drawkcabi

U.S. Politics: Russian Around

402 posts in this topic

4 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

Because they're stupid.  All they would have to say is that the original bill was rushed through without proper vetting and research and they're not going to make the same mistake.   Voila, they buy themselves six months at least.

They can't do that, because they've got to do this before the end of the fiscal year or they lose out on reconciliation. They can only do one reconciliation bill per year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fez said:

They would've probably been better served by just introducing a bill repealing the ACA wholesale though (at least to the extent permitted under reconciliation), except for leaving the Medicaid expansion untouched. And not introducing any new policies, like defunding planned parenthood or allowing cross-state insurance sales.

I actually think that would do less damage to the overall health care system than what they've come up with. And would probably be less vulnerable to attacks from the right, while also satisfying the biggest concern of Republicans from expansion. Not attacking planned parenthood would help keep Collins and Murkowski on board, and not getting dealing with cross-state insurance sales would keep Mike Rounds from quite possibly voting no as well.

(I don't know all the details, but there's something unique about South Dakota, or its laws, that lets it have cheap, comprehensive health insurance that doesn't cover anyone out-of-state).

Does it really make a big difference either way, at least in the short term? Either repeal and replace or just a straight repeal will throw the health insurance markets into chaos for awhile. The obvious smart solution would just be to fix the ACA's problems, but of course the Republicans won't do that because it means Obama was 100% wrong, which he basically always has to be in Bizarro Conservative World. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

30 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

An Important Insurer Says Paul Ryan’s Health Care Plan Fails at Its Only Goal: Making Coverage Cheaper

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/03/08/insurer_says_the_gop_s_health_care_plan_would_raise_premiums_30_percent.html

Right, because individual mandate (to get healthier people in the system and thus reduce the overall risk for insurers) is gone and people with pre-existing conditions can't be denied so long as insurance is continuous. That this leads to a premium increase is pretty much kindergarten economics.

It's why single payer is the only solution if you want a mechanism that spreads the cost by getting healthy people to contribute to the revenue base for providing healthcare. If you only get unhealthy, or medium to high risk people to contribute to the revenue base then surprise surprise the cost per person goes up.

I think perhaps the reason for that "liberal when young, conservative when old" thing is because of the loss of functioning brain cells as we age. Nothing to do with wisdom, and understanding better how the world works.

Edit: So in interviews during the campaign when Trump said (of healthcare) "We're going to take care of everyone" or something like that, I guess he was using "take care" in the Mafia sense of the term.

Edited by The Anti-Targ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Possibly, good point. Though I think he lived in Switzerland during the Confederacy, which would have exposed him to alternatives, I think.

Not really, no. Geneva had just recently joined the Confederacy when Calvin became active, so he had little time to investigate the different systems of taxation in Switzerland. Even if he had, though, the Confederacy's cities were not particularly big on downward redistribution of wealth. To take the two most powerful cities of the Confederacy at the time, Berne and Zurich were both different kinds of plutocracy, both trying to emulate the greatness of the North Italian Republics of Venice Genoa and Florence. In Berne, the local aristocracy had a tight hold on power and wealth, exploiting their rural conquests in Vaud and Aargau. Their influence continues to this day: the current mayor of Berne belongs to one of these noble families (Interestingly, Laura Bush is a descendant of the same family). In Zurich, power rested with the trades and crafts guilds, while again, rural farmers bore the brunt of the tax burden. So... no, there were no local examples of downward redistribution of wealth available to Calvin at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China approves 34 Trump-related Trademarks.

On the face of it, from the US perspective this is a non-issue. Trademark protection is an important issue and all of the trademark applications were probably legit. But I wonder what sort of quid pro quo China might be expecting since they might see this as having just done a big favour to the US president. If China is expecting something in return then if they don't get it, or the USA does something that causes disadvantage to China or loss of face then China might go into punishment mode. China went into punishment mode with us a few years back because of a loss of face, and it caused a major disruption in trade, and we are still tidying up a few loose ends.

