|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 23 2016 01:39 oneofthem wrote:the ACA(and medicaid expansion that came along) was mostly about expanding coverage, particularly for poor americans. in evaluating the ACA your view of how important providing healthcare to that segment is pretty important. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Q0Pg6Hp.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zfRxndO.jpg) sourceshould expanding healthcare to poor people be a high priority? recent discussion on the plight of working class white americans seems to suggest so. the ACA also had a bunch of tax increases, including on capital gains, higher level pay payroll taxes and steeper penalty for large employers that do not offer insurance coverage. these explain the political resistance to the ACA because the republican agenda is largely written by a few large donors supporting these tea party organizations.
Look at those numbers on the middle class though. Medicare expansion under ACA hit the lower middle class to the upper middle class the hardest with -1%. The ridiculously wealthy barely got touched.
|
What Obamacare set out to do was certainly commendable. How it went about doing it turned into a slop of compromise that doesn't particularly work and that cost the Democrats all their political capital for multiple successive election cycles.
Single payer universal healthcare should be what is actually passed next time we get around to substantial healthcare reform.
|
On November 22 2016 10:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Lower wages is heartbreaking. So many Trump supporters apparently don't mind losing extra pay, losing health insurance, or enabling bigotry and restrictions on rights... I wonder what their most important reason was for voting him into office. Guns? White supremacism? "Because he's not Hillary"?
They voted for him because he's not a politician. Because he said that he's as upset as they are about the state of the Midwest. And because he said he can't help but abuse what the big wigs in government allow to him do as a rich guy. None of which is grounded in reality.
|
On November 23 2016 01:45 LegalLord wrote:
What Obamacare set out to do was certainly commendable. How it went about doing it turned into a slop of compromise that doesn't particularly work and that cost the Democrats all their political capital for multiple successive election cycles.
Single payer universal healthcare should be what is actually passed next time we get around to substantial healthcare reform.
iirc democrats had a supermajority and none of the conservatives voted on it. The reason it got compromised was because of fellow democrats.
|
On November 23 2016 01:24 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 01:07 TanGeng wrote:On November 23 2016 00:26 LegalLord wrote:
So, eight years later, what do people think about the bailout that occurred during the peak of the recession, in its entirety (i.e. all of the programs associated with that bailout)? Was it a necessary program that prevented another Great Depression, or an expensive debt addition that just pushed the crisis into the future?
Might as well spare some effort on considering the outgoing president and where he did and didn't go wrong. Bush produced the EES and TARP and Obama inherited it and duly carried that out. Bush got a temporary bailout of the auto industry that Obama turned into a comprehensive solution, which eventually worked out. Obama got "shovel-ready" jobs in the ARA which turned out to get caught in a miserable mess of red tape. Obama's ACA "Obamacare" which was supposed to cut health insurance premium has inflating premiums and insurance agencies are pulling outWhat other stuff got done in that first two years? I honestly think Obama thought the ACA was a stop gap and a temporary solution towards at least the discussion of single payer. There was no political will at the time for single payer at the time (cuz lol socialist) even though it is the solution for this mess.
Also the ACA was meant moreso to provide coverage to a larger population with the secondary effect of lowering premiums through higher participation.
|
Trump talked about a lot of issues that people care about and want addressed. He has some very striking flaws that made it perfectly clear why he lost the popular vote, but he was the only one who really talked about some of these issues other than a crotchety old man who hates the banks and who had to be sidelined to make way for the most electable Democrat in the history of elections. That got him a truly impressive base of support where he needed it and converted a supposedly safe blue state like Cheeseconsin into a Trump electoral victory.
|
On November 23 2016 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 01:45 LegalLord wrote:
What Obamacare set out to do was certainly commendable. How it went about doing it turned into a slop of compromise that doesn't particularly work and that cost the Democrats all their political capital for multiple successive election cycles.
Single payer universal healthcare should be what is actually passed next time we get around to substantial healthcare reform. iirc democrats had a supermajority and none of the conservatives voted on it. The reason it got compromised was because of fellow democrats.
