|
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 January 20 2018 06:53 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:48 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:36 Plansix wrote: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. Passing that tax plan in December sort of blows this argument out of the water. If they cared about the deficit, that thing never would have been passed. As Kwark said, if you care about the deficit, vote Democrat. Deficit = Revenue - Spending. The tax cut was a revenue reduction. The sacred cow that Democrats want to sacrifice CHIP on is spending reductions. If you conflate the two sides of the deficit equation, you're probably a Democrat. Even modest cuts in current spending bring on these histrionics, revealing which side is the real problem for deficits. Cutting future increases to be a lower increase than before causes wailing by itself. There is simply no room.
If this wasn't a topic of Democrat intransigence, and debate reformed at normal big-policy disagreements, that would be front and center. Democrats are on the record talking about tremendous cuts, when it's just cuts to the original proposed increase (Boehner-era shutdown when Obama didn't get all the spending increases he wanted). Today is really about how important DACA is to Democrats, and what political line McConnell took to oppose it. Tomorrow and the future is no budging on spending by filibuster threat. Only budget reconciliation can pass bills. Conservatives are expected to just go along with everything. It's all shit and I have to listen that Democrat's poop doesn't smell.
|
On January 20 2018 07:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:31 Logo wrote: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. 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: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. Yes the snark is directed at a TPM source for the bill provided as the "best source I could find." So which of those is a cut too far for funding CHIP?
it's not about it being a cut too far. It's about you calling it a "compromise" when there's literally not a single thing bad for Republicans in it. It's 4 Obamacare cuts. Arguably at LEAST 2 of them laughably unimportant but it's still a stretch to call one party having to sign on to 4 cuts that matter to them vs one party having to sign something that has 0 cuts to things that matter to them a compromise.
Unless of course you want to argue that Republicans willing to fund CHIP in the first place is the part where they're giving in. But I thought the argument was on it being a thing both parties wanted so that can't be it, right?
//edit, and again just to make this clear, for the third time:
I spend time trying to find a source on this and couldn't find anything specific on it either. The source may be shit but it's literally everything I have to go on. You're free to give us your source (I don't care if it's Breitbart or whatever else in this instance as it's really hard to find ANYTHING on it, as long as it has the text in the bill itself and not an interpretation without mentioning what's in there) and I will retract that statement if it turns out to have other cuts in there that would matter to Republicans. But right now I just don't have any source on it other than the above despite trying to find one.
|
On January 20 2018 06:30 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:28 Danglars wrote: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.
It turned out to be even more apropos in the pages of the thread after. It really is a circular flow diagram where all exits lead to blaming Republicans.
|
On January 20 2018 04:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On January 20 2018 04:44 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:40 Mohdoo wrote:On January 20 2018 04:37 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:27 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 04:26 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:20 Mohdoo wrote:
Any of you guys remember the kinda stuff our resident republicans were saying the last time the government shut down? Can't help but wonder what is so different this time. Schumer's got some gems: You know, we could do the same thing on immigration. We believe strongly in immigration reform. We could say, ‘We’re shutting down the government, we’re not gonna raise the debt ceiling, until you pass immigration reform.’ It would be governmental chaos. Life comes at you fast. Except that not asking for reform but to continue on as in years prior. I know, its easy to forget it was Trump who blew up the DACA. The executive branch does unilaterally what Congress rejected. New executive that ran on a tougher immigration stance rescinds. Now they're shutting down the government to pressure Congress to pass it. Yeah, Schumer might regret saying it now, but he has his shills to cover his ass. On January 20 2018 04:30 Mohdoo wrote:On January 20 2018 04:26 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:20 Mohdoo wrote:
Any of you guys remember the kinda stuff our resident republicans were saying the last time the government shut down? Can't help but wonder what is so different this time. Schumer's got some gems: You know, we could do the same thing on immigration. We believe strongly in immigration reform. We could say, ‘We’re shutting down the government, we’re not gonna raise the debt ceiling, until you pass immigration reform.’ It would be governmental chaos. Life comes at you fast. I don't consider DACA immigration. If you've been here since you're a child, you are an American. Children should never be made to suffer for their parent's mistakes. If you illegally immigrate to America, you're subject to immigration law. 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.
