|
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. |
On June 22 2017 22:09 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2017 06:43 Danglars wrote:On June 22 2017 05:17 Plansix wrote:
Not to call out Introvert, who seems to be acutely aware of this issue, but we should all be aware of how coded our language is when talking about politics. All of this is feed by news media’s attempts to make politics more exciting to watch. Left vs right, winning vs losing. Red vs blue. We all get lumped into binary silos and are then told that the other side is coming for us and that if they are elected, we are losing. We mock these binary options in other media as being simplistic(Paragon or Renegade anyone?), but it is the language of politics we accept. Trump opponent or Trump apologist is one of the more sickening dichotomies in this forum. I'm daily sickened by his behavior, and he ran in the lower half of acceptable Republican candidates for president, but I felt forced to vote for him because his policies more closely aligned with mine than his opponent in the general. Some posters here go overboard with comparing qualified defenses of his acts (at a maybe 1:10 ratio of things I agree with and things I disagree with) to an inability to see straight on his issues. If you refuse to see nuance on the right-of-center, you're teaching people to be callous to your appeals to reason ... since you do not approach with reason. I think Igne meant this as a criticism, but I don't: it seems like you mostly only decide to post when you're defending Trump in some regard. That's fine, you can post of not post whenever you want, you don't owe us anything - but it does make it hard for me to tell what your actual objections to Trump are. It seems like they're usually exact opposite of most of us - mad he hasn't repealed Obamacare yet, mad the wall seems like it won't happen anytime soon, mad tax reform isn't anywhere close to happening. If you don't mind my asking, how much of the stuff liberals are outraged at is stuff you'd defend? The travel ban? The AHCA (both its policies, and the process they're using to try to pass it)? The large number of vacancies in the executive branch? The anti-NATO and anti-NAFTA talk? The renewed war on drugs? Seems to me we hardly ever have actual policy discussions in here, as evidenced by the fact I've read a ton of your posts but can only guess how you feel about most of those.
You're just caught in your internal biases towards novelty. My posts criticizing Trump just get lost in the host attacking him, and agree with your internal predilections that everybody should disagree with it. Secondly, this thread has been bonkers in attacks to such a ludicrous degree that inaccurate and stupid posts (not to mention shitposts) proliferate and are practically omnipresent. Even the small trickle of responses looks outsized because you missed the quantity/frequency of those prompting it.
The search function is open to you. I've attacked Trump on trade many many many times, sometimes offering my own contrasting views, and that's just a sampling + Show Spoiler + I've posted on Trump's insanity not making advocating entitlement reform (ex). I've attacked Trump on wanting to make Mexico pay for the wall. I've attacked him for the pace of filling political appointments in the bureaucracy. I've never taken him seriously when he said he wanted to drain the swamp (though disruption and political warfare will get part of the way unintentionally), so I'm not surprised when he did not do it/both wrong for not putting effort into doing it and for never having the plan or inclination to accomplish it. He's a policy nincompoop and cannot explain why policies would work if he even makes it to policy. He's stupid for trying to make the AHCA work, barely hiding his actual goal of passing anything he could call 'Trumpcare' and boasting about how he achieved the "deal." He has zero experience in how to get bills passed or building support for initiatives. I think I've done a dozen posts in the past two months attacking him for his tweets on both undermining policies and shooting himself in the foot outright. Poor leadership, poor dealmaking, very little strategy and policy analysis, no focus in his attacks, etc. In short, I disagree with a good three quarters of his entire platform, but in this rotten political age, the remaining one quarter or less is enough to make him the best candidate in the general (and my common theme is attacking the need for a policy ignoramus as a result of a craven political class ie Trump is awful and its only bribed RINOs obsessed with staying in office that make him electable). Oh well. I won't spend much time at all re-collecting my anti-Trump opinions, since their regular presence in my posts were missed (skimmed past?) the first time around.
|
On June 23 2017 01:18 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
I'm sure this will be popular.
With Jess Sessions' input, this is perhaps a good thing. Consider the ways Jeff Sessions will approach the problem. Consider the long list of studies on the effectiveness of the war on drugs. That money is wasted.
|
I'll believe this healthcare bill is DOA when Trump blasts it in a tweet. Until then, the GOP is remarkably adroit at letting a few choice members say "oh no what awful legislation/what an awful person" and then quietly passing it.
|
On June 23 2017 01:22 KwarK wrote:
$2,000,000,000 seems like a shitton. How much is usually dedicated to substance abuse treatment and recovery? Unless the default is $2,000,000,000 so what they're actually doing is running the program for one more year and cutting it I'd not be too hasty to attack that.
