Political Roundtable Part XIII

[bsilver]

Rep. Labrador and other R's opposed Obamacare because they wanted so called "market based solutions".
They've had plenty of opportunity before Obama to tackle the problem but never even tried. Now, they can't come up with these market based solutions, so will end up tweaking Obamacare.

It's really difficult to come up with a market solution for insuring millions of poor people and those with pre-existing conditions. Single-payer would have been simplest, but was torpedoed by conservative Dems. The Obamacare alternative was bound to have issues. These issues could have been addressed, R's only wanted it to fail.

I agree with you, but to be fair - Obama never paid for his grand plan. In fact, entitlement spending has continued to accelerate. He was happy to put the plan in place with gimmicks (yes, you could say that about Rs and their tax cuts as well). Are you like the rest of the Ds in congress that don't advocate fixing the problem (this is a spending problem, not a tax problem - so tell me what cuts you advocate?).

You're lumping Obamacare spending together with all other entitlements, which changes the original subject, which was R alternatives, and why do they oppose Obamacare. As far as the cost of Obamacare, I would agree there was probably "smoke and mirrors". OTOH, you have to make a moral decision as a society. If you had about 40 million people without medical care, should you spend money to fix it. I would say yes.

Sorry to answer myself, but hit Submit earlier by mistake.
I don't agree with Trump and D's. I think social security and medicare need reform, but don't trust Rs. They always seem happy to reduce taxes on the wealthy while they're proposing reforms.
We have to continue to reduce cost of medical care. No reason it should cost 50% more gdp than other developed countries. It's ridiculous that medicare is prohibited from negotiating drug prices with pharma. Our politicians can't be trusted to put countries interest ahead of special interests.

[bsilver]

Shocking...

Read on Twitter

I'm shocked that you're shocked
The DOJ Civil Rights Division gets turned on it's head with change in parties. Pipeline of attorneys from Regent (Pat Robertson) and Liberty (Jerry Falwell) to DOJ probably starting up again.

[dckingsfan]

I agree with you, but to be fair - Obama never paid for his grand plan. In fact, entitlement spending has continued to accelerate. He was happy to put the plan in place with gimmicks (yes, you could say that about Rs and their tax cuts as well). Are you like the rest of the Ds in congress that don't advocate fixing the problem (this is a spending problem, not a tax problem - so tell me what cuts you advocate?).

You're lumping Obamacare spending together with all other entitlements, which changes the original subject, which was R alternatives, and why do they oppose Obamacare. As far as the cost of Obamacare, I would agree there was probably "smoke and mirrors". OTOH, you have to make a moral decision as a society. If you had about 40 million people without medical care, should you spend money to fix it. I would say yes.

Sorry to answer myself, but hit Submit earlier by mistake.
I don't agree with Trump and D's. I think social security and medicare need reform, but don't trust Rs. They always seem happy to reduce taxes on the wealthy while they're proposing reforms.
We have to continue to reduce cost of medical care. No reason it should cost 50% more gdp than other developed countries. It's ridiculous that medicare is prohibited from negotiating drug prices with pharma. Our politicians can't be trusted to put countries interest ahead of special interests.

And there you have it... the Ds have been willing to expand programs and kick the can down the road for political expedience (I am only picking on the Ds right now). I wasn't against the ACA. I was against adding on another costly and poorly written law without first fixing the unsustainable mess that we have in place. The Ds were happy not to do the fixing.

And yes, you have to lump the ACA in with all other entitlements. It is the net affect of all the entitlement programs that are killing us.

[DCZards]

You're lumping Obamacare spending together with all other entitlements, which changes the original subject, which was R alternatives, and why do they oppose Obamacare. As far as the cost of Obamacare, I would agree there was probably "smoke and mirrors". OTOH, you have to make a moral decision as a society. If you had about 40 million people without medical care, should you spend money to fix it. I would say yes.

Agreed. Sometimes you have to fix a problem and then worry about paying for it, especially when it's a moral imperative. The Repubs (and their benefactors), as well as some Dems, were never going to fix our broken healthcare system. There's been a lot of talk and no action. So Obama did the right thing with Obamacare.

