|
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. |
I had more only mildly more success digging since Danglars has obvious motivation to leave it at "cuts elsewhere"
But this is what I got:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/house-gop-wants-to-fund-lapsed-chip-with-cuts-to-medicare-and-public-health
The draft bill, posted around 9 p.m. Monday, makes the following cuts and restrictions in order to fund the program:
Charging seniors who earn more than $500,000 a year higher Medicare premiums.
Allowing states to kick out Medicaid beneficiaries if they win the lottery.
Shortening the grace period for people paying their Obamacare premium payments late
Cutting more than $5 billion from the Affordable Care Act’s prevention and public health fund.
Basically yes, they want to cut medicaid/ACA and see using CHIP funding as a way to do that. The first 2 could reasonably be compromise or reasonable cuts, but the last 2 are big issues.
|
On January 20 2018 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:52 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:43 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:38 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:33 Plansix wrote:On January 20 2018 05:29 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:03 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:00 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
"We held off funding the government so we can force you to choose DACA"
I'd have less qualms if everybody agreed both sides were playing politics. But one side wants to claim moral high ground and declare themselves in the right. It kind of makes me sympathetic to McConnell's messaging. When he purposefully set up CHIP to be this bargaining chip I have 0 sympathy. Let's see, you get none of what you want ... and you get none of what you want. I don't like McConnell and I don't like what he'll do after this fight and for the rest of his tenure. But he's got plenty of reason to play hardball in the face of one-sided blame game. We'll get back to intraparty resolutions after. Please provide the bill in question so we can point out the obvious poison pill. There has not been a clean CHIP funding bill. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Any compromise on spending reductions amount to "using it as a bargaining chip" to you. Not compromise, but bargaining chip. You have a definitional problem that won't get resolved. But he asked for the bill that was offered last week. What was it? I'm not going to do his googling for him under threat of "so we can point out the obvious poison pill." There's literally no sense putting effort into a problem with partisan definitions. If you can't compromise and everything's a bargaining chip, you're constructing things to guarantee you're right in all cases. If he wanted to be honest, he could state the higher virtue: Anything that doesn't increase government spending is making a bargaining chip out of programs I favor. Holy mother of strawmans. No. You wanne haggle over infrastructure spending? military equipment? sure. But you don't play Russian roulette with child healthcare. You held it hostage over clean funding or no funding at all. If we can get that straight. (1) CHIP must continue to be funded (2) without compromising on how it is funded at all. Somehow, I don't think we ever get that straight. Claiming there are no funds for CHIP and there needs to be compromise is horseshit when you pass a tax bill that will cause a massive deficit short term (long term neutral because you end the cuts for the poor/middle class and increase taxes instead while keeping the cut for the rich).
This would be compromise on the funding. Like you hate these revenue-reducing measures (pro-growth, pro-wage), but hate worse spending-reducing measures. If this was some real fight with both sides not playing politics, you might actually have reason to say the government needs to function on less money, taken in and spent. I actually liked reading your deft maneuver on "changing funding streams" = "claiming there are no funds for CHIP"
|
United States42009 Posts
Blaming people who #resist for resisting is blaming people for their own basic morality when that morality inconveniences you. There is no ethical position other than opposition to the Trump government. Governments are not owed placid consent by the people they govern when they act unethically, there is a civic responsibility for people to speak out against an immoral government.
Honestly Danglars I think you'd be much happier under Putin.
|
On January 20 2018 06:07 Plansix wrote:
I think we should clear up “change how it is funded” because it is a mischaracterization of what conservatives want. They want to cut healthcare funding for other programs to pay for CHIP. They want the 8 billion removed from healthcare funding, but agree that it shouldn’t come from children’s healthcare. But they know the only way to get that 8 billion removed is to use CHIP as leverage to get the other cuts. Conservatives want cuts, they see CHIP as a way to get those cuts.
So if holding the budget for things hostage is a way to get what you want, then the Democrats just playing the same game.
No accompanying spending cuts anywhere is a great way to permanently grow the spending side of the deficit.
|
On January 20 2018 06:02 ticklishmusic wrote:
If Republicans gave a shit about kids instead of blaming the Democrats, they'd put up a clean CHIP funding bill, which would pass with an overwhelming majority. It's fucking easy and non controversial. Then they could try to sort out DACA and funding the government, which are more controversial.
It's not that complicated.
