US Politics- Stay Gold, Pony Boy

[Altherion]

15 minutes ago, Zorral said:

It is relevant because these presidents didn't own big multi-national corporations with investments and properties outside their personal single ownership. They had no stockholders. They weren't doing deals with people of other countries who would have reasons to leverage that business into actions that were inimicable to the United States and her tax payers.

Technically, the Trump Organization is a privately held company and it does not have stockholders in the traditional sense of the word. However, what does any of this matter? The plantation could still be impacted by Presidential policy creating a conflict of interest; it's just that there is more opportunity to run into such a conflict with a multinational. It's a difference of degree and not of kind.

23 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Nor did the regulations and traditions governing such things come into existence until later. HOWEVER, from the very beginning, it was not acceptable for a sitting president to accept GIFTS of any real value from anyone, much less from other countries.

The second statement is not true. Presidents are currently not allowed to keep expensive gifts from foreign dignitaries, but this is a relatively recent phenomenon. In fact, the laws in question were passed because of progressively more foreign extravagant gifts becoming the norm. That said, I fully expect Trump to follow the protocols on gifts.

33 minutes ago, Zorral said:

This situation IS unlike anything that has gone before and goes against everything that has been set up -- particularly since this bozo is not fit in any way to be POTUS.

It is unlike anything that has gone before, but again, only in degree: Trump has by far the most valuable and most varied property holdings of any President.

To be honest, I don't think this is going matter except perhaps as something to formally impeach Trump for in case he fails. If he succeeds in creating a large number of decent jobs, it won't matter even if the Trump Organization somehow doubles in value over his Presidency.

[DireWolfSpirit]

The Bush daughters offer advice to Malia and Sasha (in open letter published by TIME). I thought this was kind of touching. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/politics/bush-daughters-letter-to-obama-sisters/index.html

[Martell Spy]

A Message To My Doomed Colleagues In The American Media

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alexey-kovalev/a-message-to-my-doomed-colleagues-in_b_14138842.html?1484264929

[butterbumps!]

7 hours ago, Mexal said:

Two fun stories this evening. 

1. Chaffetz threatens to subpoena federal ethics watchdog over Trump criticism. Trump does absolutely nothing to comply with conflict of interest laws, he's rightfully called out by the head of the office of government ethics and is now threatened by House Republicans. Surprise surprise.

Naturally, Chaffetz was leading the charge to ensure Hillary's 4 years would be a witch hunt back in the fall.  He was determined to not let anything go, especially not things that have already been under perpetual, endless scrutiny.    From WaPo, 10/26:
 

Quote

 

Jason Chaffetz, the Utah congressman wrapping up his first term atop the powerful House Oversight Committee, unendorsed Donald Trump weeks ago. That freed him up to prepare for something else: spending years, come January, probing the record of a President Hillary Clinton.

“It’s a target-rich environment,” the Republican said in an interview in Salt Lake City’s suburbs. “Even before we get to Day One, we’ve got two years’ worth of material already lined up. She has four years of history at the State Department, and it ain’t good.”

...............

And other Republican leaders say they support Chaffetz’s efforts — raising the specter of more partisan acrimony between them and the White House for the next four years.

“The rigorous oversight conducted by House Republicans has already brought to light troubling developments in the [Hillary] Clinton email scandal,” the office of House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said in a statement to The Washington Post. “The speaker supports [Oversight’s] investigative efforts following where the evidence leads, especially where it shows the need for changes in the law.”

...............

That analysis stems from the investigations Republicans have led — or asked for — into Clinton’s tenure at the State Department. Clinton has been dogged by investigations into the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, and for the better part of two years, she’s reeled from questions about the private email server she used while secretary of state. Chaffetz, too, views Clinton as a lucky candidate whose past will catch up with her after the polls close.

“She’s not getting a clean slate,” he said. “It’s not like the State Department was bending over backwards to help us understand what was going on. We’ve got document destruction. We’ve got their own rogue system. We’ve got classified information out the door. We’ve got their foundation doing who knows what. I mean, it took them four years just to release her schedule.”