You've shifted the argument and taken it a direction we weren't talking about. The only question being asked is "do these kids who got brought here as children get to stay?". I told you there is no ethical reason to punish a child because a child does not get to decide where they live. You never decided where you lived growing up. None of us did. That is why I pointed out it would be wrong to fault for if your parents decided to move to ISIS territory.
We don't have to choose between DACA and other forms of immigration enforcement. You're intentionally shifting the argument because you don't like addressing the fact that it isn't ethical to punish children for the mistakes of their parents. And what in the world are you even on about birthright citizenship?
As soon as you're backed into a corner, you start shooting in every which direction and try to shift the conversation 100 different directions. You have yet to explain why it is ethical to punish a child for the decision of their parents.
Why is it ethical to punish a child for the decision of their parents?
|
On January 20 2018 07:04 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:55 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2018 06:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 20 2018 06:46 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2018 06:44 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 20 2018 06:37 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2018 06:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 20 2018 06:31 Introvert wrote:
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. Well, House Republicans did. It's not clear the Senate Republicans will-kicking things 4 weeks down the line is becoming less and less palatable in the Senate. It looks flimsier than it is because the Democrats are providing cover for some Republicans. And if Democrats agreed, they wouldn't need 50 GOP votes. While I agree that it makes optics worse it doesn't really change the argument a whole lot. I guess it mostly just brings another argument into the picture-partisan stuff aside, it's really, really poor governance to just keep passing these CRs. On par with the late-night handwritten crossings out on the tax bill. When do you put your foot down to try to stop that poor governance other than when there's actual important things on the line so that it isn't only the few people that care about that stuff with skin in the game? I too would rather things were done properly, but that's not where we are right now. I'm not quite sure what you mean in that last bit but "good government" isn't an argument anyone on either side is having right now. That's where Flake and Graham are coming from. Just put a bill of some kind on the president's desk and don't kick the can down the road with CRs while reading tea leaves about what Trump wants. Unless they're lying I guess. For the CR to go through in that manner then it has to get their trash "compromise" through. Just putting a bill on his desk is meaningless. Only one side is demanding DACA changes or no deal. That's the long and short of it. I am not sure whether Flake and Graham would refuse to fund the government in a separate bill/even a CR if they got a formal Trump veto on the compromise and don't have the votes in the House and Senate to overrule him. Have they said as much? I think part of what aggravates them is that even if they had veto proof support, McConnell and Ryan are de facto killing the bill since Trump doesn't support it.
i thought Graham was one of the no votes, as was Flake. but flake was willing to have a CR that only funds a few days of operation, something that makes no sense at all and smells of buck-passing. I haven't kept up with the minutia. I do know that Graham, long time GOP amnesty shill, is unhappy. But I bet McConnel could get him in line. Just speculation.
|
On January 20 2018 07:07 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 07:01 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:31 Logo wrote: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. 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: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. Yes the snark is directed at a TPM source for the bill provided as the "best source I could find." So which of those is a cut too far for funding CHIP? it's not about it being a cut too far. It's about you calling it a "compromise" when there's literally not a single thing bad for Republicans in it. It's 4 Obamacare cuts. Arguably at LEAST 2 of them laughably unimportant but it's still a stretch to call one party having to sign on to 4 cuts that matter to them vs one party having to sign something that has 0 cuts to things that matter to them a compromise. Unless of course you want to argue that Republicans willing to fund CHIP in the first place is the part where they're giving in. But I thought the argument was on it being a thing both parties wanted so that can't be it, right? //edit, and again just to make this clear, for the third time: I spend time trying to find a source on this and couldn't find anything specific on it either. The source may be shit but it's literally everything I have to go on. You're free to give us your source (I don't care if it's Breitbart or whatever else in this instance as it's really hard to find ANYTHING on it, as long as it has the text in the bill itself and not an interpretation without mentioning what's in there) and I will retract that statement if it turns out to have other cuts in there that would matter to Republicans. But right now I just don't have any source on it other than the above despite trying to find one.
This is where elections mean something. The Republicans won all three branches of government. Compromises will look a little more like spending cuts where they want them for programs with bipartisan support. If Democrats owned all three branches of government, I'd expect compromises to be found closer to the size of spending increases they demand. Democrats get CHIP with some compensatory cuts, Republicans authorize another spending program budget but gain some cuts elsewhere.
|
On January 20 2018 07:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:31 Logo wrote: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. 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: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. Yes the snark is directed at a TPM source for the bill provided as the "best source I could find." So which of those is a cut too far for funding CHIP?
