|
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 07:19 Toadesstern 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. 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.
Republicans could totally defund CHIP. They could also choose to only reauthorize CHIP if all Obamacare funding is cut off immediately. They didn't do that and only granted cuts in spending increases from the past (btw I can't remember the last time a Democrat actually thought Seniors paying 150$ more a month that earn more than $40,000 a month was a horrible cut that nobody could compromise to include). But compromise means no cuts ever, goodbye, see ya. At least, if you ask Democrats and they responded honestly, they would tell you that. Go win some elections for a change.
|
Facing congressional inaction, states move to ban bump stocks
States and municipalities nationwide are attempting to ban bump stocks -- devices used to make rifles fire more rapidly -- after Congress failed to act on bipartisan resolve to restrict them following their use in a Las Vegas massacre last year.
At least 15 states are considering laws that would ban bump stocks, as is Denver. Columbia, S.C., barred them last year. The devices already are illegal in California, and some other states with bump stock restrictions are trying to tighten them.
They include New Jersey, where, in one of his last acts in office, former Gov. Chris Christie (R) on Monday completely barred bump stocks from the state. Though the use of bump stocks already had been illegal in New Jersey, the new law prohibits possessing or selling them. Owners have 90 days to voluntarily surrender their bump stocks to law enforcement, and retailers must turn them in within 30 days.
-More on site-
WaPo
|
On January 20 2018 07:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 07:26 Plansix 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. 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.
TIL you think that tweet somehow mentions the judicial branch so it talks about all three branches. Or something?
|
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.
So far then it seems to have gone:
"we want to pay for chip by cutting this healthcare fund"
"that doesn't work for us"
"ok well we won't propose anything else"
How is that compromise when there's a vast wealth of other things to cut to fund CHIP?
|
On January 20 2018 07:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 07:14 Mohdoo wrote:On January 20 2018 04:52 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On January 20 2018 04:44 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:40 Mohdoo wrote: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.
If I had to come up with a plan, I'd say once a kid has spent a year living somewhere, they should be permitted to stay. Forcing children to move is really bad for their development. I want my country to care for people incapable of caring for themselves. We should support affected children for the same reason we help the disabled. It doesn't matter how it happened, they are totally fucked without our help.
I think the difference is that in my eyes, once the children are living on American soil, they are our children and they need our help. If I am understanding correctly, you are saying because they weren't originally legal, they never "actually" became our problem.
I take the position that if we can help, we must help.
|
On January 20 2018 07:36 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 07:32 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
They can recognize that government doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. Right now, they're accidentally informing Americans that they consider all spending cuts to be out of the question. Oops.
|
On January 20 2018 07:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 07:19 Toadesstern 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. 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. Republicans could totally defund CHIP. They could also choose to only reauthorize CHIP if all Obamacare funding is cut off immediately.
Perhaps they didn't do that out of a willingness not to lose every election ever from then on.
|
On January 20 2018 07:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 07:36 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 07:32 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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. They can recognize that government doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. Right now, they're accidentally informing Americans that they consider all spending cuts to be out of the question. Oops.
It would have less of a spending problem if it had more revenue (since as you so aptly showed, they both tie to the deficit) Raise revenue or decrees spending, the result on your budget is the same, a lower deficit.
You can't complain about to much spending when you just gutted the revenue.
|
|
|
On January 20 2018 07:37 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 07:32 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. So far then it seems to have gone: "we want to pay for chip by cutting this healthcare fund" "that doesn't work for us" "ok well we won't propose anything else" How is that compromise when there's a vast wealth of other things to cut to fund CHIP?
The senate finance committee deliberated for a very long time over what compromises would be included from the majority that wants to sell spending cuts back to their constituents. There are 27 members, 14-13. Democrats didn't want to compromise in the direction of the Republicans--reauthorize funding with spending cuts elsewhere. That's a fine position to take, but don't run crying back home if you're holding out for a sweetheart deal in the end. Pick your battle lines, say what things you're fine holding CHIP hostage to, and stick to it.
|
|
|
"Give me all I want, I give you nothing."
