U.S. Politics: The (Debt) Ceiling's the Limit

[felice]

5 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

And people are willing to pay for convenience. I know I did for my gall bladder operation. I sat on the public waiting list for about 3 months, but it was the height of the swine flu pandemic so they told me it would be at least another 3 months. I said screw it, and paid out of pocket.

Which is great for you, but not so great for people who can't afford to pay out of pocket. Nobody should have to wait six months or more for an operation like that, but if the politicians and their patrons can jump the queue by paying extra, they don't have to care about ensuring everyone else gets adequate care. They can push for tax cuts instead of better healthcare.

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

So the Obama executive order prevented them from adding more? Cause they use that stuff all the time.

Obama's executive order was in reaction to the existing system and the shitty effects it had on policing. It basically stopped the practice of unloading the surplus gear onto police forces.

Which often was basically a way for the military to recoup costs by pawning off maintenance and storage costs and such onto municipalities.

The problem was once the police had these tools, they felt they might as well use them.

[Yukle]

6 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

No disrespect  to  all three of you. , but just because you think you see  pattern doesn't by necessity mean there really is one .  This county is never. becoming a dictatorship . There are lots of safeguards and constitutional check and balances. that would prevent  this  The Courts even though they are dominated by conservatives would not allow this to happen, The Republican Senate wouldn't stand for its , nor would the Congress . Republican and Democrat together would oppose nor the military  or the 300 plus million people in the country .  There are limits tp what the President can do on his own . In the end he as to follow the limits of power  prescribed by the Constitution.

I see absolutely no proof that the Republicans would stand up to Trump. He came a whisker within condoning the KKK and they still did nothing. He boasted about sexual assault and the supposed "family conservatives" did nothing.

What are these safeguards of which you speak? Other than impeachment, the President is effectively a king in all but name for four years.

The people at the Department of Justice refusing to follow out his orders on the travel ban aren't really a "check and balance" on the President's power. They're breaking the law by defying his instructions.

The only check on his power is the refusal to follow his orders, which is illegal. People still do it, but that's all that anyone other than Congress can do.

It's not that I think that the USA is becoming a police state, it's that the recent steps taken have been towards that. I hope that it will stop on its own without becoming worse, but when you combine Trump's behaviour with the criminal and immoral efforts by Republicans to prevent minorities from voting, it's not that hard for an outside observer to see what the USA is descending into.

Perhaps it helps that I'm not American; the way we see the USA now, looking from without, looks like a descent into fascism. It's gradual, and the majority are kicking and screaming, but what have all of those protests achieved? Even the failure to block the ACA was just because Republicans had no intention of ever following through on that - they were as surprised as everybody else when Trump actually won.

[ThinkerX]

11 minutes ago, Yukle said:

I see absolutely no proof that the Republicans would stand up to Trump. He came a whisker within condoning the KKK and they still did nothing. He boasted about sexual assault and the supposed "family conservatives" did nothing.

What are these safeguards of which you speak? Other than impeachment, the President is effectively a king in all but name for four years.

The people at the Department of Justice refusing to follow out his orders on the travel ban aren't really a "check and balance" on the President's power. They're breaking the law by defying his instructions.

The only check on his power is the refusal to follow his orders, which is illegal. People still do it, but that's all that anyone other than Congress can do.

It's not that I think that the USA is becoming a police state, it's that the recent steps taken have been towards that. I hope that it will stop on its own without becoming worse, but when you combine Trump's behaviour with the criminal and immoral efforts by Republicans to prevent minorities from voting, it's not that hard for an outside observer to see what the USA is descending into.

Perhaps it helps that I'm not American; the way we see the USA now, looking from without, looks like a descent into fascism. It's gradual, and the majority are kicking and screaming, but what have all of those protests achieved? Even the failure to block the ACA was just because Republicans had no intention of ever following through on that - they were as surprised as everybody else when Trump actually won.

I would point out that conservatism in the US has severe internal and external problems.

First, the vast majority are OLD.  Really old, like past retirement age.  They're also dropping like flies.  I get to see this firsthand at work; last year about fifteen people (out of about six hundred) died on my route.  Virtually all of them were hardline conservatives.  That trend continues this year.  The younger ones...well most of them are not exactly ethical.  Three or four more presidential elections and the current US conservative movement becomes a spent force - though the remnant will be a criminal/violently inclined bunch.

Second, conservatives dislike pretty much everybody that is not white.  Republican politicians have tried for decades now to add legitimate Hispanics to their ranks, but while they've garnered some recruits, well, there's a fair bit of mutual friction. 

Long term demographics say the current republicans/conservative movement is screwed big time, regardless of voter suppression and police state tactics. 

On the other hand, most younger voters supported Sanders, or at least the core of his message.  Eventually, those people WILL be the decisive voting block, which tells me that a lot of things currently deemed unthinkable (universal health care, cheap or free college, and so on) will come to pass. 