The 5 billion in ACA prevention and public health fund cut? How is that even something you have to ask?
And yes that's the best I could find considering I was doing *your* work for you pretty much. All I had to go on was "CHIP extension bill" and the news is flooded with more recent results from the shutdown (which unsurprisingly show up higher in page ranks).
Not to mention there's no reason to doubt it? TPM is at least reputable enough to not make up the contents of the bill unless there's a specific thing you notice here that's not accurate (you don't but you will give some vague handwave instead to strengthen your point).
|
On January 20 2018 06:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:48 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:36 Plansix wrote: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. Passing that tax plan in December sort of blows this argument out of the water. If they cared about the deficit, that thing never would have been passed. As Kwark said, if you care about the deficit, vote Democrat. Deficit = Revenue - Spending. The tax cut was a revenue reduction. The sacred cow that Democrats want to sacrifice CHIP on is spending reductions. If you conflate the two sides of the deficit equation, you're probably a Democrat. Even modest cuts in current spending bring on these histrionics, revealing which side is the real problem for deficits. You said the Democrats were responsible for making sure increases in spending outpaced increases in revenue. That's the deficit you're referring to. This is a forum where posts can be checked, not a verbal debate. You can't pretend you never talked about the relationship between the two, we can all see it. Historically Republicans are responsible for spending increases that outpace revenue increases. Democrats are responsible for keeping spending in line with revenue. That's the reality of the matter. Republicans can't do fiscal responsibility, they never have been able to.
Not since before the 1980s. Since Reagan it has been spending, deregulation and tax cuts. This is the party that went to war and cut taxes right after that. The conservative push to cut spending is the same. It isn’t about a lean, mean government to serve the people. It a push to end entitlements to low the tax burden on the wealthy, funded by the wealthy.
|
On January 20 2018 07:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 07:07 Toadesstern wrote:On January 20 2018 07:01 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:31 Logo wrote: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. 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: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. Yes the snark is directed at a TPM source for the bill provided as the "best source I could find." So which of those is a cut too far for funding CHIP? it's not about it being a cut too far. It's about you calling it a "compromise" when there's literally not a single thing bad for Republicans in it. It's 4 Obamacare cuts. Arguably at LEAST 2 of them laughably unimportant but it's still a stretch to call one party having to sign on to 4 cuts that matter to them vs one party having to sign something that has 0 cuts to things that matter to them a compromise. Unless of course you want to argue that Republicans willing to fund CHIP in the first place is the part where they're giving in. But I thought the argument was on it being a thing both parties wanted so that can't be it, right? //edit, and again just to make this clear, for the third time: I spend time trying to find a source on this and couldn't find anything specific on it either. The source may be shit but it's literally everything I have to go on. You're free to give us your source (I don't care if it's Breitbart or whatever else in this instance as it's really hard to find ANYTHING on it, as long as it has the text in the bill itself and not an interpretation without mentioning what's in there) and I will retract that statement if it turns out to have other cuts in there that would matter to Republicans. But right now I just don't have any source on it other than the above despite trying to find one. This is where elections mean something. The Republicans won all three branches of government. Compromises will look a little more like spending cuts where they want them for programs with bipartisan support. If Democrats owned all three branches of government, I'd expect compromises to be found closer to the size of spending increases they demand. Democrats get CHIP with some compensatory cuts, Republicans authorize another spending program budget but gain some cuts elsewhere.
Republicans want this though!
that's like saying you pay for ice cream but I will only get vanilla, when we both know I was going to get vanilla even if I had to pay. Compromise!
