EPTHis voice would be extremely helpful in the Senate; House Dems are already going to pass their relief bill. At a minimum take Republicans to task over the issue.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2175
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
His voice would be extremely helpful in the Senate; House Dems are already going to pass their relief bill. At a minimum take Republicans to task over the issue. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23928 Posts
On March 13 2020 01:46 ticklishmusic wrote: A public health crisis seems like this is the perfect moment (for Sanders) to concede and push for M4A/ expanded healthcare access. His voice would be extremely helpful in the Senate; House Dems are already going to pass their relief bill. At a minimum take Republicans to task over the issue. Biden said he would veto it and has campaigned against Sanders plan. Sanders dropping out now sounds like a terrible idea imo. Taking this to the debate stage to show how unequipped Biden and the policy he advocates is to deal with this health crisis should be on full national display. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4945 Posts
On March 12 2020 22:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: In 2018, the CDC funds were not replenished; right this second, he's planning on continuing CDC budget cuts for next year. Nearly every news source has been talking about this over the past 1-2 weeks. No, a particular fund was not replenished, if I recall it was mainly for Zika or something like that (memory is more foggy here). Not the whole agency. Moreover, as I said, what Congress has actually done, as opposed to the president's budget, is increase spending by, according to my memory, about 8%. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On March 13 2020 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote: Biden said he would veto it and has campaigned against Sanders plan. Sanders dropping out now sounds like a terrible idea imo. Taking this to the debate stage to show how unequipped Biden and the policy he advocates is to deal with this health crisis should be on full national display. Biden supports a public option, Medicare expansion, tax credits for healthcare costs. There's a lot in there to expand access to care and decrease costs. I don't really care about Biden saying he'd veto Medicare for All. It's a pipe dream it gets through both the House and Senate at this point, and as I've said many times before it's not the only version, or the most effective version, of healthcare reform. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23928 Posts
On March 13 2020 02:13 ticklishmusic wrote: Biden supports a public option, Medicare expansion, tax credits for healthcare costs. There's a lot in there to expand access to care and decrease costs. I don't really care about Biden saying he'd veto Medicare for All. It's a pipe dream it gets through both the House and Senate at this point, and as I've said many times before it's not the only version, or the most effective version, of healthcare reform. I think Bernie explaining how those would be inadequate to handle a health crisis like this is necessary. Many of the cascading issues like the millions of workers without PTO dovetail into his policy prescriptions as well. Public option didn't get through a 60 dem majority, so Biden's public option support is a pipe dream too by that metric. People don't need cheaper COVID-19 tests, they need a system that tests all the people that need it regardless of income without a bunch of paperwork wasting time so medical industry profiteers can be paid. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On March 13 2020 02:00 Introvert wrote: No, a particular fund was not replenished, if I recall it was mainly for Zika or something like that (memory is more foggy here). Not the whole agency. Moreover, as I said, what Congress has actually done, as opposed to the president's budget, is increase spending by, according to my memory, about 8%. Why dont we let the CDC speak here instead? FY 2018: click here for source wrote: The fiscal year (FY) 2018 President’s Budget request for CDC and ATSDR includes a total funding level of $6,037,243,000 in discretionary budget authority and the Prevention and Public Health Fund (PPHF). This is an overall decrease of $1,222,431,000 below the FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level, which is a 17% reduction. The funding amounts and programmatic approaches described below are changes compared to the FY 2017 Annualized CR level. According to another document, the final 2018 budget was $6,824 + $801 million. FY 2019: click here for source wrote: The fiscal year (FY) 2019 budget request for CDC and ATSDR includes a total funding level of $5,722,755,000 in discretionary budget authority and PHS Evaluation Funds. This is $1,372,185,000 below the FY 2018 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level. The FY 2019 budget request maintains a number of programmatic reductions and eliminations proposed in the FY 2018 President’s Budget. According to another document, the final 2019 budget was $6,478 + $805 million. FY 2020: click here for source wrote: Total program funding request for CDC is $6.594billion. Compared to FY 2019, CDC’s budget reflects: $1.276 billion decrease in Budget Authority | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On March 13 2020 02:21 GreenHorizons wrote: I think Bernie explaining how those would be inadequate to handle a health crisis like this is necessary. Many of the cascading issues like the millions of workers without PTO dovetail into his policy prescriptions as well. Public option didn't get through a 60 dem majority, so Biden's public option support is a pipe dream too by that metric. People don't need cheaper COVID-19 tests, they need a system that tests all the people that need it regardless of income without a bunch of paperwork wasting time so medical industry profiteers can be paid. In other words, we need a system that prioritizes and facilitates preventative care for everyone, regardless of means and without means tests. It’s really that simple, and a public option without massive reform that basically upends the market will almost certainly not suffice. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45762 Posts