Several Clinton allies recoiled when asked about Chaffetz’s plans for 2017. Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon said Chaffetz threatened to “ignore the public’s clear desire for the two parties to work together,” and he and others accused Chaffetz of wasting taxpayer money chasing old stories.

“It’s clear Congressman Chaffetz is ready to spend resources on additional worthless political investigations that will, again, come up with nothing,” said David Brock, a former Clinton foe who now runs the pro-Clinton political action committee American Bridge and its affiliates.

.............

Chaffetz emphasized that the questions raised since he took over the committee in 2015 have not all been answered.

“We still have tens of thousands of missing documents,” he said. “That ranges from everything from the missing boxes [of subpoenaed emails] to the David Petraeus emails, to [State Department Undersecretary] Patrick Kennedy’s communications.”

Chaffetz also suggested that coming Clinton hearings would touch on issues that had not been vetted. He had sent the committee’s investigators a weekend article from the Wall Street Journal that asked whether Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) had slanted the FBI’s probe of Clinton by helping outside groups put $467,500 into the campaign of Virginia senate candidate Jill McCabe, whose husband, Andrew, later became deputy director of the FBI.

“It seems like an obscene amount of money for a losing race,” Chaffetz said. “The ties between the governor and the Clintons are well-known. He raises money for a lot of people, but why so much for this one person?”

In addition, Chaffetz previously said in an interview with CNN, an FBI agent’s suggestion that Kennedy had tried to get Clinton’s emails declassified deserved a hard look. “I honestly don’t believe they act in the best interests of our country,” he said of the State Department. Future Oversight Committee investigations, he said, might depend on whether Clinton tries to put people ensnared by previous probes into her administration.

 

how does one start holding shit like this accountable?    

[Commodore]

Young people still not signing up for ACA.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2611740/

The intent was the fine would be enough punishment to get them to sign up for expensive plans (to subsidize the rest of the pool). Or that whatever shortfall insurance companies ended up with would be made whole by straight corporate welfare (risk corridors). But the math just hasn't worked out.

Quote

The failure of Obamacare to sign up enough younger and healthier individuals to offset the cost of covering older and sicker enrollees is at the root of problems encountered by the law's exchanges. This is why insurers have been losing billions of dollars and have responded by some combination of raising premiums, slashing networks of doctors and hospitals, and exiting Obamacare markets altogether.

 

[OldGimletEye]

11 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Of course it's serious.  However, I was merely suggesting that the direction the conversation had taken might have been more appropriate in another, separate thread where it could be concentrated upon.  You know, how things tend to work around here sometimes.  Seeing as no one else went with me and kept on I don't see why you felt the need to get your panties in a bunch. But whatever.  

Being told some topic isn’t relevant subject matter for a thread and shouldn’t be talked about, when I strongly think it is relevant subject matter, does get my goat just a little, particularly when it’s an issue I deeply care about.

The politics of healthcare has been an important part of American Politics for about 70 years. It’s true that the conversation turned a bit technocratic. But you know, I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. Surely, discussions about US Politics should be more than discussions of orange baboons getting pissed on by people. Surely, there is a place for discussions about substantive policy matters on a “US Politics” thread. I’m not sure why substantive policy matters are beyond the purview of “politics”. Maybe I’m wrong about that though.

I find it extremely troubling, that some people in this country can’t get access to basic level of health care. And I sympathize with these people greatly.

The ACA is not perfect, and I think there is some work to be done, but for six years I’ve heard conservatives tell whole bunch of whoppers or misrepresentations about it. In reality though, a lot of these people are just being disingenuous. They simply do not believe the government has any business providing a minimal amount of healthcare to people.

And after hearing a lot of nonsense being told about the ACA or universal healthcare, I’ve got something to say about it. And it’s seems to me that a thread entitled “US Politics” is a proper venue to make comments about it. It’s not like I just started berating, out of the blue, the kid who gives me my coffee at McDonalds about healthcare policy or anything.

And I’m not sure why the topic of healthcare rates it’s own thread, anymore than other topics germane to the topic of “US Politics” like government corruption, US foreign relations, trade policy and other pertinent matters.

