The Next President is...

[HU&W]

Obama's 'pen and phone' set the landscape for what Democrats fear most from the current administration.  Perhaps the greatest lesson both parties should learn from Obama is that the pen of executive fiat is always inherited with an equally potent eraser.  Arduous though it is, bipartisan compromise is almost always the better path to lasting change.

[drewpey]

4 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Again, if it's it's "drastic" to undo what Obama did then logically that means that what Obama did in the first place was also "drastic".  Unless you're just arguing that what Obama did was good and Trump undoing it is bad--which just means that you're a partisan or an ideologue, you tell me.

So once again I ask: What has Trump done that is "sooo far to the right"?  Undoing what Obama did just means we go back to pre-2008, so how is that going "far to the right" if Bush was a centrist as you say?  Be specific instead of just complaining that he is undoing Obama's executive orders, which by design, are meant to be changed with each President...because let's not pretend that the next Presifent who is a democrat won't likewise undo everything Trump has done.  Dude, I get it--you didn't vote for him and you don't like him.  

Did I ever claim not to be partisan?  Obama's progress over his 8 years was a drastic change economically and socially.  It wasn't in a year, it was over 8 years.  I'm not saying it's unexpected...Democrats and Republicans have political footballs they kick back and forth (planned parenthood) on changeover but there used to be areas of shared interest.  Now every. single. issue. is a party line issue, and there is 0% chance of compromise, even on things that have massive public support (DACA, net neutrality, background checks for all weapon sales).  We used to value a strong state department...now they are deep state!  We used to value protecting our environment and keeping our parks public...now we are selling public land off to the highest bidder and rolling back protections en mass.  We used to listen to scientists, and now we put non-experts up to create a "Fair and balanced" perception.  I will concede that Trump himself isn't necessarily far-right, but he seems to mirror the thoughts and ideas of those around him at that particular time, and he seems to have surrounded himself with far-right folks and consumes a steady diet of Fox News.

2 hours ago, HU&W said:

Obama's 'pen and phone' set the landscape for what Democrats fear most from the current administration.  Perhaps the greatest lesson both parties should learn from Obama is that the pen of executive fiat is always inherited with an equally potent eraser.  Arduous though it is, bipartisan compromise is almost always the better path to lasting change.

I disagree with the first sentence of your statement but agree with the rest.  Obama adopted the "pen and phone" strategy in response to a deadlocked congress who refused to work with him.  He worked well with Boehner to reach compromises but the rise of the Tea Party quickly put an end to any sort of compromise, so Obama kept working fight against being a lame duck with 2 years left in the seat.

[Azimuth]

https://apple.news/AXCPYAkeyRH-4pfCOOc7ODA

Quote

“This is dumb. Europe, Canada, and Mexico are not China, and you don’t treat allies the same way you treat opponents,” said Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.). “We’ve been down this road before—blanket protectionism is a big part of why America had a Great Depression. ‘Make America Great Again’ shouldn’t mean ‘Make America 1929 Again.”

 

[brickhistory]

Ah, yes.  Ben Sasse.

Voted for him when I lived in Omaha based on his campaign promises and his reputation.

Then, of course, he decides that borders are optional, among other not conservative stances.

I can't vote against him now due to having moved, but I will contribute to his next primary opponent.  NE doesn't appear enamored of him either.

Jeff Flake is macho compared to ol' Ben, a neverTrump'er of the 1st magnitude.  But Ben does make a mean Bill Maher show guest...

[Azimuth]

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

Ah, yes.  Ben Sasse.

Voted for him when I lived in Omaha based on his campaign promises and his reputation.

Then, of course, he decides that borders are optional, among other not conservative stances.

I can't vote against him now due to having moved, but I will contribute to his next primary opponent.  NE doesn't appear enamored of him either.

Jeff Flake is macho compared to ol' Ben, a neverTrump'er of the 1st magnitude.  But Ben does make a mean Bill Maher show guest...

So, imposing tariffs on our our allies is good or bad? Are we concerned with Canadians proliferating U.S. IP like China 😂

 

[Lawman]

3 hours ago, Azimuth said:

So, imposing tariffs on our our allies is good or bad? Are we concerned with Canadians proliferating U.S. IP like China 😂

 

Mexico is an Ally now?

Funny I don’t remember allies actively running government programs of moving migratory people across their country in a “not in my back yard” fashion so they can then stand at the US border (or sneak in via smuggling routes) and demand that country absorb the cost of them as refugees/migrants. 