How does this work though? It sounds like they're saying "$x can be given out to fight opioid abuse by 2018". But How much they *actually* give out depends on what grants are granted and what not. With only a calendar year or so for this to happen it seems like the intention to to say you are giving away a very large sum of money, but then in practice give away very little because there's a very short window for the grants to go through.
|
On June 23 2017 01:32 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 01:22 KwarK wrote:
$2,000,000,000 seems like a shitton. How much is usually dedicated to substance abuse treatment and recovery? Unless the default is $2,000,000,000 so what they're actually doing is running the program for one more year and cutting it I'd not be too hasty to attack that. How does this work though? It sounds like they're saying "$x can be given out to fight opiod abuse by 2018. But How much they *actually* give out depends on what grants are granted and what not. With only a calendar year or so for this to happen it seems like the intention to to say you are giving away a very large sum of money, but then in practice give away very little because there's a very short window for the grants to go through.
I don't think it's actually grants to organizations. It's block grants to states, the classic GOP wet dream. Basically, divvy up 2 billion amongst the 50 states to spend however they want to address a health issue.
The funds also won't expire in 2018, so that's not a concern.
|
the 2B is appropriated in 2018 but stays around until it is all spent. so they could spend it all in year, never disburse any, spend over a few years, etc.
|
On June 23 2017 01:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 01:32 Logo wrote:On June 23 2017 01:22 KwarK wrote:
$2,000,000,000 seems like a shitton. How much is usually dedicated to substance abuse treatment and recovery? Unless the default is $2,000,000,000 so what they're actually doing is running the program for one more year and cutting it I'd not be too hasty to attack that. How does this work though? It sounds like they're saying "$x can be given out to fight opiod abuse by 2018. But How much they *actually* give out depends on what grants are granted and what not. With only a calendar year or so for this to happen it seems like the intention to to say you are giving away a very large sum of money, but then in practice give away very little because there's a very short window for the grants to go through. I don't think it's actually grants to organizations. It's block grants to states, the classic GOP wet dream. Basically, divvy up 2 billion amongst the 50 states to spend however they want to address a health issue. The funds also won't expire in 2018, so that's not a concern.
So no matter what the money is granted out to the states?
|
well last sentence seems to imply that the 2 trillion will be there until its all spent. anyone know how much overall funding was in the house bill? that seems like the easiest thing to look at and compare.
does seem like it could be a problem if the government is just like. "here's a bunch of money now fix it and we're not giving you anymore help." I am massively out of my depth here though
|
On June 23 2017 01:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 01:32 Logo wrote:On June 23 2017 01:22 KwarK wrote:
$2,000,000,000 seems like a shitton. How much is usually dedicated to substance abuse treatment and recovery? Unless the default is $2,000,000,000 so what they're actually doing is running the program for one more year and cutting it I'd not be too hasty to attack that. How does this work though? It sounds like they're saying "$x can be given out to fight opiod abuse by 2018. But How much they *actually* give out depends on what grants are granted and what not. With only a calendar year or so for this to happen it seems like the intention to to say you are giving away a very large sum of money, but then in practice give away very little because there's a very short window for the grants to go through. I don't think it's actually grants to organizations. It's block grants to states, the classic GOP wet dream. Basically, divvy up 2 billion amongst the 50 states to spend however they want to address a health issue. The funds also won't expire in 2018, so that's not a concern.
Why govern and get involved when you can just make a big pot of federal dollars and then say "states can use this as needed". Then the states can misuse the funds and no one will hold them responsible because it was free money anyways.
|
On June 23 2017 01:36 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 01:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 23 2017 01:32 Logo wrote:On June 23 2017 01:22 KwarK wrote:
$2,000,000,000 seems like a shitton. How much is usually dedicated to substance abuse treatment and recovery? Unless the default is $2,000,000,000 so what they're actually doing is running the program for one more year and cutting it I'd not be too hasty to attack that. How does this work though? It sounds like they're saying "$x can be given out to fight opiod abuse by 2018. But How much they *actually* give out depends on what grants are granted and what not. With only a calendar year or so for this to happen it seems like the intention to to say you are giving away a very large sum of money, but then in practice give away very little because there's a very short window for the grants to go through. I don't think it's actually grants to organizations. It's block grants to states, the classic GOP wet dream. Basically, divvy up 2 billion amongst the 50 states to spend however they want to address a health issue. The funds also won't expire in 2018, so that's not a concern. So no matter what the money is granted out to the states?