Is Obamacare flawed? No doubt. It's a big law that needs some big fixes. Obama said as much from the outset of the law's implementation. But, after talking about healthcare reform for 50 years, there's finally a law in place that at least seeks to provide universal healthcare.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

You're lumping Obamacare spending together with all other entitlements, which changes the original subject, which was R alternatives, and why do they oppose Obamacare. As far as the cost of Obamacare, I would agree there was probably "smoke and mirrors". OTOH, you have to make a moral decision as a society. If you had about 40 million people without medical care, should you spend money to fix it. I would say yes.

Agreed. Sometimes you have to fix a problem and then worry about paying for it, especially when it's a moral imperative. The Repubs (and their benefactors), as well as some Dems, were never going to fix our broken healthcare system. There's been a lot of talk and no action. So Obama did the right thing with Obamacare.

Is Obamacare flawed? No doubt. It's a big law that needs some big fixes. Obama said as much from the outset of the law's implementation. But, after talking about healthcare reform for 50 years, there's finally a law in place that at least seeks to provide universal healthcare.

Oh boy. They had control of the house, senate and white house - they choose not to deal with the elephant in the room - namely that our current entitlement system is unsustainable.

If that is the argument, then you can hardly argue with a population that has a "throw the bums out" approach. That type of outstanding execution got us Trump.

Take the example of when you do that at the local level, you get a Ferguson affect:
http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-ferguson-missouri-court-fines-budget.html

sigh...

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[DCZards]

Agreed. Sometimes you have to fix a problem and then worry about paying for it, especially when it's a moral imperative. The Repubs (and their benefactors), as well as some Dems, were never going to fix our broken healthcare system. There's been a lot of talk and no action. So Obama did the right thing with Obamacare.

Is Obamacare flawed? No doubt. It's a big law that needs some big fixes. Obama said as much from the outset of the law's implementation. But, after talking about healthcare reform for 50 years, there's finally a law in place that at least seeks to provide universal healthcare.

Oh boy. They had control of the house, senate and white house - they choose not to deal with the elephant in the room - namely that our current entitlement system is unsustainable.

If that is the argument, then you can hardly argue with a population that has a "throw the bums out" approach. That type of outstanding execution got us Trump.

Take the example of when you do that at the local level, you get a Ferguson affect:
http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-ferguson-missouri-court-fines-budget.html

sigh...

There was a small window of time to get this very important law passed...Obama got that done...flaws and all. Can't let the perfect be an enemy of the good...or stress over the coulda, woulda, shoulda. The thing to do now, when it comes to Obamacare, is "mend it, don't end it."

[dckingsfan]

Agreed. Sometimes you have to fix a problem and then worry about paying for it, especially when it's a moral imperative. The Repubs (and their benefactors), as well as some Dems, were never going to fix our broken healthcare system. There's been a lot of talk and no action. So Obama did the right thing with Obamacare.

Is Obamacare flawed? No doubt. It's a big law that needs some big fixes. Obama said as much from the outset of the law's implementation. But, after talking about healthcare reform for 50 years, there's finally a law in place that at least seeks to provide universal healthcare.

Oh boy. They had control of the house, senate and white house - they choose not to deal with the elephant in the room - namely that our current entitlement system is unsustainable.

If that is the argument, then you can hardly argue with a population that has a "throw the bums out" approach. That type of outstanding execution got us Trump.

Take the example of when you do that at the local level, you get a Ferguson affect:
http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-ferguson-missouri-court-fines-budget.html

sigh...

There was a small window of time to get this very important law passed...Obama got that done...flaws and all. Can't let the perfect be an enemy of the good...or stress over the coulda, woulda, shoulda. The thing to do now, when it comes to Obamacare, is "mend it, don't end it."

I don't agree with a repeal without replacement - but if it happens, I can understand why and it won't bother me terribly. It will just be politics as you described. If you are an R, you would paraphrase: Sometimes you have to fix a problem and then worry about it later, especially when it's a moral imperative. Repeal it now and then figure it out.

[sfam]

Why, if we aren't going to be the world's policeman why do we have to be the world's mama? We are saying we don't want to get engaged in the world's politics to ensure that their aren't a large number of displaced - but on the other hand we have a responsibility for taking in those displaced?

This may seem self-evident to you - but this is exactly what has turned the Europe politics to the right.

Oh I definitely get the concern. The best analogy I can come up with is the indigent sick person. You may hate paying for him or her insurance, but if not, you're going to end up paying higher costs at the hospitals regardless because they are forced to cover them by law.