|
On January 20 2018 07:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 07:07 Toadesstern wrote:On January 20 2018 07:01 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:31 Logo wrote: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. 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: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. Yes the snark is directed at a TPM source for the bill provided as the "best source I could find." So which of those is a cut too far for funding CHIP? it's not about it being a cut too far. It's about you calling it a "compromise" when there's literally not a single thing bad for Republicans in it. It's 4 Obamacare cuts. Arguably at LEAST 2 of them laughably unimportant but it's still a stretch to call one party having to sign on to 4 cuts that matter to them vs one party having to sign something that has 0 cuts to things that matter to them a compromise. Unless of course you want to argue that Republicans willing to fund CHIP in the first place is the part where they're giving in. But I thought the argument was on it being a thing both parties wanted so that can't be it, right? //edit, and again just to make this clear, for the third time: I spend time trying to find a source on this and couldn't find anything specific on it either. The source may be shit but it's literally everything I have to go on. You're free to give us your source (I don't care if it's Breitbart or whatever else in this instance as it's really hard to find ANYTHING on it, as long as it has the text in the bill itself and not an interpretation without mentioning what's in there) and I will retract that statement if it turns out to have other cuts in there that would matter to Republicans. But right now I just don't have any source on it other than the above despite trying to find one. This is where elections mean something. The Republicans won all three branches of government. Compromises will look a little more like spending cuts where they want them for programs with bipartisan support. If Democrats owned all three branches of government, I'd expect compromises to be found closer to the size of spending increases they demand. Democrats get CHIP with some compensatory cuts, Republicans authorize another spending program budget but gain some cuts elsewhere.
but in that case you don't get to argue that Republicans want to fund CHIP. If it's treated as the thing Republicans are "offering up" in return for 4 cuts that hurt Dems it really isn't something they want.
If you want to argue that both want to fund it, sure it can be lopsided due to the imbalance of power and that's what I'd expect. But a 100 to 0, Dems give 100 Republicans give 0 is not a compromise (again, assuming both parties want it funded).
Make it 3 cuts to Obamacare and 1 cut to somethign Republicans care about and I'd be all fine with you calling it a compromise but as it stands it straight up isn't one.
|
On January 20 2018 07:02 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:46 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:25 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 20 2018 05:59 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You're losing your track. I pointed out that I brought up "encouraging lawless behavior" to draw a contrast about something we can actually change for the better vs something that the child/teenager had no role in. I pointed out the exact sentence, not some "vaguely as possible." That's an invention and you're tiring my presumption that you want to argue it out. I point out something he can actually do something about, instead of repeatedly decrying regrettable situations occurring in it's wake. He's the one that chose to say "you advocate for punishing them" and all that jazz in the post. I brought up that his weak position on border security means he advocates for creating more. It's not some unilateral "this person is guilty for punishing the victim," if the other person is fine seeing more victims in the first place. You accused him of advocating lawless behavior, irrespective of why you did it. You claim this on the basis of his weak position on border security. He didn't have any position on it. You were the only one discussing the prevention of these situations, it wasn't at all relevant. Your offering solutions to avoid those victims has nothing to do with actual current DACA immigrants, the ones mohdoo said you advocate for punishing. You literal argued a different discussion entirely, and fabricated a stance for mohdoo to do so. His mention of punishment was for those who have already immigrated. Making the discussion about border security and his stance on it (which never came up), and the prevention of victims in general, was a totally unilateral diversion on your part. This was as much of a waste of time as it could possibly have been. It'd be great if mohdoo could come online and reiterate what he was arguing to clear this up 100%, but that's neither here nor there.
In fact, I spelled out why I thought he was fine making more victims. The why actually matters here. This isn't the forum of accusing your opponents of being guilty of punishing the innocent, without getting a little flack back in return. He's a big boy and he can take it. I'm against having a narrow focus on a part of the problem without an easy fix (children unimmigrating themselves back to a loving family inside the country they were living) without acknowledging other contributing parts (the real lack of a southern border).
|
On January 20 2018 07:15 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 07:01 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:31 Logo wrote: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. 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: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. Yes the snark is directed at a TPM source for the bill provided as the "best source I could find." So which of those is a cut too far for funding CHIP? The 5 billion in ACA prevention and public health fund cut? How is that even something you have to ask? And yes that's the best I could find considering I was doing *your* work for you pretty much. All I had to go on was "CHIP extension bill" and the news is flooded with more recent results from the shutdown (which unsurprisingly show up higher in page ranks). Not to mention there's no reason to doubt it? TPM is at least reputable enough to not make up the contents of the bill unless there's a specific thing you notice here that's not accurate (you don't but you will give some vague handwave instead to strengthen your point).