Provided they go through HHS channels and give a rudimentary justification, I think so. As ticklish says it doesn't look like the funds expire.
|
MSNBC’s Casey Hunt caught up with Senator Rand Paul in the halls of the Capital Building this morning to ask his quick thoughts on the Senate version of the GOP Healthcare bill just released.
Paul was an initial and vocal critic of the House health care bill, and it appears that he is also frustrated with the version presented by his Senate colleagues, telling Hunt “looks like we’re keeping Obamacare, not repealing it.”
Rand Paul on CNN. He's not a fan.
“I love the arena. I thrive on competition and I welcome the discussion, but I am honored by this,” Pelosi said.
When Pelosi was asked if it was time for new House Democratic caucus leadership, she said she was “very confident” with her levels of support, and that “my timing is not about” her critics.
“We are paving a way for a new generation of leadership,” Pelosi said. “Again, I respect any opinion that my members have, but my decision about how long I stay is not up to them.”
From pelosi's press conference.
|
Let's play guess that senator!
|
United States43264 Posts
Expiration of funds isn't normally an issue either way. The assumption is that if you don't spend it all fast enough then people will think you didn't really need it. In government you always try and spend any money you're given as soon as possible.
|
On June 23 2017 01:39 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +MSNBC’s Casey Hunt caught up with Senator Rand Paul in the halls of the Capital Building this morning to ask his quick thoughts on the Senate version of the GOP Healthcare bill just released.
Paul was an initial and vocal critic of the House health care bill, and it appears that he is also frustrated with the version presented by his Senate colleagues, telling Hunt “looks like we’re keeping Obamacare, not repealing it.” Rand Paul on CNN. He's not a fan. Show nested quote +
“I love the arena. I thrive on competition and I welcome the discussion, but I am honored by this,” Pelosi said.
When Pelosi was asked if it was time for new House Democratic caucus leadership, she said she was “very confident” with her levels of support, and that “my timing is not about” her critics.
“We are paving a way for a new generation of leadership,” Pelosi said. “Again, I respect any opinion that my members have, but my decision about how long I stay is not up to them.”
From pelosi's press conference.
LOL. "We are paving a way for a new generation of leadership. Er, except me. I should totally stay."
|
based off of that snippet bad press conference imo. first of all you say some members and then say it's not up solely to them and it's a group decision. You also try to validate some of their concerns. I'd need to read the whole thing to get a feel for it overall but the quote itself problematic especially out of context.
that being said I don't think it makes sense to do a leadership change over losing in a traditionally republican district. I'm with Joe Scarborough on this one, run better candidates that are more in line with the district and have histories and the problem should just go away. To be fair though with the relatively safe districts they weren't likely to get great candidates for the special elections.
I don't think Tom Ryan would magically make the democrats problems go away.
I'd say a much bigger is the fact that the senate for the Dems is nearly entirely old white guys, and older people in general especially in non automatically safe states. and I don't think you can blame that on Pelosi.
|
On June 23 2017 01:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 01:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 23 2017 01:32 Logo wrote:On June 23 2017 01:22 KwarK wrote:
$2,000,000,000 seems like a shitton. How much is usually dedicated to substance abuse treatment and recovery? Unless the default is $2,000,000,000 so what they're actually doing is running the program for one more year and cutting it I'd not be too hasty to attack that. How does this work though? It sounds like they're saying "$x can be given out to fight opiod abuse by 2018. But How much they *actually* give out depends on what grants are granted and what not. With only a calendar year or so for this to happen it seems like the intention to to say you are giving away a very large sum of money, but then in practice give away very little because there's a very short window for the grants to go through. I don't think it's actually grants to organizations. It's block grants to states, the classic GOP wet dream. Basically, divvy up 2 billion amongst the 50 states to spend however they want to address a health issue. The funds also won't expire in 2018, so that's not a concern. Why govern and get involved when you can just make a big pot of federal dollars and then say "states can use this as needed". Then the states can misuse the funds and no one will hold them responsible because it was free money anyways.