"That's a little drastic, don't you have some compromise to offer me?"
"I am offering you a compromise, I could also hurt you physically, instead I'm giving you nothing. Am I not merciful."
|
Some things age sooooo well
|
|
|
On January 20 2018 07:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 07:19 Toadesstern 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. 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. Republicans could totally defund CHIP. They could also choose to only reauthorize CHIP if all Obamacare funding is cut off immediately. They didn't do that and only granted cuts in spending increases from the past (btw I can't remember the last time a Democrat actually thought Seniors paying 150$ more a month that earn more than $40,000 a month was a horrible cut that nobody could compromise to include). But compromise means no cuts ever, goodbye, see ya. At least, if you ask Democrats and they responded honestly, they would tell you that. Go win some elections for a change.
Like I already said, it has nothing to do with wether or not there are cuts.
I already said
a) the cuts are laughably insignificant (read: I agree, Democrats should not care a lot about those cuts) and
b) it's not about wether or not you want cuts or no cuts
So no need to lecture me on that point when I already said that's not the issue. I am aware that there would have to be SOME cuts to fund it and I already mentioned that.
The issue is that it's not a compromise as you keep saying. I would have no issue with you calling it a compromise if it had been 3 minor Obamacarecuts (as the ones above) + 1 cut elsewhere that is also minor but more something Republicanss would rather like to keep. But as it stands it's telling Dems to take 4 cuts for something both parties say they want, which is laughable.
Or rather, if we can both agree that Republcans don't actually care about CHIP it's fine, because in that case CHIP is what Republicans are offering in return for 4 cuts that would hurt Dems. But you don't seem to be willing to say that either.
There's no issue with cuts to finance it, just don't pretend that both parties were giving something in that draft of a bill. Just call it what it was, Democrats being asked to surrender on 4 Obamacare cuts for getting CHIP funded because Republicans don't want to fund it and as a result didn't offer anything in return.
|
|
|
It matters a lot how you frame the question.
If you ask people if they agree to shut down the government over DACA they don't agree with the dems as much. I am excited to see who wins the message war
|
Yeah, as shitty of a move it was from GOPs I don't really see DEMs winning the message war on this.
Or maybe it's a close tie at best for them, which is still horrible for people up for re-election in 2018 in not super-dem-leaning states.
I'd say Dems are going to cave soonish. It's a lose-lose for them right now
|
The party in power will get blamed when government shuts down whether rightfully or wrongly and Republicans control the congress so they will get blamed.
|
As predicted social media sites do not want to actually do anything about the fake news that would reveal their actual user base numbers. What is to stop bots from up voting false stories. It will fail and they will say they have tried.
Facebook will begin to prioritize “trustworthy” news outlets on its stream of social media posts as it works to combat “sensationalism” and “misinformation”, its chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, said on Friday.
The company, which has more than 2 billion monthly users, said it would use surveys to determine rankings on how trustworthy news outlets are.
Zuckerberg outlined the shakeup in a post on Facebook, saying that starting next week the news feed, the company’s centerpiece product, would prioritize “high quality news” over less trusted sources.
“There’s too much sensationalism, misinformation and polarization in the world today,” Zuckerberg wrote.
“Social media enables people to spread information faster than ever before, and if we don’t specifically tackle these problems, then we end up amplifying them,” he wrote.
At the same time, Zuckerberg said the amount of news overall on Facebook would shrink to roughly 4% of the content on the news feed from 5% currently.
Facebook has had a stormy relationship with news organizations, especially those with strong political leanings. In 2016, Republican lawmakers expressed concern that Facebook was suppressing news stories of interest to conservative readers.
Last week, Zuckerberg said the company would change the way it filters posts and videos on the news feed to prioritize what friends and family share.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