If Democrats gave a shit about kids instead of blaming the Republicans, they'd accept cuts in other programs to fund the program for the kids. As it turns out, they have other priorities, which are extremely controversial.
|
On January 20 2018 06:13 Logo wrote:I had more only mildly more success digging since Danglars has obvious motivation to leave it at "cuts elsewhere" But this is what I got: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/house-gop-wants-to-fund-lapsed-chip-with-cuts-to-medicare-and-public-healthShow nested quote +
The draft bill, posted around 9 p.m. Monday, makes the following cuts and restrictions in order to fund the program:
Charging seniors who earn more than $500,000 a year higher Medicare premiums.
Allowing states to kick out Medicaid beneficiaries if they win the lottery.
Shortening the grace period for people paying their Obamacare premium payments late
Cutting more than $5 billion from the Affordable Care Act’s prevention and public health fund.
Basically yes, they want to cut medicaid/ACA and see using CHIP funding as a way to do that. The first 2 could reasonably be compromise or reasonable cuts, but the last 2 are big issues.
lol Allowing states to kick out Medicaid beneficiaries if they win the lottery.
I want to know how much that would account for in comparison to the Cutting more than $5 billion from the Affordable Care Act’s prevention and public health fund. Maybe I just underestimate that, who knows~
Realistically though sounds like 2 neutral ones, like you said the first two. And two things Dems would hate.
Hell I could even imagine an argument for #1 being something that Republicans WANT as they would argue "see, your premiums go up again! Obamacare is failing"
So if that's it I'd say it's a bill to fund something both party wants with 2 cuts that hurt dems, one slightly leaning into hurting Dems and one neutral cut that noone cares about? So basicly nothing was given from the GOP in exchange if I understand this correctly?
//c&p ruined some, should be fixed
|
On January 20 2018 06:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:52 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:43 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:38 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:33 Plansix wrote:On January 20 2018 05:29 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:03 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
When he purposefully set up CHIP to be this bargaining chip I have 0 sympathy.
https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/954434510078271488Let's see, you get none of what you want ... and you get none of what you want. I don't like McConnell and I don't like what he'll do after this fight and for the rest of his tenure. But he's got plenty of reason to play hardball in the face of one-sided blame game. We'll get back to intraparty resolutions after. Please provide the bill in question so we can point out the obvious poison pill. There has not been a clean CHIP funding bill. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Any compromise on spending reductions amount to "using it as a bargaining chip" to you. Not compromise, but bargaining chip. You have a definitional problem that won't get resolved. But he asked for the bill that was offered last week. What was it? I'm not going to do his googling for him under threat of "so we can point out the obvious poison pill." There's literally no sense putting effort into a problem with partisan definitions. If you can't compromise and everything's a bargaining chip, you're constructing things to guarantee you're right in all cases. If he wanted to be honest, he could state the higher virtue: Anything that doesn't increase government spending is making a bargaining chip out of programs I favor. Holy mother of strawmans. No. You wanne haggle over infrastructure spending? military equipment? sure. But you don't play Russian roulette with child healthcare. You held it hostage over clean funding or no funding at all. If we can get that straight. (1) CHIP must continue to be funded (2) without compromising on how it is funded at all. Somehow, I don't think we ever get that straight. Claiming there are no funds for CHIP and there needs to be compromise is horseshit when you pass a tax bill that will cause a massive deficit short term (long term neutral because you end the cuts for the poor/middle class and increase taxes instead while keeping the cut for the rich). This would be compromise on the funding. Like you hate these revenue-reducing measures (pro-growth, pro-wage), but hate worse spending-reducing measures. If this was some real fight with both sides not playing politics, you might actually have reason to say the government needs to function on less money, taken in and spent. I actually liked reading your deft maneuver on "changing funding streams" = "claiming there are no funds for CHIP"
Can I call these "spending reduction measures" anti-public health measures?
On January 20 2018 06:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:07 Plansix wrote:
I think we should clear up “change how it is funded” because it is a mischaracterization of what conservatives want. They want to cut healthcare funding for other programs to pay for CHIP. They want the 8 billion removed from healthcare funding, but agree that it shouldn’t come from children’s healthcare. But they know the only way to get that 8 billion removed is to use CHIP as leverage to get the other cuts. Conservatives want cuts, they see CHIP as a way to get those cuts.
So if holding the budget for things hostage is a way to get what you want, then the Democrats just playing the same game. No accompanying spending cuts anywhere is a great way to permanently grow the spending side of the deficit.