Competitive block grants like this one are also a great way to get pork to your state on the sly. Just give your state's leadership the heads-up while the bill is being secretly drafted and poof, they have a head-start on prepping potential grants.
|
On June 23 2017 01:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 00:54 LegalLord wrote:
I have also heard that smokers did wonders for the public pension fund, what with their lifetime contributions and their early death before it was time to start collecting. Kill the old and the poor has always been good public policy, the problem is in the execution, specifically the proles complaining about all the executions.
If that was an intentional pun, well done.
|
On June 23 2017 01:43 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 01:39 Nevuk wrote:MSNBC’s Casey Hunt caught up with Senator Rand Paul in the halls of the Capital Building this morning to ask his quick thoughts on the Senate version of the GOP Healthcare bill just released.
Paul was an initial and vocal critic of the House health care bill, and it appears that he is also frustrated with the version presented by his Senate colleagues, telling Hunt “looks like we’re keeping Obamacare, not repealing it.” Rand Paul on CNN. He's not a fan.
“I love the arena. I thrive on competition and I welcome the discussion, but I am honored by this,” Pelosi said.
When Pelosi was asked if it was time for new House Democratic caucus leadership, she said she was “very confident” with her levels of support, and that “my timing is not about” her critics.
“We are paving a way for a new generation of leadership,” Pelosi said. “Again, I respect any opinion that my members have, but my decision about how long I stay is not up to them.”
From pelosi's press conference. LOL. "We are paving a way for a new generation of leadership. Er, except me. I should totally stay."
She's also totally wrong - how long she stays in power is literally entirely up to the members of the house. She seems a bit further off her rocker than usual here. Pelosi is amazing at whipping votes, but as an actual leader she's not been the best.
|
On June 23 2017 01:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 01:37 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 01:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 23 2017 01:32 Logo wrote:On June 23 2017 01:22 KwarK wrote:
$2,000,000,000 seems like a shitton. How much is usually dedicated to substance abuse treatment and recovery? Unless the default is $2,000,000,000 so what they're actually doing is running the program for one more year and cutting it I'd not be too hasty to attack that. How does this work though? It sounds like they're saying "$x can be given out to fight opiod abuse by 2018. But How much they *actually* give out depends on what grants are granted and what not. With only a calendar year or so for this to happen it seems like the intention to to say you are giving away a very large sum of money, but then in practice give away very little because there's a very short window for the grants to go through. I don't think it's actually grants to organizations. It's block grants to states, the classic GOP wet dream. Basically, divvy up 2 billion amongst the 50 states to spend however they want to address a health issue. The funds also won't expire in 2018, so that's not a concern. Why govern and get involved when you can just make a big pot of federal dollars and then say "states can use this as needed". Then the states can misuse the funds and no one will hold them responsible because it was free money anyways. Competitive block grants like this one are also a great way to get pork to your state on the sly. Just give your state's leadership the heads-up while the bill is being secretly drafted and poof, they have a head-start on prepping potential grants.
What if we added the free market into tax policy? We level the playing field and then make all the states fight over the taxes. Those with the most need will hire the best people and get the most taxes. Efficiency.
The Hunger Games of tax policy.
|
On June 23 2017 01:56 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 01:43 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 01:39 Nevuk wrote:MSNBC’s Casey Hunt caught up with Senator Rand Paul in the halls of the Capital Building this morning to ask his quick thoughts on the Senate version of the GOP Healthcare bill just released.
Paul was an initial and vocal critic of the House health care bill, and it appears that he is also frustrated with the version presented by his Senate colleagues, telling Hunt “looks like we’re keeping Obamacare, not repealing it.” Rand Paul on CNN. He's not a fan.
“I love the arena. I thrive on competition and I welcome the discussion, but I am honored by this,” Pelosi said.
When Pelosi was asked if it was time for new House Democratic caucus leadership, she said she was “very confident” with her levels of support, and that “my timing is not about” her critics.
“We are paving a way for a new generation of leadership,” Pelosi said. “Again, I respect any opinion that my members have, but my decision about how long I stay is not up to them.”
From pelosi's press conference. LOL. "We are paving a way for a new generation of leadership. Er, except me. I should totally stay." She's also totally wrong - how long she stays in power is literally entirely up to the members of the house. She seems a bit further off her rocker than usual here. Pelosi is amazing at whipping votes, but as an actual leader she's not been the best.
I think she meant that it wasn't solely up to them and that the overall opinion as shown by her reelection was that they wanted her to stay. a really bad answer but don't think it's what she intended. based on previous sentence it seems clear that them was meant to imply her critics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