Normally, I’ll respect people’s request not to discuss matters that are not in the proper venue for it or not appropriate subject matter. But, I feel strongly that health-care policy is pertinent subject matter for a US Politics thread, even if the discussion turns a bit technical.

Anyway, I apologize for my reaction. I just wanted to explain where I was coming from.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Commodore said:

Young people still not signing up for ACA.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2611740/

The intent was the fine would be enough punishment to get them to sign up for expensive plans (to subsidize the rest of the pool). Or that whatever shortfall insurance companies ended up with would be made whole by straight corporate welfare (risk corridors). But the math just hasn't worked out.

 

Of course young people are not signing up, it is much cheaper for most of them to stay on their parents healthcare until they are 27, or get healthcare through their employer. One must remember that most folks who sign up for Obamacare do not have healthcare elsewhere, so this whole story is a Republican red herring. Par for the course for the Examiner.

[LongRider]

I was thinking about what the ACA has brought the American people besides the health insurance exchanges.  It put a stop to per-existing conditions, let people be on their parents health insurance until age 26 and made preventative care become no charge.  These benefit anyone who has insurance, not just folks on O-care.

I was thinking about the preventive care benefit, which applies to all who have health insurance, whether through their employers, ACA or private and realized what huge benefit that is. With the preventative care being a no charge for the patient item, I wonder how many more people got these screenings because of that one benefit? So, will the R's strip that benefit out too if they repeal the ACA?  With pre-exisiting conditions, grown children on parents insurance and free preventive care gone, I can see a large part of the population becoming less healthy overall.  

No plans to replace these that the R's have told us about tho.  Really bad news.

 

[Isalie]

The healthcare discussion was basically.

SP is better.

SP is better, but nothing is perfect!

SP is better.

SP is better, but nothing is perfect!

And so on, with the caveat that if post 30 contained something new I missed it cause I had stopped reading.

[OldGimletEye]

Some interesting items:

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/12/14250780/mattis-senate-confirmation-hearings-mad-dog

There is an old saying, which is,” A bitching marine is a healthy marine.” Wonder if Trump knows about this.

Interesting article about Mattis’ views. Wonder how Trump will take this.

Quote

The answer more-or-less directly contradicted the president-elect, who believes that he can make “a deal” with Vladimir Putin. It was also a dynamic that happened again and again. To take just two examples: Mattis voiced support for keeping the Iran nuclear deal in place and refused to endorse moving the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. If you just listened to Mattis talk, and had no idea who the president-elect was, you probably would have assumed that his boss was a relatively hawkish Democrat.

http://www.vox.com/2017/1/11/14238592/trump-nelson-rockefeller

Quote

Rockefeller was very rich, an heir to the famous Rockefeller fortune, which posed some potential financial conflicts of interest. Dillon characterized the similarity between the situations this way: “You know, the business empire built by President-elect Trump over the years is massive, not dissimilar to the fortunes of Nelson Rockefeller when he became vice president. But at that time, no one was so concerned.”

It is simply not true that no one was so concerned. On the contrary, in a September 1974 article, Linda Charlton reported for the New York Times: “Rockefeller Vows Full Cooperation.”

And finally:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-12/milton-friedman-s-cherished-theory-is-laid-to-rest

A conservative favorite, looks like it's in trouble:

Quote

When you’re wrong, you’re wrong, no matter how famous and respected you might be as a scientist. Albert Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics. Linus Pauling was wrong about the structure of DNA. And Milton Friedman was wrong about the permanent income hypothesis. But unlike with the first two examples, where scientists quickly realized the mistake, economists haven’t yet come to grips with the reality.

 

[LongRider]

11 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

There is an old saying, which is,” A bitching marine is healthy marine.” Wonder if Trump knows about this.

Interesting article about Mattis’ views. Wonder how Trump will take this.

Trump will tell us how wonderful Mattis is, a really great person, and then ignore all of his advice and input, is how I see it. 