 

And Canada did how much fuckery in its whole canceling the F-35 program (long before any trade tariffs). But hey screw it, we need to be extra nice to them and take a loss in trade because they send some dudes to help us staff NORTHCOM while their actual military couldn’t protect a parking lot. 

 

NAFTA was a shitty deal. All these tariffs are is a demand to get parties back to the table to renegotiate. Do that and they go away. It’s not some conspiracy to collapse the economy or random decision. But as long as the media talking heads pretend this is just Trump firing on random cyclinders, that’s not helping matters in getting those negotiations to actually happen. 

 

 

Edited June 1, 2018 by Lawman

[Azimuth]

47 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Mexico is an Ally now?

Funny I don’t remember allies actively running government programs of moving migratory people across their country in a “not in my back yard” fashion so they can then stand at the US border (or sneak in via smuggling routes) and demand that country absorb the cost of them as refugees/migrants. 

 

And Canada did how much fuckery in its whole canceling the F-35 program (long before any trade tariffs). But hey screw it, we need to be extra nice to them and take a loss in trade because they send some dudes to help us staff NORTHCOM while their actual military couldn’t protect a parking lot. 

 

NAFTA was a shitty deal. All these tariffs are is a demand to get parties back to the table to renegotiate. Do that and they go away. It’s not some conspiracy to collapse the economy or random decision. But as long as the media talking heads pretend this is just Trump firing on random cyclinders, that’s not helping matters in getting those negotiations to actually happen. 

 

 

Mexico is our third largest trading partner ($550B/two-way) in 2017, I wouldn't consider them an enemy. Australia has been subject to trade imbalances for years with other nations and yet has had a stable, and growing, economy that hasn't posted a recession since 1991. The EU already told Trump and  to fuck off and they're filing a complaint for punitive measures with the WTO. What's not going to start negations is starting trade wars with countries that are supposed to be your allies. China has already said they aren't looking to start a trade war, but they aren't going to back down from one either.

Edited June 1, 2018 by Azimuth

[Lawman]

10 minutes ago, Azimuth said:

Mexico is our third largest trading partner ($550B/two-way) in 2017, I wouldn't consider them an enemy. Australia has been subject to trade imbalances for years with other nations and yet has had a stable, and growing, economy that hasn't posted a recession since 1991. The EU already told Trump and  to fuck off and they're filing a complaint for punitive measures with the WTO. What's not going to start negations is starting trade wars with countries that are supposed to be your allies. China has already said they aren't looking to start a trade war, but they aren't going to back down from one either.

 

China and the US have a 375 Billion dollar trade imbalance and it’s going entirely their way. So fuck what they think about our sudden brand of “protectionism” as its being labeled by Trump critics. All while they simultaneously manipulate their currency to hide the massive inflation and debt they keep to the local level instead of acknowledging it as national debt. 

Trump critics are so busy hating/#resist’ing anything and everything he says and does theynare ignoring the reality that some times he actually is right, and this is one of those times. 

End of the day Canada (or Mexico) isn’t suddenly going to divest of our economic partnership, and like I said they have already poured plenty of oil into the waters with some of the decisions they’ve made pre-Trump which can be labeled the same kind of “protectionism.”

[SurelySerious]

17 hours ago, Azimuth said:

Mexico is our third largest trading partner ($550B/two-way) in 2017, I wouldn't consider them an enemy. Australia has been subject to trade imbalances for years with other nations and yet has had a stable, and growing, economy that hasn't posted a recession since 1991. The EU already told Trump and  to fuck off and they're filing a complaint for punitive measures with the WTO. What's not going to start negations is starting trade wars with countries that are supposed to be your allies. China has already said they aren't looking to start a trade war, but they aren't going to back down from one either.

Agree with Lawman on this one: China is already in a trade war with us, just not with tarrifs. They’re using other less conspicuous means. IP violations, abusing their “3d world” status with the worldwide shipping agency to leverage rock bottom mail rates through competitor post offices, hacking, etc. So when they say they’re “not going to start a trade war,” they can say it honestly because they aren’t going to, they already have. Just remember, they’re not militarizing the reefs in the SCS either. 

[drewpey]

I'm not too keen on cozying up with China either...so why are we helping out ZTE so much, given what we know about them?  Seems a bit against our goals.

[SurelySerious]

2 hours ago, drewpey said:

I'm not too keen on cozying up with China either...so why are we helping out ZTE so much, given what we know about them?  Seems a bit against our goals.

It’s probably easier to tweet about how tough you are on companies by touting a $1.7B fine than tweeting about restricting them from building critical infrastructure for the country that could include ways for an adversary to cripple the US. Or something. 