But also the Trump admin needs to make sure the perception is all above board. Any perception of soft peddling on China could be a basis for heavy political criticism even if the perceived soft peddling is a diplomatically sensible course of action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

 

I think perhaps the reason for that "liberal when young, conservative when old" thing is because of the loss of functioning brain cells as we age. Nothing to do with wisdom, and understanding better how the world works.

 

The idea that people become more conservative as they age is very problematical as a general statement. There hasn't been a great deal of good longitudinal research on this subject, and the results are very mixed. Most of the research I've seen showing people getting more "conservative" politically as they age is from the UK. Much research from the USA on this shows, if anything, people becoming on average more liberal as they age, especially on social issues. When Americans and Canadians become more conservative with age, it's often on issues relating to things like security and taxes, and seems to be the result of becoming a parent, not just getting older, because childless people don't seem to get more conservative with age on those issues. 

At the moment the oldest generation regularly voting (the so-called "Silent Generation") tends to be the most conservative, but that seems to be a cohort effect, as they are the people who first became politically aware under the Eisenhower administration, which led to a higher % of Republican identification. They've always skewed more Republican than the two generations on either side of them, the World War II generation and the early Baby Boomers. 

Edited by Ormond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ormond said:

A very important point to bring up -- but just to point out, the Coast Guard is NOT the same thing as the National Guard. It's the former where the cuts are proposed. 

Duh -- I knew that. Thanks for the correction.  Argh, I hate doing that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, the plan includes cutting of the revenue streams that come into Medicare and Medicaid from the sales and subsidies to drug companies and other such streams, with the idea of having them gone gone gone within 10 years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Somehow I don't think ideological leopards change their spots terribly often. It would normally take some kind of other life-changing experience (like finding God, or losing God) for someone to flip from con to lib or the other way around.

Honestly, I don't know why parents would become more conservative on taxes. In the USA the experience might be different but here I think most parents get sufficient benefits from tax-payer funded programmes and services that the idea of cutting taxes, which could reduce those programmes and services would generally make parents favour retaining current taxes or even increasing them (for the top earners). Though I think some parents might welcome some kind of universal dependant child tax credit. At the moment direct financial support for dependant children is income tested and is a welfare payment rather than tax credit. We used to have a universal family benefit. But then the 80's came along. My great aunt was old enough when she had her daughter that for 2 or 3 years she was collecting the pension and the family benefit, until her daughter turned 18.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was an interesting comment from one pundit on the radio this morning about the Wikileaks CIA phone / smart TV hacking dump. He said Wikileaks hasn't ever dumped anything that exposes the Russian govt. Is that correct? Is Wikileaks really just out to get major western powers?

They don't sound like equal opportunity leakers, but rather leakers with a major bias, which as an activist group, there is nothing inherently bad about having a particular bias. Green Peace has an environmental bias, for instance. But it does raise the question for a group like Wikileaks about whether there is some nefarious political influence or even collusion by govts that have had a free pass, or only been lightly touched. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe no Russians leak anything to anyone because they figure that Putin will poison them or shoot them down in the street. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Rep. Eric Swalwell from California has put up a bunch of info concerning Trump and his Russian connections up on his website, looks interesting:

 

President Trump has also surrounded himself with people who do business with and are sympathetic to Russia. The New York Times reported that members of Trump’s 2016 campaign and other Trump associates had frequent contact with senior Russian intelligence officials throughout the campaign. In addition to these questionable communications, here are a few other associates with ties to Moscow:

Trump%20%26%20His%20Team%27s%20Ties%20to

The image won't paste here so go look.   :)

 

Edited by Nasty LongRider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Rachel Maddow had an interesting piece tonight about the one single change the Trump campaign made to the official GOP platform during the RNC. This was the softening of the stance towards Russia in regards to the Ukraine. Trump denied having anything to do with it. Manafort denied having anything to do with it. Today a Trump campaign staffer reported that he had it changed at Trump's request.