That it was. But the times are a-changing and socialism isn't the boogeyman it was eight years ago. It could happen within a decade.
|
Ironically the very conservative democrats that were against the public option because it would cost them their jobs lost their jobs beacuse they were against the ACA and had to be dragged along to support it publicly.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 23 2016 01:51 LegalLord wrote:
Trump talked about a lot of issues that people care about and want addressed. He has some very striking flaws that made it perfectly clear why he lost the popular vote, but he was the only one who really talked about some of these issues other than a crotchety old man who hates the banks and who had to be sidelined to make way for the most electable Democrat in the history of elections. That got him a truly impressive base of support where he needed it and converted a supposedly safe blue state like Cheeseconsin into a Trump electoral victory.
lol that's one take on never-ending, most important presidential election in our lifetime ever :D
|
On November 23 2016 01:51 LegalLord wrote:
Trump talked about a lot of issues that people care about and want addressed. He has some very striking flaws that made it perfectly clear why he lost the popular vote, but he was the only one who really talked about some of these issues other than a crotchety old man who hates the banks and who had to be sidelined to make way for the most electable Democrat in the history of elections. That got him a truly impressive base of support where he needed it and converted a supposedly safe blue state like Cheeseconsin into a Trump electoral victory.
That only helped convert the safe blue state of Wisconsin. Voter suppression was the other part of that push, very easily arguably the majority of that push.
|
On November 23 2016 01:58 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 01:51 LegalLord wrote:
Trump talked about a lot of issues that people care about and want addressed. He has some very striking flaws that made it perfectly clear why he lost the popular vote, but he was the only one who really talked about some of these issues other than a crotchety old man who hates the banks and who had to be sidelined to make way for the most electable Democrat in the history of elections. That got him a truly impressive base of support where he needed it and converted a supposedly safe blue state like Cheeseconsin into a Trump electoral victory. lol that's one take on never-ending, most important presidential election in our lifetime ever :D
Yeah, every opponent in the past few races was the super-Hitler who would destroy everything. I guess now that the superest of the super-Hitlers got elected we will see what will happen.
|
On November 23 2016 01:51 LegalLord wrote:
Trump talked about a lot of issues that people care about and want addressed. He has some very striking flaws that made it perfectly clear why he lost the popular vote, but he was the only one who really talked about some of these issues other than a crotchety old man who hates the banks and who had to be sidelined to make way for the most electable Democrat in the history of elections.
A reminder that your claim that Clinton was chosen by the primary voters first and foremost because she was more electable than Sanders is flat-out false, no matter how many times you're going to make it sarcastically.
|
On November 23 2016 01:52 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 23 2016 01:45 LegalLord wrote:
What Obamacare set out to do was certainly commendable. How it went about doing it turned into a slop of compromise that doesn't particularly work and that cost the Democrats all their political capital for multiple successive election cycles.
Single payer universal healthcare should be what is actually passed next time we get around to substantial healthcare reform. iirc democrats had a supermajority and none of the conservatives voted on it. The reason it got compromised was because of fellow democrats. That it was. But the times are a-changing and socialism isn't the boogeyman it was eight years ago. It could happen within a decade.
iirc Sander's was one of those people blocking it.
|
Donald Trump plans to meet with The New York Times after all, despite announcing by Tweet early Tuesday morning that he was canceling sessions with the paper's executives and journalists.
It continued a whirlwind 24 hours of Trump's mixed messages to the media.
The president-elect kicked it off Monday with a session in which he had invited television news anchors and executives to establish a new working relationship, only to berate them for what he termed unfair campaign coverage. He then told them he wanted a reset with the press.
Early Tuesday, Trump tweeted that the Times had sought to change the ground rules of their planned meetings, which he termed "not nice."
The top spokeswoman for the newspaper, Eileen Murphy, contradicted Trump's account in an email to NPR. Murphy said that the Times "was unaware that the meeting was cancelled until we saw the President-Elect's tweet this morning."