[Lawman]

I'm not too keen on cozying up with China either...so why are we helping out ZTE so much, given what we know about them?  Seems a bit against our goals.

So long as North Korea and Syria are the 5 meter targets (as they should be), we need Russia and China to cooperate more than we need to correct long standing issues.

We still get to and do Piss them off (sailing Burke’s through the SC Sea, or knocking heads around in Syria of a bunch of Mercs). But we can’t just go throw our weight on somebody with permanent security council veto power and expect the headway we’ve made in places like NK to last.

[matmacwc]

Good Trump

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/22/health/federal-right-to-try-explainer/index.html

I know the arguments against, but it's just noise.

[drewpey]

On 6/5/2018 at 12:32 PM, matmacwc said:

Good Trump

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/22/health/federal-right-to-try-explainer/index.html

I know the arguments against, but it's just noise.

It's good progress.  I was really hoping he would stick to the medicare drug negotiations as well but he backtracked that promise.

[MooseAg03]

“We believe this previously unscheduled session time can be put to good use to finally help Americans secure the affordable health care the President and Congressional Republicans have thus far failed to deliver,” - Chuck Schumer

Wait a sec Chuck, didn’t your party pass a little 3,000 page piece of legislation a few years ago literally titled the “Affordable Care Act”?

Mitch McConnell Just Tossed a Grenade into the 2018 Midterm Race - Vanity Fairhttps://apple.news/AmoQ3GdFAREOKqFE2ZNt1zw

[drewpey]

4 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

Wait a sec Chuck, didn’t your party pass a little 3,000 page piece of legislation a few years ago literally titled the “Affordable Care Act”?

The ACA was built through compromise, so it was an imperfect but acceptable plan until something better could be worked.  In case you've forgotten, Dem's don't hold the levers of power right now, and it's up to the (R)s to do it.  Trump promised healthcare for everyone "that is far less expensive and far better".  Up until now all they've done is repeal the individual mandate which has raised costs more than they were rising before.  

[MooseAg03]

It was built through compromise with who, themselves? From what I recall they violated rules to get it passed with no bipartisan support.

And if my family members who couldn’t afford the ridiculous premiums before the mandate repeal now don’t have to be taxed by the IRS for it, I’m fine with that. Most premiums for working people were already unaffordable, it was always an income redistribution ruse and I’m glad my parents won’t be penalized for not paying 1/3 of their income for premiums.

[matmacwc]

1 hour ago, MooseAg03 said:

It was built through compromise with who, themselves? From what I recall they violated rules to get it passed with no bipartisan support.

And if my family members who couldn’t afford the ridiculous premiums before the mandate repeal now don’t have to be taxed by the IRS for it, I’m fine with that. Most premiums for working people were already unaffordable, it was always an income redistribution ruse and I’m glad my parents won’t be penalized for not paying 1/3 of their income for premiums.

            At midnight on Christmas Eve.   

[brickhistory]

But to their credit the Democrats used the power given them to ram ACA through.

Whereas the GOP has and is repeatedly deliberately ignoring the large portion of voters who didn't want ACA or the ever-increasing government intrusion into daily life.

Rise of the Tea Party and, ultimately, the election of Trump over 16 variations of the same them weak Republican candidate seems to be something that the establishment does not want to acknowledge, let alone obey.

Hence, the GOP couldn't/didn't kill dead the ACA.  A pox on them.

[drewpey]

2 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

It was built through compromise with who, themselves? From what I recall they violated rules to get it passed with no bipartisan support.

And if my family members who couldn’t afford the ridiculous premiums before the mandate repeal now don’t have to be taxed by the IRS for it, I’m fine with that. Most premiums for working people were already unaffordable, it was always an income redistribution ruse and I’m glad my parents won’t be penalized for not paying 1/3 of their income for premiums.

Well the starting point was a republican healthcare plan, and there was Republican and Independent amendments submitted and there were a few accepted.  They unfortunately listened to Lieberman and took away the public option.  Ultimately yes they compromised with who they needed to in order to reach their required votes...isn't that how congress works?  What rules were violated?

So your family doesn't have healthcare coverage and you "fine with that"?  Out of curiosity does your family live in a state that accepted money to expand medicare? America's healthcare system is fucked, everyone can admit that...but the ACA is more popular than the president right now.  It's not great, but it's all some people have keeping them alive.  The republicans haven't offered any solution to many of those people.  If they would many voters on the fence would come flocking to the republican party, but somehow the republicans think they can keep the old and frail by continually maiming the healthcare system.

