatory framework we had in place at the time anyway. We didn't regulate these things because nobody - on either side - thought we needed to.

This is the problem. I would again point out the party in charge of staffing and operating the regulatory agencies overseeing this, as well as the attorneys general, were the Republicans. Certainly yes, Democrats had blame, especially in opening up the options. But it really comes across as an over the top cop-out to say that those in charge bore no responsibility, or no more than those out of power.

The buck doesn't stop here. Look elsewhere!

[sfam]

Regarding the cuts to UN peacekeeping missions, the UN has more missions now in more places, with more refugees and Internally Displaced Persons than any time in history.



Penny-wise and pound-foolish doesn't cover this. Cutting funding and sticking our collective heads in the sand doesn't come across as visionary or forward thinking. Nor does it seem to help make America Great. Instead it will lead to a myriad of very negative unintended consequences.

Well, or you could see this as the UN expanding operations because none of their voting members (besides the US) really bear the full cost, so we get more than the socially optimal amount of military adventurism worldwide. Maybe tightening the US purse strings a little will make everybody in the UN a little more realistic about when military intervention is truly necessary.

Well, there is this little problem of reality...when the world is blowing up, the UN is usually the one asked to address this. The problem is the world is becoming more unstable. We can talk about the reasons, but we're in a real crisis.

Military adventurism is not what's happening with the UN. Its far worse. Their mission has changed from "keeping the peace" - literally, that was their role - to managing open conflicts. Previously UN missions were set up when a peace agreement was established and we needed boots on the ground to ensure stability. That is not happening with the newer missions.

Now, based on necessity, the UN is setting up missions to with the mandate for "Robust peacekeeping" - meaning they are managing an open conflict, in the case of Mali or South Sudan, for instance. The Troop contributing countries weren't trained for this, and really, the concept of operations don't match either. This again, isn't based on military adventurism, its largely done to prevent genocide behavior.

Defunding the UN will not improve this situation.

[dckingsfan]

Trump's disapproval rating is increasing, now more people disapprove of Trump than approve in Rasmussen and Fox News.

Congress should have it so good...



Or the media

[dckingsfan]

Do we need to put percentages here (51R/49D) - is one side slightly more culpable? Not sure where you are going with the argument - both sides had to screw up in a big way and look the other direction.

I hate to disappoint you guys but the housing crisis had nothing to do with either party. The entire industry decided that the housing market had fundamentally changed and industry standard "rules of thumb" that were used to keep loans from going to people who couldn't pay them back were no longer necessary.

They were wrong. Neither Republicans nor Democrats had anything to do with it. Yes the financial industry put together some instruments to take advantage of the "new reality" in the housing market and it made things worse when "old reality" came crashing down. But regulations wouldn't have had any effect on this one way or the other. Not the regulatory framework we had in place at the time anyway. We didn't regulate these things because nobody - on either side - thought we needed to.

This is the problem. I would again point out the party in charge of staffing and operating the regulatory agencies overseeing this, as well as the attorneys general, were the Republicans. Certainly yes, Democrats had blame, especially in opening up the options. But it really comes across as an over the top cop-out to say that those in charge bore no responsibility, or no more than those out of power.

The buck doesn't stop here. Look elsewhere!

Zonk is right. The crisis originated with government-backed home loan guarantees in the United States. Both the Bush and Clinton administrations made it a national priority to encourage more people to buy houses, assuming this social engineering would be good for everyone.

Kind of the same social engineering on guaranteed student loans.

The stupidity never ends.

[sfam]

I hate to disappoint you guys but the housing crisis had nothing to do with either party. The entire industry decided that the housing market had fundamentally changed and industry standard "rules of thumb" that were used to keep loans from going to people who couldn't pay them back were no longer necessary.

They were wrong. Neither Republicans nor Democrats had anything to do with it. Yes the financial industry put together some instruments to take advantage of the "new reality" in the housing market and it made things worse when "old reality" came crashing down. But regulations wouldn't have had any effect on this one way or the other. Not the regulatory framework we had in place at the time anyway. We didn't regulate these things because nobody - on either side - thought we needed to.

This is the problem. I would again point out the party in charge of staffing and operating the regulatory agencies overseeing this, as well as the attorneys general, were the Republicans. Certainly yes, Democrats had blame, especially in opening up the options. But it really comes across as an over the top cop-out to say that those in charge bore no responsibility, or no more than those out of power.

The buck doesn't stop here. Look elsewhere!

Zonk is right. The crisis originated with government-backed home loan guarantees in the United States. Both the Bush and Clinton administrations made it a national priority to encourage more people to buy houses, assuming this social engineering would be good for everyone.

Kind of the same social engineering on guaranteed student loans.

The stupidity never ends.

I agree with this. Policies should not be slanted for everyone to own a house, nor should everyone have guaranteed student loans independent of cost.

My point is the party in charge of the regulatory environment, if they were doing their job, would have a chance of noticing problems and addressing them. Accountability matters, as does the quality of the personnel staffing regulatory agencies. If instead, you fill the government with Brownie types, the whole "I'm shocked shocked" act falls flat. "Nobody knew it was coming" (others outside did) because nobody in the regulatory world was paying attention by design.

Bush stated his desire to roll back regulations and the regulatory environment back, just like Trump. If we have a re-emergence of crazy financial instruments, I'm sure it won't be the Republicans fault again either.

[Kanyewest]

Trump's disapproval rating is increasing, now more people disapprove of Trump than approve in Rasmussen and Fox News.

Congress should have it so good...

Spoiler:

Or the media

Spoiler:

The two most popular things according to Fox News, Bernie Sanders and Planned Parenthood.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/686252/bernie-sanders-planned-parenthood-are-most-popular-things-america-fox-news-finds

[Zonkerbl]

The WaPo did an article recently talking about how our trust in ALL institutions - political, religious, legal, etc. - are on a steady decline.

I blame Baby Boomers.

[Zonkerbl]

Breitbart then sends me here for what they think healthcare and health insurance reform should look like:

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/03/20-ideas-to-crush-obamacare-and-cure-americas-health-care-crisis

Interesting read.

Zonk, did you see my post to you on Dutch prisons?

BTW, I agree with many of those. I think you pointed out previously that healthcare will never be affordable without action on prices. The ACA and ACHA both go in the wrong direction.

No...

[Zonkerbl]

...increase taxes...

Check. To a point where it is now holding back growth and that lack of growth lowering tax receipts and that lack of tax receipts are driving up the debt. Just saying...

Erm... according to this graph, Federal tax revenues as a share of revenue haven't gone up at all. Since the sixties.