She said there had been two planned sessions: The first, a smaller one, was to be off-the-record. At the second, Trump's camp had agreed he would respond to questions, on the record, from a group of the paper's reporters, columnists and editors.
Trump had sought to eliminate the longer on-the-record meeting; according to Murphy, the Times refused, and then Trump's camp seemingly agreed to revert to the original understanding.
Later, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks told a Times reporter serving as a pool reporter for the political press corps that the meeting was back on.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 23 2016 01:44 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 01:39 oneofthem wrote:the ACA(and medicaid expansion that came along) was mostly about expanding coverage, particularly for poor americans. in evaluating the ACA your view of how important providing healthcare to that segment is pretty important. sourceshould expanding healthcare to poor people be a high priority? recent discussion on the plight of working class white americans seems to suggest so. the ACA also had a bunch of tax increases, including on capital gains, higher level pay payroll taxes and steeper penalty for large employers that do not offer insurance coverage. these explain the political resistance to the ACA because the republican agenda is largely written by a few large donors supporting these tea party organizations. Look at those numbers on the middle class though. Medicare expansion under ACA hit the lower middle class to the upper middle class the hardest with -1%. The ridiculously wealthy barely got touched.
there were a bunch of measures specifically targeted at squeezing the ultra-rich such as the cap gains rate hike and higher payroll tax on upper range income. but comprehensive tax reform is really required to touch up the wealthy and that wasn't in the cards.
it's a rather rawlsian policy framing, benefit the poorest and most vulnerable. but as you and others said, the distribution of benefits and burdens made it a very hard policy to sell to the public. a lot of healthcare cost is with the providers and patients, tinkering with insurance not that effective in tackling cost unless you also get real moves along these other fronts.
|
On November 23 2016 00:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2016 23:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Again I think I can safely call any of you Trump supporter who rejoice of his attack on the press on the argument that the press is shit and biased, but sees no problem in him appointing the boss of the one shittiest, most propaganda based and most biased media in the landscape (namely Breitbart), a hypocrite. How is lambasting the mainstream press while tolerating (or even praising) the appointment of Bannon hypocritical? Both actions are completely consistent. Show nested quote +I'm fine with criticizing the media, but there is only so far you can go into the double standard without people calling BS. Trump is attacking the media because the media points out his lies or is hostile to his views. And you are happy that he does so, not because the media is bad, but on the opposite, because the media keeps a (feeble) ability to call bullshit. And there has been an ungodly amount of bullshit to call in everything he's done and said. The guy has been grossly lying 20 times a day in average during his campaign, which is unprecedented, and the role of the press is to point that out, which frankly they haven't done nearly enough.
But yeah, let's reshape the narrative. True talker (lololol) The Donald taking out the unfair establishment media (should I add: "saaaaaaaad.") You don't get it. The right's hate of the media is not something that emerged in this election. The media has been torpedoing our guys for decades. The deck has been stacked against republicans and conservative figures for generations.The media has made itself our enemy, so we treat it as such. This isn't something that I expect any liberal or democrat to ever understand. But a solid 40% of the country does understand and finds Trump to be cathartic. Trump is loved because he fights and doesn't take the media's bullshit lying down like too many of our previous politicians.
I would contest that Trump is liked by 40% of the population. He did lose the popular vote by a pretty solid margin and either way only about 25% of the population voted for him. Lets be real, the majority of the population thought both candidates were dog shit.
|
President-elect Donald Trump is reneging on his promise to jail Hillary Clinton, a sharp departure from the “lock her up!” chants that Trump encouraged at his campaign rallies, immediately drawing the ire of some conservatives.
Breitbart News, the alt-right news organization formerly run by Steve Bannon, Trump's chief strategist, headlined the lead story on its home page “BROKEN PROMISE.”
And Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog agency that sued to get more of Clinton’s State Department emails released, urged Trump on Tuesday to “commit his administration” to investigating Clinton, while promising to continue its own litigation and investigations to help uncover possible scandals.