The US isn't some unique flower that can never have a good healthcare system...we just need to elect people who stop giving into corporations who are profiteering from sick people.  Yes they need to make money, but it's ridiculous.  Republicans want the government to step out and let the market work itself out, but you can't have a free market if both parties can't simply walk away from the transaction.

[MooseAg03]

It violated rules because supposedly the individual mandate penalties were a “tax” which means it should have originated in the House. But then the Obama admin argued it was a “fine” and then switched to insisting the penalty was a “tax” in order to skirt being declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

 

If it is between my parents not being able to afford their mortgage and my mom having health insurance, yes I’m fine with it. They make their own decisions and when she tells me her premiums were almost equal to their mortgage payment each month, that’s ridiculous and I don’t blame her for foregoing coverage. I don’t think they should be penalized for choosing not to go broke buying something the government forces down their throats.

 

Since you say it’s more popular than the President, I’d love to see the sample from whom that poll was taken. My guess is it’s a majority of democrats and/or people receiving subsidies to make it more affordable. Unfortunately my dad actually works hard and is making a fairly decent living and doesn’t qualify for subsidies.

 

If you don’t think we have a good healthcare system, why do people travel here from all over the world to seek treatment? Our medicine is excellent, it’s the bureaucracy both in the government and insurance companies that drive up costs. If I had the solution, I’d be making tons of money as a consultant but I believe it lies in free market principles. When five different patients are charged five different amounts for the same treatment based on their insurance plan or how much the provider can inflate charges to maximize reimbursement amounts, there’s an issue. Why not walk in and see an actual list of prices for services?

 

[drewpey]

On 6/7/2018 at 11:49 PM, MooseAg03 said:

If you don’t think we have a good healthcare system, why do people travel here from all over the world to seek treatment? Our medicine is excellent, it’s the bureaucracy both in the government and insurance companies that drive up costs. If I had the solution, I’d be making tons of money as a consultant but I believe it lies in free market principles. When five different patients are charged five different amounts for the same treatment based on their insurance plan or how much the provider can inflate charges to maximize reimbursement amounts, there’s an issue. Why not walk in and see an actual list of prices for services?

Sure we have some of the best doctors in the world, but that doesn't make our healthcare system great.  Sure these elite doctors exist, but those flying into the US are rich, and going to see the top 1% of doctors, not to visit the clinics people like us are relegated to.  Most countries have competent doctors, and having taken a sick kid to overseas ERs on a couple occasions I've received better healthcare and service while in foreign countries, and the bill was a fraction of what it would have been in the states.  The complaints you mention are prime example of how jacked our healthcare system is, and I agree with you.  There are several examples of healthcare systems that work efficiently around the world, but everyone is stuck on the nationalism train to realize that we may not be the best at something.  

 

edit:  Just to add if there was a universal healthcare option, a public plan, etc the government could use it's bargaining power to significantly lower costs like it does with some aspects of medicare.  This would require politicians to shed their bonuses from big pharma and piss a lot of donors off, but in the end it's whats best for the people...so it's likely not going to happen any time soon...

Edited June 12, 2018 by drewpey
edits

[HeloDude]

So let me get this straight--over the last 50--60 years, healthcare in the US has only become more regulated (at both the state and federal level), and yet your solution to something (that has only gotten worse in your opinion) is to further regulate it.  And as for our "healthcare system"--we don't have a "system", and that is a good thing.  We have a US Postal "System" (which is inefficient), DMV "systems" (which is very inefficient and really sucks), a social security "retirement system" (which is scheduled to go bust), etc.  As for poor people not having the money to be able to see as good of a pediatrician as my family?--well, I bring more value to society than a poor person.  The laws of economics never lie.

Oh and and as far as using Medicare as a good example of a "quasi-healthcare system", it is also scheduled to go bust even soon than predicted.  So thanks but not thanks...

https://nypost.com/2018/06/05/medicare-social-security-running-out-of-money-faster-than-expected/

[17D_guy]

4 hours ago, HeloDude said:

So let me get this straight--over the last 50--60 years, healthcare in the US has only become more regulated (at both the state and federal level), and yet your solution to something (that has only gotten worse in your opinion) is to further regulate it.  And as for our "healthcare system"--we don't have a "system", and that is a good thing.  We have a US Postal "System" (which is inefficient), DMV "systems" (which is very inefficient and really sucks), a social security "retirement system" (which is scheduled to go bust), etc.  As for poor people not having the money to be able to see as good of a pediatrician as my family?--well, I bring more value to society than a poor person.  The laws of economics never lie.