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Not really, no. Geneva had just recently joined the Confederacy when Calvin became active, so he had little time to investigate the different systems of taxation in Switzerland. Even if he had, though, the Confederacy's cities were not particularly big on downward redistribution of wealth. To take the two most powerful cities of the Confederacy at the time, Berne and Zurich were both different kinds of plutocracy, both trying to emulate the greatness of the North Italian Republics of Venice Genoa and Florence. In Berne, the local aristocracy had a tight hold on power and wealth, exploiting their rural conquests in Vaud and Aargau. Their influence continues to this day: the current mayor of Berne belongs to one of these noble families (Interestingly, Laura Bush is a descendant of the same family). In Zurich, power rested with the trades and crafts guilds, while again, rural farmers bore the brunt of the tax burden. So... no, there were no local examples of downward redistribution of wealth available to Calvin at the time.

Ah, interesting. Thanks for the information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this overly optimistic - but if it starts happening in the next few years, Trump will (wrongly) take the credit:

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/opinion-how-the-us-could-bring-back-up-to-half-the-manufacturing-jobs-moved-overseas/ar-AAo1EDY?li=BBnbfcN&ocid=msnclassic

 

Many companies that offshored manufacturing didn’t really do the math. An Archstone study revealed that 60% of offshoring decisions used only rudimentary cost calculations, typically just price or labor costs and ignored other costs such as freight, duty, carrying cost of inventory, delivery and impact on innovation. Most of the true risks and cost of offshoring were being ignored.

Now is a good time to re-evaluate the cost of domestic vs. offshore production, and not just because of the risk of an angry tweet from the president.

Chinese wages have been rising by about 15% a year since 2000. As a result, the Chinese labor cost in dollars per unit of output is now about four times what it was in 2000. We estimate that about 25% of what is now offshore would come back if companies quantified the total cost. These products would generally have characteristics such as high freight cost vs. labor cost, frequent design changes, volatility in demand, intellectual property risk, and regulatory and compliance requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I just assumed you meant that Republicans are playing Calvinball at this point.

:thumbsup:

Amusing, yet also kind of scary how accurate that metaphor is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ormond said:

The idea that people become more conservative as they age is very problematical as a general statement. There hasn't been a great deal of good longitudinal research on this subject, and the results are very mixed. Most of the research I've seen showing people getting more "conservative" politically as they age is from the UK. Much research from the USA on this shows, if anything, people becoming on average more liberal as they age, especially on social issues.

What about people staying roughly the same as they were in their 20s or 30s but the society around them shifting? There have been fairly radical shifts in the last 30 years e.g. in LGBT issues and slighter shifts in other policy fields. Someone who sticks to the positions they held in 1985 in their early 20s would be considered a reactionary wrt some social issues today.

(It's fascinating to me how a new cold war narrative, that the sinister Russian is behind everything, seems to work so well with people who should be too young to really remember the cold war. Or maybe it does work best with people over 40 who do.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jo498 said:

What about people staying roughly the same as they were in their 20s or 30s but the society around them shifting? There have been fairly radical shifts in the last 30 years e.g. in LGBT issues and slighter shifts in other policy fields. Someone who sticks to the positions they held in 1985 in their early 20s would be considered a reactionary wrt some social issues today.

(It's fascinating to me how a new cold war narrative, that the sinister Russian is behind everything, seems to work so well with people who should be too young to really remember the cold war. Or maybe it does work best with people over 40 who do.)

The Soviets were suspicious and felt neglected as a  superpower during the Cold War. Just about everything was about trying to prove their superiority. As the people there aged,  their beliefs stayed the same,  and here we are doing the same behaviours again  in response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy is a total piece of shit. He railed against pay for play while being a foreign agent during the campaign.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.