Get ready for what every single entitlement and public health program, even those already in place, will be called forever by the GOP, "growing the spending side of the deficit." Slowly hatcheted away.
(meanwhile the government can't make continuing funding a state program conditional on changing its requirements)
|
On January 20 2018 06:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:02 ticklishmusic wrote:
If Republicans gave a shit about kids instead of blaming the Democrats, they'd put up a clean CHIP funding bill, which would pass with an overwhelming majority. It's fucking easy and non controversial. Then they could try to sort out DACA and funding the government, which are more controversial.
It's not that complicated. If Democrats gave a shit about kids instead of blaming the Republicans, they'd accept cuts in other programs to fund the program for the kids. As it turns out, they have other priorities, which are extremely controversial.
If Republicans gave a shit about kids instead of blaming the Democrats, they'd accept DACA funding and higher taxes to fund the program for the kids. As it turns out, they have other priorities, which are extremely controversial.
|
Maybe they (Democrats) just refuse to throw the trolley at either sick/elderly people or kids when there’s an empty track available.
|
On January 20 2018 05:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:44 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 20 2018 05:31 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:28 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 20 2018 05:13 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:11 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 20 2018 04:52 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On January 20 2018 04:44 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:40 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
In your eyes, what decisions did these children make? How much input did you have where your family lives? You haven't shown what responsibility these DACA kids have.
Describe the decisions they made. They're a victim of the choices their parents made. The parents are responding to decades of failure of the US to secure its sudden border, and the failed economic/judicial/social policies of their host countries. The argument is for compassion for the victim, not that DACA isn't immigration. It's literally the definition of immigration. Do newborns get to choose who they were born to and where they were born? You say they are victims, but you advocate for punishing them. Why? If your parents decided to immigrate to an ISIS controlled city when you were 6 years old, and you got your head chopped off for being a white Christian, did you fuck up? Should you die for being such an idiot and moving to Syria? Newborns don't get to choose, which is why we have a million laws and protocols in place to make sure the state does a decent job at keeping children somewhat ok. The idea that it takes absolutely nothing to be a parent, meaning there are millions of garbage parents, is not a new idea. We try to fill in the gaps best we can. The idea that a child should not be blamed or punished for the mistakes of their parents is not new. Children have no expression of will, they are practically property. A southern border wall, tech surveillance, and beefed-up border patrol would prevent more victims from entering our country. As it stands, you advocate for creating more and for encouraging lawless behavior. You don't even consider it immigration law. You don't get to choose where you're born, so let's deny birthright citizenship as well. Well, it wasn't your choice. Wait... so you don't think the children have agency, but letting them stay encourages lawless behavior... by the children that have no agency? Remember, we're discussing kicking out the children here, not adults who immigrated by choice. Being separated from your early teen child is hardly a favorable outcome that people are going to be encouraged by in attempting to cross the border, and if it honestly is then severity of the humanitarian concern vs the low number of Dreamers would probably be sufficient argument to anyone who isn't a flaming [redacted]. Besides, there comes a point where the diminishing returns of more border security become more expensive than simply having a small number of immigrants, who already have to meet some reasonably high bars for renewal of deferred action. In regards to the Dreamers, they really are a lot of the "best", to be a bit on the nose. And please, forced removal from a place in which you've begun to establish a life isn't even f***ing comparable to just not being granted citizenship to somewhere from both. That would be the weak border that encourages lawless behavior. That of their parents illegally crossing the border to bring their children over. The discussion was about immigrant children, the ones under DACA. You argued that Mohdoo's position was advocating for encouraging lawless behavior. How hard it is/should be for people to get in and what you actually do with illegal immigrant children are two completely different discussions, and the former was not the discussion being had. You were the only person who actually brought up the policy that the US should have with regards to preventing people from entering. It feels like you are mis-attributing things to Mohdoo and then arguing that. So to double check, you weren't saying that DACA, or similar policies for children, encourage lawless behavior? No, keeping border protections weak was encouraging lawless behavior. That was the text of the post that you can look up at your convenience. I'd really like a show of reading comprehension before we sidetrack into things I didn't say but questions you'd like answers on anyways. You were responding to this:
You say they are victims, but you advocate for punishing them. Why? If your parents decided to immigrate to an ISIS controlled city when you were 6 years old, and you got your head chopped off for being a white Christian, did you fuck up? Should you die for being such an idiot and moving to Syria?