For Trump to refuse to do so “would be a betrayal of his promise to the American people to ‘drain the swamp’ of out-of-control corruption in Washington, DC,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton warned in a statement. “President-elect Trump should focus on healing the broken justice system, affirm the rule of law and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Clinton scandals.”
Kellyanne Conway, the senior adviser who successfully managed the final iteration of Trump’s campaign, said Tuesday the president-elect will not push for further criminal investigations into potential wrongdoing by Clinton, suggesting he has chosen to “help her heal” from the bruising defeat her campaign never saw coming.
It traditionally would not be seen as the proper role of the president to direct any Justice Department investigations because a firewall has historically been respected between the DOJ and the White House. However, Trump said during the campaign that if elected, he would ask his attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to go after Clinton for her use of a private server as secretary of state.
“I think when the president-elect, who’s also the head of your party now, tells you before he’s even inaugurated he doesn’t wish to pursue these charges, it sends a very strong message, tone and content, to the members,” Conway said. “And I think Hillary Clinton still has to face the fact that a majority of Americans don’t find her to be honest or trustworthy, but if Donald Trump can help her heal, then perhaps that's a good thing.”
MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” reported Tuesday morning, citing an anonymous source “with direct knowledge of Donald Trump’s thinking,” that Trump will not pursue criminal investigations against Clinton over her use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state or of her family’s charitable foundation.
Source
|
Clinton is all but an irrelevance now. No point in locking her up.
|
On November 23 2016 01:22 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 00:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 23 2016 00:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2016 23:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Again I think I can safely call any of you Trump supporter who rejoice of his attack on the press on the argument that the press is shit and biased, but sees no problem in him appointing the boss of the one shittiest, most propaganda based and most biased media in the landscape (namely Breitbart), a hypocrite. How is lambasting the mainstream press while tolerating (or even praising) the appointment of Bannon hypocritical? Both actions are completely consistent. I'm fine with criticizing the media, but there is only so far you can go into the double standard without people calling BS. Trump is attacking the media because the media points out his lies or is hostile to his views. And you are happy that he does so, not because the media is bad, but on the opposite, because the media keeps a (feeble) ability to call bullshit. And there has been an ungodly amount of bullshit to call in everything he's done and said. The guy has been grossly lying 20 times a day in average during his campaign, which is unprecedented, and the role of the press is to point that out, which frankly they haven't done nearly enough.
But yeah, let's reshape the narrative. True talker (lololol) The Donald taking out the unfair establishment media (should I add: "saaaaaaaad.") You don't get it. The right's hate of the media is not something that emerged in this election. The media has been torpedoing our guys for decades. The deck has been stacked against republicans and conservative figures for generations.The media has made itself our enemy, so we treat it as such. This isn't something that I expect any liberal or democrat to ever understand. But a solid 40% of the country does understand and finds Trump to be cathartic. Trump is loved because he fights and doesn't take the media's bullshit lying down like too many of our previous politicians. Look, there are two possible positions: 1- You attack the media for doing a bad job. That's ok. But then, I ask you to start with Breitbart and Fox, because they are the number one provider of desinformation, intellectual dishonesty and brutal propaganda. Otherwise I simply call you a hypocrite. 2- Second option, you attack medias when they are not on your side. That's an attack on plurality of opinions, on free speech and on democracy. That's what Trump is doing by the way, attacking the NYT for stories that are obviously true. And the problem is that independent journalism is essential to a democracy. If you are part of a democracy you have to accept the voice of people who don't like you. And it should REALLY worry you if the president uses his power against people who express skepticism and report on the crap he says. Now you will ask me: oh, but the media is liberal. That's not true. The media goes from Breitbart and Fox to the NYT and Washington Post. And the high end in terms of quality, fact checking and simple honesty is not in favour of the conservative media. Should I remind you the amazing way Fox News helped GWB to basically steal an election? Then you say ok, but the media is against Trump, even when it's conservative or neutral. But mate, look, Nobel Prize winners are against Trump, scientists are against Trump, highly educated people are against Trump, artists are against Trump, and the whole rest of the world is against Trump. Trump has 9% approval in Europe. 9 fucking percents. All those people are against Trump not because of another bizarre conspiracy or because they are all sold to some shadowy interest, but because he is a proto-fascist serial liar with a narcissistic personality disorder rarely seen outside of psychiatric institutions. You attack the press for being generally hostile to your horrendous guy. And then what? Are you gonna attack the artists, nobel prize winners, scientists, educated people and the rest of the world? Or juste accept that in a free society, it may happens a lot of people think that your guy is horrendous. It's not because the media is sold to the liberals that no serious newspaper endorsed him. It's because he is fucking terrible. And you are not doing a service to your country by cheering for a future president when he attacks one of the absolute cornerstones of democracy (if you care at all about that). This is a really important set of points. A lot of people seem to equate unbiased and neutral. Sometimes the media isn't biased, sometimes the facts are biased: sometimes people are just wrong and/or dishonest, a lot, very often. This is a situation that can easily be thought of, especially in the context of american republicans and especially in the context of the Tea Party. A part of a biased liberal media that people seem to forget is that it's also a media biased against progressive ideas. If progressives had a bigger influence on the narrative, I really don't think you would be all that offended by liberal coverage...