I can appropriate $5 billion in the "Managing money well and educational opportunities" fund and employ the same "omg it has a great name, how can we cut it" arguments that grow spending year after year. I swear you could sell half the country on burning hundred-dollar bills in the middle of the desert if you said it helped kids. Just respond "How is that even something you have to ask?" You're my new example for throwing money at the problem without asking how its spent.
|
On January 20 2018 07:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 07:15 Logo wrote:On January 20 2018 07:01 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:31 Logo wrote: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. 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: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. Yes the snark is directed at a TPM source for the bill provided as the "best source I could find." So which of those is a cut too far for funding CHIP? The 5 billion in ACA prevention and public health fund cut? How is that even something you have to ask? And yes that's the best I could find considering I was doing *your* work for you pretty much. All I had to go on was "CHIP extension bill" and the news is flooded with more recent results from the shutdown (which unsurprisingly show up higher in page ranks). Not to mention there's no reason to doubt it? TPM is at least reputable enough to not make up the contents of the bill unless there's a specific thing you notice here that's not accurate (you don't but you will give some vague handwave instead to strengthen your point). I can appropriate $5 billion in the "Managing money well and educational opportunities" fund and employ the same "omg it has a great name, how can we cut it" arguments that grow spending year after year. I swear you could sell half the country on burning hundred-dollar bills in the middle of the desert if you said it helped kids. Just respond "How is that even something you have to ask?" You're my new example for throwing money at the problem without asking how its spent.
How out of the list of 4 things is it not obvious that the 5 billion dollar cut is what democrats oppose the most?
That question has nothing to do with how well spent the money is or what the program is named.
FFS you're the one peddling the democrats love to spend money meme.
|
On January 20 2018 07:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 07:07 Toadesstern wrote:On January 20 2018 07:01 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:31 Logo wrote: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. 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: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. Yes the snark is directed at a TPM source for the bill provided as the "best source I could find." So which of those is a cut too far for funding CHIP? it's not about it being a cut too far. It's about you calling it a "compromise" when there's literally not a single thing bad for Republicans in it. It's 4 Obamacare cuts. Arguably at LEAST 2 of them laughably unimportant but it's still a stretch to call one party having to sign on to 4 cuts that matter to them vs one party having to sign something that has 0 cuts to things that matter to them a compromise. Unless of course you want to argue that Republicans willing to fund CHIP in the first place is the part where they're giving in. But I thought the argument was on it being a thing both parties wanted so that can't be it, right? //edit, and again just to make this clear, for the third time: I spend time trying to find a source on this and couldn't find anything specific on it either. The source may be shit but it's literally everything I have to go on. You're free to give us your source (I don't care if it's Breitbart or whatever else in this instance as it's really hard to find ANYTHING on it, as long as it has the text in the bill itself and not an interpretation without mentioning what's in there) and I will retract that statement if it turns out to have other cuts in there that would matter to Republicans. But right now I just don't have any source on it other than the above despite trying to find one. This is where elections mean something. The Republicans won all three branches of government. Compromises will look a little more like spending cuts where they want them for programs with bipartisan support. If Democrats owned all three branches of government, I'd expect compromises to be found closer to the size of spending increases they demand. Democrats get CHIP with some compensatory cuts, Republicans authorize another spending program budget but gain some cuts elsewhere.
They don’t control all three branches. They have the white house and a majority in the house and senate. They do not have a super majority. As designed, the minority party has the power to hold up bills in the senate to have their issues addressed. If the Republicans want to pass any legislation, they must vote on issues the Democrats want voted on.