On March 13 2020 02:24 Artisreal wrote: Why dont we let the CDC speak here instead? FY 2018: According to another document, the final 2018 budget was $6,824 + $801 million. FY 2019: According to another document, the final 2019 budget was $6,478 + $805 million. FY 2020: Thank you for the sources  As far as Trump wanting to cut in 2021, here are two additional articles: 1. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/finance/486817-trump-budget-chief-holds-firm-on-cdc-cuts-amid-virus-outbreak?amp 2. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2020/02/26/health-secretary-asks-for-emergency-coronavirus-funding-while-trump-calls-for-16-cut-to-cdc-budget/amp/ | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On March 13 2020 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote: Biden said he would veto it and has campaigned against Sanders plan. Sanders dropping out now sounds like a terrible idea imo. Taking this to the debate stage to show how unequipped Biden and the policy he advocates is to deal with this health crisis should be on full national display. "Biden said he would veto it" has been fact-checked repeatedly and is quite a bit of spin on what he said. | ||
|
brian
United States9641 Posts
 | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23928 Posts
On March 13 2020 02:54 farvacola wrote: We need a federal emergency declaration NOW Yes and probably a similar lockdown to Italy which would take martial law declared by the Trump administration, yay... | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
| ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
He will never resign, i'd bet on kim resigning before him | ||
|
Introvert
United States4945 Posts
On March 13 2020 02:24 Artisreal wrote: Why dont we let the CDC speak here instead? FY 2018: According to another document, the final 2018 budget was $6,824 + $801 million. FY 2019: According to another document, the final 2019 budget was $6,478 + $805 million. FY 2020: Apparently this concept is more difficult to understand than I thought. What is requested is not what is allocated. The president's excellent head of OMB has requested a cut to many departments. Those cuts have not and will never happen, because congress gives out the cash, not the president. I will find the CBO report later if you really need convincing, but the last spending bill substantially increases the CDC's budget. We're talking what actually happens, not what the President asks for. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On March 13 2020 03:26 farvacola wrote: Trump is in no position to exercise any unilateral action on elections, there are better odds that he resigns imo Why is that? If Corona is a big deal, I think that's perfect cover for saying "WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR LIVES FIRST AND VOTE LATER!" | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On March 13 2020 03:37 Erasme wrote: Yes, Trump will certainly not try to meddle with this election ... He will never resign, i'd bet on kim resigning before him That’s nonsense, he can try and “meddle” as much as he wants, but the nature of elections here makes any federal elections action very diffuse in effect. And I would never discount Trump’s pride, greed and cowardice, factors that could very easily line up with a nice exit from the government that mirrors his historical use of bankruptcy and entity swaps as exit strategies. On March 13 2020 03:41 Mohdoo wrote: Why is that? If Corona is a big deal, I think that's perfect cover for saying "WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR LIVES FIRST AND VOTE LATER!" Not even the marketplace trusts Trump on this, the idea that any significant number of people will do anything in line with his commands going forward is extremely suspect. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On March 13 2020 03:43 farvacola wrote: That’s nonsense, he can try and “meddle” as much as he wants, but the nature of elections here makes any federal elections action very diffuse in effect. And I would never discount Trump’s pride, greed and cowardice, factors that could very easily line up with a nice exit from the government that mirrors his historical use of bankruptcy and entity swaps as exit strategies. Not even the marketplace trusts Trump on this, the idea that any significant number of people will do anything in line with his commands going forward is extremely suspect. My impression is that if Italy was scheduled to have an election today, it would be delayed. Can you clarify why we would not delay an election if we were in the same situation? Or are you saying it is unlikely we'll reach Italy-level of fucked? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
| ||
| ||