Newborns don't get to choose, which is why we have a million laws and protocols in place to make sure the state does a decent job at keeping children somewhat ok. The idea that it takes absolutely nothing to be a parent, meaning there are millions of garbage parents, is not a new idea. We try to fill in the gaps best we can. The idea that a child should not be blamed or punished for the mistakes of their parents is not new. Children have no expression of will, they are practically property.
At no single point since page 9730 has Mohdoo even mentioned security, nor have any of arguments had anything to do with, or to what degree the immigration itself should be prevented. Mohdoo was entirely discussing DACA, i.e., what do with children who have already been pulled across that border. You sidetracked, and then attack my reading comprehension for not respecting your strawman of what Mohdoo was arguing. Dear lord. You must reread the first sentence of the response directly after, which informs the second sentence that you quoted and misapplied. If you're honest about finding out what I said was encouraging lawless behavior (I brought it up), then you should read that and not imply I brought it up to describe something entirely different. If you want to correct the record and then argue that I'm making some kind of strawman, make your case. I find it very helpful to contrast the situation in which the child has no choice (a bad outcome, remember when I said 'victim?'), with the situation where we do have the choice.
My case, as already made, was that mohdoo literally never mentioned the border or weakening it. You said that his stance encouraged lawless behavior.
Also, your habit of referring to quotes and posts as vaguely as possible while still technically referring to them makes this extremely tedious. I'm already seeing a disconnect in the argument, being obtuse isn't going to help this.
You say this in reference to, what I assume, is your point about the weak border:
The parents are responding to decades of failure of the US to secure its sudden border,
But mohdoo's post is still about the DACA children, the ones in the country (his example specifically cites someone who has already moved (past tense) to some location), that the state can do things about one way or another. So please, clearly, illustrate how mohdoo is encouraging more lawless behavior. Particularly, how he does so by advocating for keeping border protection weak. That right there is the strawman: nowhere did he advocate for keeping border protection weak, at least not in this discussion or anywhere near where you quoted him.
|
United States42009 Posts
On January 20 2018 06:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:02 ticklishmusic wrote:
If Republicans gave a shit about kids instead of blaming the Democrats, they'd put up a clean CHIP funding bill, which would pass with an overwhelming majority. It's fucking easy and non controversial. Then they could try to sort out DACA and funding the government, which are more controversial.
It's not that complicated. If Democrats gave a shit about kids instead of blaming the Republicans, they'd accept cuts in other programs to fund the program for the kids. As it turns out, they have other priorities, which are extremely controversial.
You might as well hold a guy's wife and kid at gunpoint and say "if you give a shit about your kid instead of blaming me for all your problems you'd tell me to shoot your wife and spare your daughter". You can't offer to fund children's healthcare by defunding healthcare elsewhere and then insist that when the other side refuses to play your game and choose they're really the ones to blame.
If the hostage taker starts killing hostages at no point does it become the fault of the other side.
|
On January 20 2018 06:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:07 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's also humorous in that CHIP costs 8 billion dollars over 5 years...but apparently needs to be paid for with cuts to other services. Let's be charitable and say it's 20 billion for 10 years. That's 1/50 the amount the Republican tax plan increases the deficit in 10 years.
Policy only needs to be revenue neutral for R's when that lets them gut other programs and doesn't line pockets. Estate tax cuts? Nah, no need to be revenue neutral. Children's healthcare? OH SHIT WE GOTTA BE GUYS! The Republican tax plan reduces revenue. The compromise would reduce spending by a very very very modest amount. OH SHIT WE GOTTA INCREASE SPENDING NO QUESTIONS ASKED. Pretty humorous, I agree. They sure asked those questions to multimillionaires, the only people who benefited from removing the estate tax. At least you realize they ask more questions about children's healthcare than they do about the megarich. It'd be different if any of these proposed changes actually improved CHIP, but they really don't. Mostly because it's a wildly successful on balance cheap program that I'm not sure there's any evidence of any problems with. I do love that you have fully embraced the "continuing any entitlement is increasing spending" philosophy. It'll make future coercion arguments even more bizarre.