|
On January 20 2018 07:14 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +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:On January 20 2018 04:37 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:27 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 04:26 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:20 Mohdoo wrote:
Any of you guys remember the kinda stuff our resident republicans were saying the last time the government shut down? Can't help but wonder what is so different this time. Schumer's got some gems: You know, we could do the same thing on immigration. We believe strongly in immigration reform. We could say, ‘We’re shutting down the government, we’re not gonna raise the debt ceiling, until you pass immigration reform.’ It would be governmental chaos. Life comes at you fast. Except that not asking for reform but to continue on as in years prior. I know, its easy to forget it was Trump who blew up the DACA. The executive branch does unilaterally what Congress rejected. New executive that ran on a tougher immigration stance rescinds. Now they're shutting down the government to pressure Congress to pass it. Yeah, Schumer might regret saying it now, but he has his shills to cover his ass. On January 20 2018 04:30 Mohdoo wrote:On January 20 2018 04:26 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:20 Mohdoo wrote:
Any of you guys remember the kinda stuff our resident republicans were saying the last time the government shut down? Can't help but wonder what is so different this time. Schumer's got some gems: You know, we could do the same thing on immigration. We believe strongly in immigration reform. We could say, ‘We’re shutting down the government, we’re not gonna raise the debt ceiling, until you pass immigration reform.’ It would be governmental chaos. Life comes at you fast. I don't consider DACA immigration. If you've been here since you're a child, you are an American. Children should never be made to suffer for their parent's mistakes. If you illegally immigrate to America, you're subject to immigration law. 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. You've shifted the argument and taken it a direction we weren't talking about. The only question being asked is "do these kids who got brought here as children get to stay?". I told you there is no ethical reason to punish a child because a child does not get to decide where they live. You never decided where you lived growing up. None of us did. That is why I pointed out it would be wrong to fault for if your parents decided to move to ISIS territory. We don't have to choose between DACA and other forms of immigration enforcement. You're intentionally shifting the argument because you don't like addressing the fact that it isn't ethical to punish children for the mistakes of their parents. And what in the world are you even on about birthright citizenship? As soon as you're backed into a corner, you start shooting in every which direction and try to shift the conversation 100 different directions. You have yet to explain why it is ethical to punish a child for the decision of their parents. Why is it ethical to punish a child for the decision of their parents?
In fact, implementing DACA with other border security measures, says "do the children who got brought here as children get so stay, and do we do something to make it more difficult to illegally bring your family over for tomorrow's illegal immigrants." It's always been about under what conditions we amnesty the people who are already here, as well as protecting the border from the next crop that decide America is whoever happens to jog in. That's the issue. If you want to amnesty the first hundreds of thousands, is your plan to keep doing that for the next and the next? The good news about stupid emotional arguments is that they don't lose their power when they're recycled again and again and again and again.
|
On January 20 2018 07:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 07:15 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 07:07 Toadesstern wrote:On January 20 2018 07:01 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:31 Logo wrote: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. 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: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. Yes the snark is directed at a TPM source for the bill provided as the "best source I could find." So which of those is a cut too far for funding CHIP? it's not about it being a cut too far. It's about you calling it a "compromise" when there's literally not a single thing bad for Republicans in it. It's 4 Obamacare cuts. Arguably at LEAST 2 of them laughably unimportant but it's still a stretch to call one party having to sign on to 4 cuts that matter to them vs one party having to sign something that has 0 cuts to things that matter to them a compromise. Unless of course you want to argue that Republicans willing to fund CHIP in the first place is the part where they're giving in. But I thought the argument was on it being a thing both parties wanted so that can't be it, right? //edit, and again just to make this clear, for the third time: I spend time trying to find a source on this and couldn't find anything specific on it either. The source may be shit but it's literally everything I have to go on. You're free to give us your source (I don't care if it's Breitbart or whatever else in this instance as it's really hard to find ANYTHING on it, as long as it has the text in the bill itself and not an interpretation without mentioning what's in there) and I will retract that statement if it turns out to have other cuts in there that would matter to Republicans. But right now I just don't have any source on it other than the above despite trying to find one. This is where elections mean something. The Republicans won all three branches of government. Compromises will look a little more like spending cuts where they want them for programs with bipartisan support. If Democrats owned all three branches of government, I'd expect compromises to be found closer to the size of spending increases they demand. Democrats get CHIP with some compensatory cuts, Republicans authorize another spending program budget but gain some cuts elsewhere. They don’t control all three branches. They have the white house and a majority in the house and senate. They do not have a super majority. As designed, the minority party has the power to hold up bills in the senate to have their issues addressed. If the Republicans want to pass any legislation, they must vote on issues the Democrats want voted on.