The same thing applies internationally. Contrary to some on this board, horrific acts of violence stem far more from horrific circumstances. Horror breeds more horror. To think that the US, Europe, Japan or anyone else who benefits from a peaceful world order - the liberal world order that Putin and Bannon are trying to dismantle - can ignore the refugee crisis is to be begging for unintended consequences. Al Qaeda may have started with funding from Saudi Arabia, but it took root because of the conditions in many of these countries. Similar to homelessness in the inner cities, we end up paying for it eventually.

And often, the long term costs are lots lots higher than if we had done well care up front. Well care in this case is both development and peacebuilding dollars but also a set of standards, not unlike air flight standards that we hold countries who want to participate in the international economy. External pressure, including moral pressure, economic incentives and mutual assistance works far better than demonizing people and advocating for more tensions and war.

As for the world's policeman analogy, the US's current contribution doesn't even quality as a school crossing guard. We simply aren't involved from the standpoint of refugee adoption right now.

So, by your argument, you would advocate allocating more resources to the UN (world peace keeping).

My question to you is where will the $$s come from? Are you willing to take from our entitlement programs? It is always great to want to solve a problem - the liberal world order has been more than willing to do that over the last 50 years. Actually cutting one thing to pay for another - not so much.

The world police vs. world mama are two different things. World police is a referee for displacement prevention. World mama is taking everyone in after the displacement.

Given that even a very liberal country like Germany has rebelled against taking on large numbers of refugees - why would any politician touch that third rail? Do you think if the next Democrat Presidential Candidate would get elected if they advocated to take on a million refugees?

There's a massive gulf between the numbers of refugees Germany brought in versus the US.

The larger issue though is this is not the US's problem to solve. Its a worldwide problem. THE solution is to establish an international order that puts pressure on fragile states to improve their governance, and to isolate the countries engaged in massive human rights violations. This isn't a dollar cost issue, its one of whether we are still in the lead in establishing and supporting the existing world order.

Unfortunately now we have both Putin and Trump looking to dismantle that order. Its really clear why Putin is doing it, but is nonsensical that the US is.

[sfam]

Yes, Obama advocated that the international order do the work. And not surprisingly nothing got done. You could call it unintentional isolationism?

And you could argue that free trade has lifted more than 1B out of poverty.

And you hit the nail on the head with education in the US. We will need competition for our education dollars and to quickly shift education priorities. Do you think the next Democratic candidate for President will advocate for competition or advocate for public unions?

Obama got a lot done internationally. The Iran nuclear deal is an example. TPP is another. There was lots of stuff like this over 8 years.

And I'm clueless on who the Democrats will or should nominate. The bigger question is what happens in 2018 right now. Regarding education, this is yet another issue that you really need some actual policy to be made. This requires sort of a bipartisan approach, so my guess is like most other things, nothing gets done here. Our congress is largely broken and has been for some time.

[sfam]

Yeah, Trump isn't worse than Bush because of the Iraq War, yet anyways unless the Russian allegations turn out to be true. Although Bush is better than Trump on some issues. Bush is far from a liberal though which is why I thought that his comment was relevant, especially since he's calling for Trump to be investigated

Bush was a Katrina level disaster. If Trump ends up impeached it really wouldn't bother me, or surprise me. It would just mean someone more sane taking over.

But Bush can F off.

Pence could be worse than Trump. So I'm not exactly fine with it.

Pence is sane and rational. I may hate a lot of his views, but I don't see him destroying the international order or the US. Like Hillary, he's within the normal bounds of society.

I take Pence, or Bush that matter, 1000 times over Trump.

[sfam]

Read on Twitter

He's Trump's lawyer, what did you expect? Honesty and clarity????

[dckingsfan]

Obama got a lot done internationally. The Iran nuclear deal is an example. TPP is another. There was lots of stuff like this over 8 years.

How was the Iran nuclear deal getting the UN or anyone else to do the work? In my mind this was another Obama flip-flop on foreign policy. Out of Iraq then back into Iraq. Out of Afghanistan then back in. Back the Syrian rebels and then not so much.

Don't get me wrong - his foreign policy looks terrific compared to Trump - but Obama's foreign policy wasn't good.

[dckingsfan]

There's a massive gulf between the numbers of refugees Germany brought in versus the US.