[Martell Spy]

'It’s Game of Thrones, the Apprentice, and Survivor all mixed into one'
Republicans like Chris Christie are counting on lots of turnover in the Trump administration.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-administration-turnover-candidates-233563

[aceluby]

1 hour ago, Commodore said:

Young people still not signing up for ACA.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2611740/

The intent was the fine would be enough punishment to get them to sign up for expensive plans (to subsidize the rest of the pool). Or that whatever shortfall insurance companies ended up with would be made whole by straight corporate welfare (risk corridors). But the math just hasn't worked out.

 

Half of the 18-34 year old demographic have the ability to still be covered by their parents.  I'm not sure how you can draw conclusions from this without taking that into effect, and last time I checked that was a very popular part of the bill that even Republicans want to keep.

[LongRider]

23 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

'It’s Game of Thrones, the Apprentice, and Survivor all mixed into one'

Sounds like a real pissing contest. 

[SkynJay]

1 hour ago, Nasty LongRider said:

I was thinking about what the ACA has brought the American people besides the health insurance exchanges.  It put a stop to per-existing conditions, let people be on their parents health insurance until age 26 and made preventative care become no charge.  These benefit anyone who has insurance, not just folks on O-care.

I was thinking about the preventive care benefit, which applies to all who have health insurance, whether through their employers, ACA or private and realized what huge benefit that is. With the preventative care being a no charge for the patient item, I wonder how many more people got these screenings because of that one benefit? So, will the R's strip that benefit out too if they repeal the ACA?  With pre-exisiting conditions, grown children on parents insurance and free preventive care gone, I can see a large part of the population becoming less healthy overall.  

No plans to replace these that the R's have told us about tho.  Really bad news.

 

Even those of us who have employer coverage can be affected.  ACA also took away lifetime limits and set a basic standard a plan has to follow.  My old company had us on a high deductible plan when my son was born; my share of the bill was almost a third of my annual income at the time.  Such a plan didn't meet the Bronze thresholds in the ACA.

[Fez]

52 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Trump will tell us how wonderful Mattis is, a really great person, and then ignore all of his advice and input, is how I see it. 

Like all the Cabinet Secretaries, I suspect Mattis is going to mostly have free reign to run his department as he sees fit because Trump is not interested in details and doesn't have enough focus to learn if his wishes are actually being followed. And so long as Mattis has good relations with at least one of the power centers in the White House (Preibus, Bannon, Kushner, or Pence), he'll be fine. 

[maarsen]

14 hours ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Walls to the South of us and....hoodies to the North?

O_o, Canada is stealing our hoodies!  What will this mean to our friendly neighbor north of us?  Tariffs? Sanctions? Walls!!!!!!   The mind boggles.

We get the hoodies, you get toques.

[Mexal]

So I'm not quite clear on how this all goes. Today the House is voting to repeal budgetary elements of the ACA right? So if that passes and with the Senate voting on Wednesday, does this mean the ACA will be repealed (or gutted) or are there still more votes that need to be done?

[maarsen]

1 hour ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Sounds like a real pissing contest. 

And the contenders stand around with their mouths open.

[Fez]

23 minutes ago, Mexal said:

So I'm not quite clear on how this all goes. Today the House is voting to repeal budgetary elements of the ACA right? So if that passes and with the Senate voting on Wednesday, does this mean the ACA will be repealed (or gutted) or are there still more votes that need to be done?

There's a lot more votes to be had. All the Senate has voted on so far, and what the House is voting on today, is a budget framework; which isn't even a bill, it never goes to the President's desk. Its just instructions for the various committees to begin working on a bill/s to repeal and/or replace the ACA. And there's no clear indiction on what that will look like in the end.

And all the talk about things Republicans voted to get rid of on Wednesday night wasn't quite accurate. When they rejected all the Democratic amendments, they weren't voting to get rid of things like letting kids stay on their plans until age 26. They were voting to not have the committees be instructed that they have to keep those provisions no matter what. Which they did both because they have no idea what the final bill/s will look like and because budget reconciliation legislation is tricky. Its easier to not mention something at all (and therefore have it stay in place because its already existing law) rather than reiterate that it will continue to be law.