Tell that to some senators.
|
On January 20 2018 07:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 07:15 Logo wrote:On January 20 2018 07:01 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:31 Logo wrote: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. 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: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. Yes the snark is directed at a TPM source for the bill provided as the "best source I could find." So which of those is a cut too far for funding CHIP? The 5 billion in ACA prevention and public health fund cut? How is that even something you have to ask? And yes that's the best I could find considering I was doing *your* work for you pretty much. All I had to go on was "CHIP extension bill" and the news is flooded with more recent results from the shutdown (which unsurprisingly show up higher in page ranks). Not to mention there's no reason to doubt it? TPM is at least reputable enough to not make up the contents of the bill unless there's a specific thing you notice here that's not accurate (you don't but you will give some vague handwave instead to strengthen your point). I can appropriate $5 billion in the "Managing money well and educational opportunities" fund and employ the same "omg it has a great name, how can we cut it" arguments that grow spending year after year. I swear you could sell half the country on burning hundred-dollar bills in the middle of the desert if you said it helped kids. Just respond "How is that even something you have to ask?" You're my new example for throwing money at the problem without asking how its spent.
So now your arguing the fund doesn't actually help anyone?
I assume its to much to ask you to offer up any form of proof this time.
|
On January 20 2018 07:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 07:02 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 20 2018 06:46 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:25 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 20 2018 05:59 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You're losing your track. I pointed out that I brought up "encouraging lawless behavior" to draw a contrast about something we can actually change for the better vs something that the child/teenager had no role in. I pointed out the exact sentence, not some "vaguely as possible." That's an invention and you're tiring my presumption that you want to argue it out. I point out something he can actually do something about, instead of repeatedly decrying regrettable situations occurring in it's wake. He's the one that chose to say "you advocate for punishing them" and all that jazz in the post. I brought up that his weak position on border security means he advocates for creating more. It's not some unilateral "this person is guilty for punishing the victim," if the other person is fine seeing more victims in the first place. You accused him of advocating lawless behavior, irrespective of why you did it. You claim this on the basis of his weak position on border security. He didn't have any position on it. You were the only one discussing the prevention of these situations, it wasn't at all relevant. Your offering solutions to avoid those victims has nothing to do with actual current DACA immigrants, the ones mohdoo said you advocate for punishing. You literal argued a different discussion entirely, and fabricated a stance for mohdoo to do so. His mention of punishment was for those who have already immigrated. Making the discussion about border security and his stance on it (which never came up), and the prevention of victims in general, was a totally unilateral diversion on your part. This was as much of a waste of time as it could possibly have been. It'd be great if mohdoo could come online and reiterate what he was arguing to clear this up 100%, but that's neither here nor there. In fact, I spelled out why I thought he was fine making more victims. The why actually matters here. This isn't the forum of accusing your opponents of being guilty of punishing the innocent, without getting a little flack back in return. He's a big boy and he can take it. I'm against having a narrow focus on a part of the problem without an easy fix (children unimmigrating themselves back to a loving family inside the country they were living) without acknowledging other contributing parts (the real lack of a southern border).
Literally all that did was divert from the original discussion.
Myself and Mohdoo cannot see how your response at all followed from the original DACA immigrants discussion.
The lack of border has ****ALL to do with DACA itself. It's not relevant, and what to with immigrants who have already settled is not a discussion you can decide to turn into one about preventing them from entering.
It's particularly annoying that you use this diversion as your main platform for your argument from there on out. It doesn't follow, it completely decontextualises mohdoo's post, and is literally not the same topic, or even relevant to it. We aren't writing a discursive essay on the ethics of immigration and victimhood, we are talking about Dreamers already in the US, and a targeted policy, the scope of which is limited to them.
All of the things you could "do something about" have no bearing at all on the Dreamers already in the US. Arguing that Mohdoo was fine with making more victims from a discussion that had nothing to do with the circumstances in which said victims are "created" and made the US's problem just doesn't make sense.
EDIT:
In fact, implementing DACA with other border security measures, says "do the children who got brought here as children get so stay, and do we do something to make it more difficult to illegally bring your family over for tomorrow's illegal immigrants." It's always been about under what conditions we amnesty the people who are already here, as well as protecting the border from the next crop that decide America is whoever happens to jog in. That's the issue. If you want to amnesty the first hundreds of thousands, is your plan to keep doing that for the next and the next?
No, that is not the issue. You correctly identified half the discussion. The DACA bit, the amnesty bit. That is ALL we were discussing.