Added to this mix is the ongoing energy/resource/climate catastrophe, which is only going to get worse.  Ultimately, that will result in an emptying of the suburbs, greatly increased public transit, and overall tighter social controls.  When you figure the US is more of a 'divided Oligarchy' than a representative republic, then a possible outcome is a sort of literal corporate state.  

[James Arryn]

Moreover, history's full of police States filled with people thinking 'it could never happen here', and precious few where most saw it coming and were like 'oh, cool.'

[Inigima]

A ray of sunshine for you all: Berkeley rally drew half a dozen or so white supremacists. They were run out of the park by the counterprotest, which dwarfed them.

https://twitter.com/willcarless/status/901859213755817985

https://twitter.com/bhngyn/status/901898962323496960

https://twitter.com/shane_bauer/status/901902928948076544

https://twitter.com/DarwinBondGraha/status/901893642175922176

You kind of expect Berkeley not to stand for this shit, but it's nice to see nonetheless.

[GAROVORKIN]

6 hours ago, Sword of Doom said:

God you are naive. You're literally the meme of the dog in a house burning down saying everything is fine.

  Im not naive, I just find it  a complete waste of time to worry about something that's not going to happen.  

[Inigima]

If it doesn't happen -- and if you don't believe it already has -- then it will be because of people like us who freaked out and people who put in the work to prevent it.

[Morpheus]

Our president just pardoned a man who dedicated his life to abusing power, he has nothing but praise for Putin who murders opponents and journalists, he loves Dueterte, a man who has declared open season on those he deems undesirables. He is openly and defiantly corrupt. He has called journalists enemies of the state. We are reduced to hoping that military men like Kelly and Mattis can contol the president to prevent disaster. So far Republicans have done nothing but mildly chide him. Norms are being destroyed daily, if you think an American dystopia is far fetched, you aren't paying attention.

 

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, Yukle said:

What are these safeguards of which you speak? Other than impeachment, the President is effectively a king in all but name for four years

There are two general categories. First, the courts can (and have) declare things the President orders unconstitutional. Second, most things the President can do generally require money and the only way he can get the money is to go to Congress. There are ways around these, but Trump has not tried to use them yet and there is no evidence that he will.

1 hour ago, Inigima said:

If it doesn't happen -- and if you don't believe it already has -- then it will be because of people like us who freaked out and people who put in the work to prevent it.

Seriously? Positing an extremely unlikely scenario and then claiming credit for preventing it only works in fairy tales. It's not going to happen (at least not with Trump in charge) because Trump has no incentive to destroy the system and try to implement something new -- he's already very well off and the odds of him being better off after changes are not that great. The people freaking out are playing an escalation game which will probably make it easier for somebody who is not so well off under the existing system to try tearing it down in a decade or two, but even with this assistance it is unlikely.

[GAROVORKIN]

41 minutes ago, Altherion said:

There are two general categories. First, the courts can (and have) declare things the President orders unconstitutional. Second, most things the President can do generally require money and the only way he can get the money is to go to Congress. There are ways around these, but Trump has not tried to use them yet and there is no evidence that he will.

Seriously? Positing an extremely unlikely scenario and then claiming credit for preventing it only works in fairy tales. It's not going to happen (at least not with Trump in charge) because Trump has no incentive to destroy the system and try to implement something new -- he's already very well off and the odds of him being better off after changes are not that great. The people freaking out are playing an escalation game which will probably make it easier for somebody who is not so well off under the existing system to try tearing it down in a decade or two, but even with this assistance it is unlikely.

 

It just seems doubtful that the sky will be falling anytime soon.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I'm surprised nobody's posted this yet:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-business-sought-deal-on-a-trump-tower-in-moscow-while-he-ran-for-president/2017/08/27/d6e95114-8b65-11e7-91d5-ab4e4bb76a3a_story.html?utm_term=.35ddc6a93fb4

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Inigima said:

A ray of sunshine for you all: Berkeley rally drew half a dozen or so white supremacists. They were run out of the park by the counterprotest, which dwarfed them.

By all accounts (including the Mother Jones reporter that posted the video below), it was predominately nonviolent.  But let's not ignore what will be running on a loop on Fox News at least until the midterms:

Doesn't seem clear who the victim was, but it does seem pretty clear the assailants are either antifa or at least people dressed like antifa.  The guy in the red t-shirt is Reveal host Al Letson:

Quote

“I was scared they were going to kill him,” Letson said. “So the only thing I could think was I wanted to get on top of him to protect him.”

The altercation was caught on video by Mother Jones journalist Shane Bauer, who identified the aggressors as anti-fascist protesters, sometimes called antifa. He also said the man being beaten may have been a member of the alt-right. Neither of those observations could be confirmed.

So, is this the type of violence many here have argued is justified or should even be encouraged?  Because if so, I genuinely feel sorry for you.

2 hours ago, Inigima said:

If it doesn't happen -- and if you don't believe it already has -- then it will be because of people like us who freaked out and people who put in the work to prevent it.

Aw, isn't that so cute!  Putting people who freak out next to people who work to prevent it like they're one in the same.