Oh and and as far as using Medicare as a good example of a "quasi-healthcare system", it is also scheduled to go bust even soon than predicted.  So thanks but not thanks...

https://nypost.com/2018/06/05/medicare-social-security-running-out-of-money-faster-than-expected/

Interesting.  I guess by that you mean something like having the gov't say Insurance couldn't deny people with pre-existing conditions is "further regulation."  

And fuck poor people right?  How stupid of them to get poor in the first place!

Like my dumb father-in-law who was a PhD in Chemistry.  He was working for Exxon, and got HIV through a blood transfusion in the 80's and died on social assistance while raising 3 kids living on his Sis-in-laws farm for free.  

Like my stupid brother who put himself through mechanic school and graduated in 2008...then couldn't find a job for 3 years to pay off that technical training.  So he flipped burgers for that time, then put himself through web-development school a few years ago.

Your denigration of other human beings as a "cost center" is rather misplaced.  The fact that you produce more "value," and think that relates directly to your worth as a human being is a gross misjudgement of what people on this very board say matters - QoL, family, etc.  It's the thinking that plunged this county into the 2008 recession.  A bunch of disturbingly rich people thinking they were of more value, hence their enormous paychecks, just trying to get richer no matter what the cost to society.  

Military members live in a very insular bubble with generally supremely healthy people all around them.  We shit on coworkers who get into medical issues and "can't deploy because they're malingering."  I've had 2 back surgeries paid for by the AF, the first when I was 20.  If I wasn't AD, I'd be the exact person you're talking about being "more valuable" than.   

I hate socialism and communism as well as the son of a Cold War vet can (doubly so after reading the Gulag Archipelago), but I'm not convinced capitalism is the lens through which we need to view chronic health problems and treatment.

[Lord Ratner]

Interesting.  I guess by that you mean something like having the gov't say Insurance couldn't deny people with pre-existing conditions is "further regulation."  
And poor people right?  How stupid of them to get poor in the first place!
Like my dumb father-in-law who was a PhD in Chemistry.  He was working for Exxon, and got HIV through a blood transfusion in the 80's and died on social assistance while raising 3 kids living on his Sis-in-laws farm for free.  
Like my stupid brother who put himself through mechanic school and graduated in 2008...then couldn't find a job for 3 years to pay off that technical training.  So he flipped burgers for that time, then put himself through web-development school a few years ago.
Your denigration of other human beings as a "cost center" is rather misplaced.  The fact that you produce more "value," and think that relates directly to your worth as a human being is a gross misjudgement of what people on this very board say matters - QoL, family, etc.  It's the thinking that plunged this county into the 2008 recession.  A bunch of disturbingly rich people thinking they were of more value, hence their enormous paychecks, just trying to get richer no matter what the cost to society.  
Military members live in a very insular bubble with generally supremely healthy people all around them.  We shit on coworkers who get into medical issues and "can't deploy because they're malingering."  I've had 2 back surgeries paid for by the AF, the first when I was 20.  If I wasn't AD, I'd be the exact person you're talking about being "more valuable" than.   
I hate socialism and communism as well as the son of a Cold War vet can (doubly so after reading the Gulag Archipelago), but I'm not convinced capitalism is the lens through which we need to view chronic health problems and treatment.

Lighten up, Francis.

Here's the problem, and I'm going to lump everyone into the two primary political groups because it's simpler for the conversation. Also realize that many people who support the correct option often do so for the wrong reasons (e.g. "I am more valuable to society").

Liberals are very concerned with now, and when you look at their solutions, they often lack any consideration for long-term or second- and third-order effects. They also like to take for granted the incredible advancing power of the free market. But they care, and they very genuinely want to make the world better.

Conservatives on the other hand deal with the future. What's better for tomorrow. Yes, they lose sight of empathy and compassion, which is why niether side can function without the other. But they are also accepting of the reality today for the promise of a better reality tomorrow.

If Americans treated healthcare the way you would like it to back in the 50's, we would not have the incredible system we have today. And it is incredible. Any idiot can see how wildly healthy Americans are compared to the past. The free market did that, not government.

I want a free market system because I'd rather my kids and grandkids have a cheap cure for cancer than having expensive dialysis provided for me today. And if you think that's a false choice, take a closer look at some of the systems out there run by governments. I heard about the steady decline of the NHS for three years on BBC as I drove to work. And my British neighbors would gasp at the idea of paying for healthcare in one conversation, then brag about their private insurance and how it got them such better treatment, and faster. How's that for the rich getting all the perks?