It would be different if the revenue and spending sides of the equation were both looked at for balancing budgets and tackling the debt and looking for GDP growth and wage growth and American competitiveness. This debate is a microcosm that, while the GOP made inroads in the corporate tax rate to bring us more in line with our first-world competitive partners, they can make zero inroads in spending. I see no progress if the only answer is to increase revenues by raising taxes, and no quarter is given on the spending side. These programs do grow as more are covered and costs increase.
|
On January 20 2018 06:02 ticklishmusic wrote:
If Republicans gave a shit about kids instead of blaming the Democrats, they'd put up a clean CHIP funding bill, which would pass with an overwhelming majority. It's fucking easy and non controversial. Then they could try to sort out DACA and funding the government, which are more controversial.
It's not that complicated.
Each generation, Americans become more and more progressive and liberal. Fewer kids surviving means Republicans can hold on to power for slightly longer before getting outvoted. Or something. They don't care about people who don't agree with them... And half the time they don't even care about those constituents either.
|
On January 20 2018 06:13 Logo wrote:I had more only mildly more success digging since Danglars has obvious motivation to leave it at "cuts elsewhere" But this is what I got: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/house-gop-wants-to-fund-lapsed-chip-with-cuts-to-medicare-and-public-healthShow nested quote +
The draft bill, posted around 9 p.m. Monday, makes the following cuts and restrictions in order to fund the program:
Charging seniors who earn more than $500,000 a year higher Medicare premiums.
Allowing states to kick out Medicaid beneficiaries if they win the lottery.
Shortening the grace period for people paying their Obamacare premium payments late
Cutting more than $5 billion from the Affordable Care Act’s prevention and public health fund.
Basically yes, they want to cut medicaid/ACA and see using CHIP funding as a way to do that. The first 2 could reasonably be compromise or reasonable cuts, but the last 2 are big issues.
An extra 150$ on seniors that earn more than $40,000 a month for medicare. Officially worth more than DACA. I love it.
EDIT: Remind me to pull up more The Federalist, National Review, and (shudder) Breitbart to match these TPM summaries. I keep forgetting.
|
On January 20 2018 06:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 20 2018 06:07 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's also humorous in that CHIP costs 8 billion dollars over 5 years...but apparently needs to be paid for with cuts to other services. Let's be charitable and say it's 20 billion for 10 years. That's 1/50 the amount the Republican tax plan increases the deficit in 10 years.
Policy only needs to be revenue neutral for R's when that lets them gut other programs and doesn't line pockets. Estate tax cuts? Nah, no need to be revenue neutral. Children's healthcare? OH SHIT WE GOTTA BE GUYS! The Republican tax plan reduces revenue. The compromise would reduce spending by a very very very modest amount. OH SHIT WE GOTTA INCREASE SPENDING NO QUESTIONS ASKED. Pretty humorous, I agree. They sure asked those questions to multimillionaires, the only people who benefited from removing the estate tax. At least you realize they ask more questions about children's healthcare than they do about the megarich. It'd be different if any of these proposed changes actually improved CHIP, but they really don't. Mostly because it's a wildly successful on balance cheap program that I'm not sure there's any evidence of any problems with. I do love that you have fully embraced the "continuing any entitlement is increasing spending" philosophy. It'll make future coercion arguments even more bizarre. It would be different if the revenue and spending sides of the equation were both looked at for balancing budgets and tackling the debt and looking for GDP growth and wage growth and American competitiveness. This debate is a microcosm that, while the GOP made inroads in the corporate tax rate to bring us more in line with our first-world competitive partners, they can make zero inroads in spending. I see no progress if the only answer is to increase revenues by raising taxes, and no quarter is given on the spending side. These programs do grow as more are covered and costs increase.
Yeah, there's no way America's multimillionaires could survive and the corporate culture could thrive had they cut the estate tax by 80% instead of 100%.
|
On January 20 2018 06:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:13 Logo wrote:I had more only mildly more success digging since Danglars has obvious motivation to leave it at "cuts elsewhere" But this is what I got: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/house-gop-wants-to-fund-lapsed-chip-with-cuts-to-medicare-and-public-health
The draft bill, posted around 9 p.m. Monday, makes the following cuts and restrictions in order to fund the program:
Charging seniors who earn more than $500,000 a year higher Medicare premiums.
Allowing states to kick out Medicaid beneficiaries if they win the lottery.
Shortening the grace period for people paying their Obamacare premium payments late
Cutting more than $5 billion from the Affordable Care Act’s prevention and public health fund.