[aceluby]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

There are two general categories. First, the courts can (and have) declare things the President orders unconstitutional. Second, most things the President can do generally require money and the only way he can get the money is to go to Congress. There are ways around these, but Trump has not tried to use them yet and there is no evidence that he will.

1) A court determining a President's orders being unconstitutional doesn't mean shit if the people following those orders keep following them and then get pardoned by said President.  Sheriff Joe violated thousands of people's civil rights and was punished for his unconstitutional actions.  He didn't even get a sentence before getting pardoned.

2) There are literally trillions of dollars to be spent in the military.  A military that he has full control over.  Sure, he won't get a stupid wall, but as for having enough money for a martial law scenario?  He doesn't need congress for that.

I mean, how far fetched is it that he declares the result of an election to be fake, his supporters take to the streets, clash with his protestors; and while still a sitting President declare a national emergency and/or martial law?  He was preparing to do that without the power of the presidency behind him and still maintains that he won the popular vote.  He's not normal and will not follow the norms.  He wants complete control and power and acts like a 3 year old when he is reigned in even the slightest.

[aceluby]

20 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

I disagree. 

You make a valid point 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, Morpheus said:

Our president just pardoned a man who dedicated his life to abusing power, he has nothing but praise for Putin who murders opponents and journalists, he loves Dueterte, a man who has declared open season on those he deems undesirables. He is openly and defiantly corrupt. He has called journalists enemies of the state. We are reduced to hoping that military men like Kelly and Mattis can contol the president to prevent disaster. So far Republicans have done nothing but mildly chide him. Norms are being destroyed daily, if you think an American dystopia is far fetched, you aren't paying attention.

 

Exactly.  When people who voted for Trump claimed they "wanted change" and someone who would "shake things up" they got a hell of a lot more than they bargained for.  Trump appears to dislike democracy and democratic processes.  They get in his way and as such he tries to ignore them.  Look at way he ignores the existing pardon process with the Arpaio pardon.  The way his original immigration order ignored existing procedures.  The way he wants to direct the military via twitter.  

The man is attempting to ignore, end run, and bypass the rule of law and democratic processes.  He is uniquely unworthy of the office he holds and every day he stays in the office the more damage he does.

Trump is catastrophic for the US.

[Rippounet]

The problem is how to describe à regime that is neither democratic nor authoritarian/fascist, but somehow in between.

Because it's obvious that the traditional checks and balances can't really work on Trump's administration (Republicans control too many American institutions) and that he's working hard to weaken any remaining ones  (like the media). And at the same time, we're still very far from a genuinely unbridled fascist regime which would actively and violently repress dissent or the press.

At the very least, it's reasonable to be worried and silly to pretend that "it can't happen." 

[OldGimletEye]

On 8/27/2017 at 10:48 PM, Shryke said:

This is ignoring the question of what your goals are, how achievable what parts of them are and when you even wanna take those fights.

Universal health care =/= single payer. There are many other options undertaken by different countries around the world. Obamacare, for all it's flaws, did a lot of good and nobody gave up on anything getting it passed. They just took what they could get at the time.

There's plenty that can be done in the short term too and plenty of other possible systems you could move the US towards. The public option and medicare buy-in and medicare expansion are obvious examples of fairly large reforms that can bring costs down and are easier to pass.

I mean, Obamacare was far from what many people on the Left wanted but unlike every previous attempt, it actually passed so it's actually helping people, it's proven durable and it still absolutely cost the Democrats a ton of power in the federal government and has led to a ton of issues because of GOP control of Congress.

1. Yes, the ACA was better than what we had.

2. Yes I understand single payer isn’t the only way to get universal health care.

3. The reforms you mentioned are all positive steps in the right direction.

4. I prefer single payer because ultimately I believe it’s cheaper.

5. Lowering the cost of health care, whether we get to single payer or not, has to be a priority because of future debt projections. I am not one to be chicken little over the debt. In fact, we could spend some more money right about now. That said, it wouldn’t prudent to ignore what the CBO is saying about the future path of debt, in particular future interest rates. Plus I don’t want there to be any sudden major cuts to health care spending which would disrupt many people’s lives. 

[GAROVORKIN]

27 minutes ago, aceluby said:

You make a valid point 

Thank you.

 

[IamMe90]

3 hours ago, Altherion said:

There are two general categories. First, the courts can (and have) declare things the President orders unconstitutional. Second, most things the President can do generally require money and the only way he can get the money is to go to Congress. There are ways around these, but Trump has not tried to use them yet and there is no evidence that he will.

Seriously? Positing an extremely unlikely scenario and then claiming credit for preventing it only works in fairy tales. It's not going to happen (at least not with Trump in charge) because Trump has no incentive to destroy the system and try to implement something new -- he's already very well off and the odds of him being better off after changes are not that great. The people freaking out are playing an escalation game which will probably make it easier for somebody who is not so well off under the existing system to try tearing it down in a decade or two, but even with this assistance it is unlikely.

This is literally the opposite of what you were constantly saying pre-election to justify support of Trump. Now that it's undeniable what a shit show president he is, it's interesting how quickly you've changed your tune.