You then, on your own, conflated that aspect with the two aspects as a whole, and replied to mohdoo with that shift in your mind and only your mind. How much you do to prevent the next and the next coming in is at best, tangentially related to what to do with those already settled, and not at all part of the original discussion.
|
On January 20 2018 07:17 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 07:15 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 07:07 Toadesstern wrote:On January 20 2018 07:01 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:31 Logo wrote: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. 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: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. Yes the snark is directed at a TPM source for the bill provided as the "best source I could find." So which of those is a cut too far for funding CHIP? it's not about it being a cut too far. It's about you calling it a "compromise" when there's literally not a single thing bad for Republicans in it. It's 4 Obamacare cuts. Arguably at LEAST 2 of them laughably unimportant but it's still a stretch to call one party having to sign on to 4 cuts that matter to them vs one party having to sign something that has 0 cuts to things that matter to them a compromise. Unless of course you want to argue that Republicans willing to fund CHIP in the first place is the part where they're giving in. But I thought the argument was on it being a thing both parties wanted so that can't be it, right? //edit, and again just to make this clear, for the third time: I spend time trying to find a source on this and couldn't find anything specific on it either. The source may be shit but it's literally everything I have to go on. You're free to give us your source (I don't care if it's Breitbart or whatever else in this instance as it's really hard to find ANYTHING on it, as long as it has the text in the bill itself and not an interpretation without mentioning what's in there) and I will retract that statement if it turns out to have other cuts in there that would matter to Republicans. But right now I just don't have any source on it other than the above despite trying to find one. This is where elections mean something. The Republicans won all three branches of government. Compromises will look a little more like spending cuts where they want them for programs with bipartisan support. If Democrats owned all three branches of government, I'd expect compromises to be found closer to the size of spending increases they demand. Democrats get CHIP with some compensatory cuts, Republicans authorize another spending program budget but gain some cuts elsewhere. Republicans want this though! that's like saying you pay for ice cream but I will only get vanilla, when we both know I was going to get vanilla even if I had to pay. Compromise!
In this case, we both want CHIP, but only one of us wants to look at how we're paying for CHIP. You can win an election and say Let the Money Flow! You can also faceplant an election and look at surrendering a few cuts but not major ones, proportional to your power.
|
On January 20 2018 07:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 07:17 IyMoon wrote:On January 20 2018 07:15 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 07:07 Toadesstern wrote:On January 20 2018 07:01 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:31 Logo wrote: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. 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: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. Yes the snark is directed at a TPM source for the bill provided as the "best source I could find." So which of those is a cut too far for funding CHIP? it's not about it being a cut too far. It's about you calling it a "compromise" when there's literally not a single thing bad for Republicans in it. It's 4 Obamacare cuts. Arguably at LEAST 2 of them laughably unimportant but it's still a stretch to call one party having to sign on to 4 cuts that matter to them vs one party having to sign something that has 0 cuts to things that matter to them a compromise. Unless of course you want to argue that Republicans willing to fund CHIP in the first place is the part where they're giving in. But I thought the argument was on it being a thing both parties wanted so that can't be it, right? //edit, and again just to make this clear, for the third time: I spend time trying to find a source on this and couldn't find anything specific on it either. The source may be shit but it's literally everything I have to go on. You're free to give us your source (I don't care if it's Breitbart or whatever else in this instance as it's really hard to find ANYTHING on it, as long as it has the text in the bill itself and not an interpretation without mentioning what's in there) and I will retract that statement if it turns out to have other cuts in there that would matter to Republicans. But right now I just don't have any source on it other than the above despite trying to find one. This is where elections mean something. The Republicans won all three branches of government. Compromises will look a little more like spending cuts where they want them for programs with bipartisan support. If Democrats owned all three branches of government, I'd expect compromises to be found closer to the size of spending increases they demand. Democrats get CHIP with some compensatory cuts, Republicans authorize another spending program budget but gain some cuts elsewhere. Republicans want this though! that's like saying you pay for ice cream but I will only get vanilla, when we both know I was going to get vanilla even if I had to pay. Compromise! In this case, we both want CHIP, but only one of us wants to look at how we're paying for CHIP. You can win an election and say Let the Money Flow! You can also faceplant an election and look at surrendering a few cuts but not major ones, proportional to your power.
Tax Bill
again ffs
Republicans don't give a shit about how you pay for things. They could have made the tax bill a tiny bit less expensive and funded CHIP from the same place the tax bill was funded from. Borrowed money they don't have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