Basically yes, they want to cut medicaid/ACA and see using CHIP funding as a way to do that. The first 2 could reasonably be compromise or reasonable cuts, but the last 2 are big issues. An extra 150$ on seniors that earn more than $40,000 a month for medicare. Officially worth more than DACA. I love it. EDIT: Remind me to pull up more The Federalist, National Review, and (shudder) Breitbart to match these TPM summaries. I keep forgetting.
You already posted a really stupid one earlier, looks like you don't need any reminding.
|
On January 20 2018 06:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 20 2018 06:07 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's also humorous in that CHIP costs 8 billion dollars over 5 years...but apparently needs to be paid for with cuts to other services. Let's be charitable and say it's 20 billion for 10 years. That's 1/50 the amount the Republican tax plan increases the deficit in 10 years.
Policy only needs to be revenue neutral for R's when that lets them gut other programs and doesn't line pockets. Estate tax cuts? Nah, no need to be revenue neutral. Children's healthcare? OH SHIT WE GOTTA BE GUYS! The Republican tax plan reduces revenue. The compromise would reduce spending by a very very very modest amount. OH SHIT WE GOTTA INCREASE SPENDING NO QUESTIONS ASKED. Pretty humorous, I agree. They sure asked those questions to multimillionaires, the only people who benefited from removing the estate tax. At least you realize they ask more questions about children's healthcare than they do about the megarich. It'd be different if any of these proposed changes actually improved CHIP, but they really don't. Mostly because it's a wildly successful on balance cheap program that I'm not sure there's any evidence of any problems with. I do love that you have fully embraced the "continuing any entitlement is increasing spending" philosophy. It'll make future coercion arguments even more bizarre. It would be different if the revenue and spending sides of the equation were both looked at for balancing budgets and tackling the debt and looking for GDP growth and wage growth and American competitiveness. This debate is a microcosm that, while the GOP made inroads in the corporate tax rate to bring us more in line with our first-world competitive partners, they can make zero inroads in spending. I see no progress if the only answer is to increase revenues by raising taxes, and no quarter is given on the spending side. These programs do grow as more are covered and costs increase.
So... does that apply to border security and the border wall?
Isn't it estimated that deporting the Dreamers would hurt GDP and reduce tax revenue?
On January 20 2018 06:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:13 Logo wrote:I had more only mildly more success digging since Danglars has obvious motivation to leave it at "cuts elsewhere" But this is what I got: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/house-gop-wants-to-fund-lapsed-chip-with-cuts-to-medicare-and-public-health
The draft bill, posted around 9 p.m. Monday, makes the following cuts and restrictions in order to fund the program:
Charging seniors who earn more than $500,000 a year higher Medicare premiums.
Allowing states to kick out Medicaid beneficiaries if they win the lottery.
Shortening the grace period for people paying their Obamacare premium payments late
Cutting more than $5 billion from the Affordable Care Act’s prevention and public health fund.
Basically yes, they want to cut medicaid/ACA and see using CHIP funding as a way to do that. The first 2 could reasonably be compromise or reasonable cuts, but the last 2 are big issues. An extra 150$ on seniors that earn more than $40,000 a month for medicare. Officially worth more than DACA. I love it. EDIT: Remind me to pull up more The Federalist, National Review, and (shudder) Breitbart to match these TPM summaries. I keep forgetting.
You were LITERALLY ASKED to post the bill. You had your chance to post it with whatever spin of sources you could. I posted the best source I could find, which isn't necessarily my top choice but I had little to go on.
How the hell can you make a snarky comment about posting the info now AFTER You declined to post said info in the first place.
|
The Republicans just passed a CR which not only funds CHIP until the CR runs out (about 4 weeks) but for SIX more years but this is their fault so they should just give the Democrats everything on amnesty. truly remarkable.
It's too hard to recognize that the Democrat party is so reliant on the insane immigration activists that they can't even vote for temporary funding while they keep working it out.