Yep, because our politicians want to get reelected

The larger issue though is this is not the US's problem to solve. Its a worldwide problem. THE solution is to establish an international order that puts pressure on fragile states to improve their governance, and to isolate the countries engaged in massive human rights violations. This isn't a dollar cost issue...,

Sure it is... Peace keeping missions are very expensive - who do you think will end up covering the expenses? If we aren't willing to pony up the money, who will? If we don't send our troops who will?

...its one of whether we are still in the lead in establishing and supporting the existing world order.

And therein lies the problem. We certainly didn't do that over the last 8 years. I suppose that one could argue that we did it during the Bush administration - but how did that turn out? We had 8 years of Clinton and Rwanda came of that. Possibly we shouldn't be the ones taking the lead?

Unfortunately now we have both Putin and Trump looking to dismantle that order. Its really clear why Putin is doing it, but is nonsensical that the US is.

What is truly nonsensical from the Trump plan (or lack thereof) is the notion of increasing defense spending while summarily withdrawing. Why do both - do one or the other. But part of why Trump is doing what he is doing is in response to Bush/Obama. Or I should say, part of why his vitriol resonates.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[Induveca]

Read on Twitter

Thank you friendly local Twitterbot!

[DCZards]

I'm sure the Trumpites here will explain to us how it's actually a good thing that #45 is ignoring the advice of counterterrorism experts.

HOW DONALD TRUMP IS FUELING ISIS

Since the horrors of 9/11, American presidents operating under the advice of the intelligence community’s counterterrorism experts have understood that countering this propaganda has been among the most essential parts of the fight against ISIS, Al-Qaeda and other murderous jihadi extremists. Through carefully selected language and—for the most part—considered policy, the United States has worked to expose the lies and convince young Muslims drawn by the propaganda toward hate that they are welcome and appreciated in America.

That era appears to be over. President Donald Trump, in office for less than two months, has gutted the strategy used by Republicans and Democrats alike—out of ignorance, hubris or both—sending a new message from the White House, one that reinforces the jihadi extremists’ propaganda and increases the likelihood that more Americans will die in attacks.

“If there was a scriptwriter for ISIS, he could not have written a better script than what is coming out of the White House,’’ said M. Ehsan Ahrari, an adjunct research professor with the Strategic Studies Institute at the Army War College. “Since President Trump came into office, he has been going out of his way to make statements and decisions that are hurting America’s cause.”

[bsilver]

Obama got a lot done internationally. The Iran nuclear deal is an example. TPP is another. There was lots of stuff like this over 8 years.

How was the Iran nuclear deal getting the UN or anyone else to do the work? In my mind this was another Obama flip-flop on foreign policy. Out of Iraq then back into Iraq. Out of Afghanistan then back in. Back the Syrian rebels and then not so much.

Don't get me wrong - his foreign policy looks terrific compared to Trump - but Obama's foreign policy wasn't good.

Enforcement of the Iran Treaty is the responsibility of the UN. Were you against the deal? Have a better idea? Think Iran is still trying to develop nuclear weapons?
Syria - There was no good policy. In hind sight, supporting Assad looks best, but I don't remember anyone even considering that option.
Iraq - 75% of US wanted us out. Staying and propping up the corrupt Malaki govt would have been a never ending proposition. We had to go back when ISIS took control.
Afghanistan - Again. What would be a good policy?
One can say Obama's policies failed, but if there were no good options, should he get the blame?

[dckingsfan]

Enforcement of the Iran Treaty is the responsibility of the UN.

It sure doesn't feel that way, does it to you? The ballistic missile launch?

Were you against the deal? Have a better idea? Think Iran is still trying to develop nuclear weapons?

No, probably and yes. I certainly didn't support the sunset clauses in the agreement.

Syria - There was no good policy. In hind sight, supporting Assad looks best, but I don't remember anyone even considering that option.

But we picked the absolute worst strategy - and then stuck with it.

Iraq - 75% of US wanted us out. Staying and propping up the corrupt Malaki govt would have been a never ending proposition. We had to go back when ISIS took control.

We pulled out waaaayyy to quickly. There was a period of time where we left them with no functional air cover. It was a political and bad execution of a good idea. He should have followed the advice of the Joint Chiefs.

Afghanistan - Again. What would be a good policy?

Same as above.

One can say Obama's policies failed, but if there were no good options, should he get the blame?

Of course there were. And yes, he should get some of the blame.

Just as he should get the credit for his Asia policy. The TPP was a good way to keep the balance of power where we wanted it. Of course, it didn't go through but it was a great temporary containment strategy.