Let's be clear, I don't think the media has been doing a good job and there is a lot of introspection to be done. The media has given free air time to Trump for months. It has overplayed and relayed conspiracy theories, rumours and fake scandals about Clinton while failing to hold Trump accountable on his own scandals. It hasn't done nearly enough fact checking.
The media has also gone full personal in a campaign where a lot of actual policies were at stake, in particular against Trump, instead of looking into the respective platforms of the candidates. And the coverage has been all emotions and "guts" instead of being calm and rational.
That's a lot to account for. Then again, that's the strength of far right leaders: they say a lot of outrageous crap and get a lot of attention for it, while their really dumb proposals are unchecked. Marine Le Pen is also a genius at that game.
But then again, Trump is merely attacking the media for being against him. And his first targets are the guys doing actually high quality and extremely professional journalism, such as the NYT.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 23 2016 02:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +President-elect Donald Trump is reneging on his promise to jail Hillary Clinton, a sharp departure from the “lock her up!” chants that Trump encouraged at his campaign rallies, immediately drawing the ire of some conservatives.
Breitbart News, the alt-right news organization formerly run by Steve Bannon, Trump's chief strategist, headlined the lead story on its home page “BROKEN PROMISE.”
And Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog agency that sued to get more of Clinton’s State Department emails released, urged Trump on Tuesday to “commit his administration” to investigating Clinton, while promising to continue its own litigation and investigations to help uncover possible scandals.
For Trump to refuse to do so “would be a betrayal of his promise to the American people to ‘drain the swamp’ of out-of-control corruption in Washington, DC,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton warned in a statement. “President-elect Trump should focus on healing the broken justice system, affirm the rule of law and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Clinton scandals.”
Kellyanne Conway, the senior adviser who successfully managed the final iteration of Trump’s campaign, said Tuesday the president-elect will not push for further criminal investigations into potential wrongdoing by Clinton, suggesting he has chosen to “help her heal” from the bruising defeat her campaign never saw coming.
It traditionally would not be seen as the proper role of the president to direct any Justice Department investigations because a firewall has historically been respected between the DOJ and the White House. However, Trump said during the campaign that if elected, he would ask his attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to go after Clinton for her use of a private server as secretary of state.
“I think when the president-elect, who’s also the head of your party now, tells you before he’s even inaugurated he doesn’t wish to pursue these charges, it sends a very strong message, tone and content, to the members,” Conway said. “And I think Hillary Clinton still has to face the fact that a majority of Americans don’t find her to be honest or trustworthy, but if Donald Trump can help her heal, then perhaps that's a good thing.”
MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” reported Tuesday morning, citing an anonymous source “with direct knowledge of Donald Trump’s thinking,” that Trump will not pursue criminal investigations against Clinton over her use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state or of her family’s charitable foundation. Source
So Breitbart is already attacking Trump for not following up on campaign promises. Sounds about right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