|
On January 20 2018 06:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:15 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:52 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:43 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:38 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:33 Plansix wrote:On January 20 2018 05:29 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:[quote] https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/954434510078271488Let's see, you get none of what you want ... and you get none of what you want. I don't like McConnell and I don't like what he'll do after this fight and for the rest of his tenure. But he's got plenty of reason to play hardball in the face of one-sided blame game. We'll get back to intraparty resolutions after. Please provide the bill in question so we can point out the obvious poison pill. There has not been a clean CHIP funding bill. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Any compromise on spending reductions amount to "using it as a bargaining chip" to you. Not compromise, but bargaining chip. You have a definitional problem that won't get resolved. But he asked for the bill that was offered last week. What was it? I'm not going to do his googling for him under threat of "so we can point out the obvious poison pill." There's literally no sense putting effort into a problem with partisan definitions. If you can't compromise and everything's a bargaining chip, you're constructing things to guarantee you're right in all cases. If he wanted to be honest, he could state the higher virtue: Anything that doesn't increase government spending is making a bargaining chip out of programs I favor. Holy mother of strawmans. No. You wanne haggle over infrastructure spending? military equipment? sure. But you don't play Russian roulette with child healthcare. You held it hostage over clean funding or no funding at all. If we can get that straight. (1) CHIP must continue to be funded (2) without compromising on how it is funded at all. Somehow, I don't think we ever get that straight. Claiming there are no funds for CHIP and there needs to be compromise is horseshit when you pass a tax bill that will cause a massive deficit short term (long term neutral because you end the cuts for the poor/middle class and increase taxes instead while keeping the cut for the rich). This would be compromise on the funding. Like you hate these revenue-reducing measures (pro-growth, pro-wage), but hate worse spending-reducing measures. If this was some real fight with both sides not playing politics, you might actually have reason to say the government needs to function on less money, taken in and spent. I actually liked reading your deft maneuver on "changing funding streams" = "claiming there are no funds for CHIP" Can I call these "spending reduction measures" anti-public health measures? Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:20 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:07 Plansix wrote:
I think we should clear up “change how it is funded” because it is a mischaracterization of what conservatives want. They want to cut healthcare funding for other programs to pay for CHIP. They want the 8 billion removed from healthcare funding, but agree that it shouldn’t come from children’s healthcare. But they know the only way to get that 8 billion removed is to use CHIP as leverage to get the other cuts. Conservatives want cuts, they see CHIP as a way to get those cuts.
So if holding the budget for things hostage is a way to get what you want, then the Democrats just playing the same game. No accompanying spending cuts anywhere is a great way to permanently grow the spending side of the deficit. Get ready for what every single entitlement and public health program, even those already in place, will be called forever by the GOP, "growing the spending side of the deficit." Slowly hatcheted away. (meanwhile the government can't make continuing funding a state program conditional on changing its requirements)
I mean it would be as honest as what Democrats are calling things to pass the blame around. All spending is sacrosanct, all revenue is sacrosanct, both must go up because we're Democrats (but make sure spending outpaces revenue).
|
United States42009 Posts
On January 20 2018 06:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:26 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 20 2018 06:07 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's also humorous in that CHIP costs 8 billion dollars over 5 years...but apparently needs to be paid for with cuts to other services. Let's be charitable and say it's 20 billion for 10 years. That's 1/50 the amount the Republican tax plan increases the deficit in 10 years.
Policy only needs to be revenue neutral for R's when that lets them gut other programs and doesn't line pockets. Estate tax cuts? Nah, no need to be revenue neutral. Children's healthcare? OH SHIT WE GOTTA BE GUYS! The Republican tax plan reduces revenue. The compromise would reduce spending by a very very very modest amount. OH SHIT WE GOTTA INCREASE SPENDING NO QUESTIONS ASKED. Pretty humorous, I agree. They sure asked those questions to multimillionaires, the only people who benefited from removing the estate tax. At least you realize they ask more questions about children's healthcare than they do about the megarich. It'd be different if any of these proposed changes actually improved CHIP, but they really don't. Mostly because it's a wildly successful on balance cheap program that I'm not sure there's any evidence of any problems with. I do love that you have fully embraced the "continuing any entitlement is increasing spending" philosophy. It'll make future coercion arguments even more bizarre. It would be different if the revenue and spending sides of the equation were both looked at for balancing budgets and tackling the debt and looking for GDP growth and wage growth and American competitiveness. This debate is a microcosm that, while the GOP made inroads in the corporate tax rate to bring us more in line with our first-world competitive partners, they can make zero inroads in spending. I see no progress if the only answer is to increase revenues by raising taxes, and no quarter is given on the spending side. These programs do grow as more are covered and costs increase. Yeah, there's no way America's multimillionaires could survive and the corporate culture could thrive had they cut the estate tax by 80% instead of 100%.
Multimillionaires with more than $13m. That's when the previous estate tax started. Not 7 figures, but 8.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
