US Politics: Speak Into the Microwave

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

14 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Who’s to Blame for the Trumpcare Debacle, Donald Trump or Paul Ryan?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/whos-to-blame-for-the-trumpcare-debacle-trump-or-ryan.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/cotton-ryan-obamacare-repeal-replace-236102

Cotton goes after Ryan agenda in battle of GOP heavyweights
First on taxes and now on health care, the Arkansas senator has mercilessly attacked the well-laid plans of the House speaker.

I'd have to give the lion's share to Ryan. This looks like the same old "Patients Choice" crap he's been peddling since 2009 or so. It got laughed off the floor then, and should be laughed off the floor now. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Martell Spy said:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/cotton-ryan-obamacare-repeal-replace-236102

 

Quote

And then, the speaker says, Democrats will come around and cooperate with the GOP on additional changes to round out the health care reform effort -- a campaign backed by Trump, Vice President Mike Pence told House Republicans on Wednesday.

Oh, interesting. Evidently, the Democratic Party is just supposed to say, "Golly, let's just let bygones be bygones." Evidently Ryan thinks the Democratic Party is just supposed to be the Republican Party's doormats. I would hope not. Unless the Democratic Party were to get major policy concessions, they have a duty to smack the Republican Party down hard here.

[Swordfish]

2 hours ago, Week said:

It does put his tax plan (removing the AMT) into some context. There is no smoking gun, but it does raise additional questions (e.g. 100M in business losses - line 21).

 

If that was her point, then she should have reported it that way.  But that wasn't her point, and that isn't how it was handled.Like... At all.

She handled it as if she had some huge scoop.  She didn't.

 

 

[Fez]

2 hours ago, Week said:

It does put his tax plan (removing the AMT) into some context. There is no smoking gun, but it does raise additional questions (e.g. 100M in business losses - line 21).

Not super exciting without all of the backup/tax calculations ... still it isn't entirely a nothing-burger.

Pretty sure that $100 million is the final carryover of the $916 million in losses from his leaked 1995 returns; nothing wrong with doing that. It seems like everything is above board on this return; at least the pages that were leaked. Which makes me even more suspicious that this was leak from Trump himself.

 

Anyway, on more important matters I find the proposed budget blueprint to be truly monstrous in its unnecessary cruelty to the poor, elderly, and disabled. Even more so due to the fact that the entirety of the cuts aren't even in support of some conservative vision of small government, they're to further expand a military that is already overwhelmingly powerful. I am hopeful that Congress will not enact most of the cuts though.

[denstorebog]

25 minutes ago, Fez said:

Anyway, on more important matters I find the proposed budget blueprint to be truly monstrous in its unnecessary cruelty to the poor, elderly, and disabled. Even more so due to the fact that the entirety of the cuts aren't even in support of some conservative vision of small government, they're to further expand a military that is already overwhelmingly powerful.

Obviously, everything that has come out of the administration so far has been exactly according to "How To Build A Fascist Regime For Dummies". Military expansion is just another initiative by the book. And at the same time, on the surface, it seems to me like something that is just bound to backfire. I mean, I get that the Breitbart populists are wetting their pants over a bigger military and the death of art, but there aren't that many of them at this point, and even some of those people (or their families) will get hurt by some of these policies. 

All this punishment of the sick and the elderly between the budget blueprint and TrumpCare ... I seriously can't figure out if I'm underestimating how strong a base Trump will be able to build on displays of strength alone, or if he/Bannon is underestimating the need to actually display a bit of humanity once in a while to keep certain voters appeased.

I guess a third possibility is that they're just going for the whole strength approach now to fire up the base, then introducing feel-good policies and counting on people's forgetfulness once 2018 draws closer.

[Kalbear]

11 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

All this punishment of the sick and the elderly between the budget blueprint and TrumpCare ... I seriously can't figure out if I'm underestimating how strong a base Trump will be able to build on displays of strength alone, or if he/Bannon is underestimating the need to actually display a bit of humanity once in a while to keep certain voters appeased.

I think you're still underestimating how incredibly formidable the twin pillars of gerrymandering and partisanship are in the US. Ryan assumes that for the most part there just aren't that many vulnerable seats in the House - and he's largely right. 

The senate is another story, but Ryan is thinking tactically, not strategically - all he cares about is passing in the House. The Senate is beyond his control and beyond his care. 

Same thing goes for the budget, honestly. 

11 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

I guess a third possibility is that they're just going for the whole strength approach now to fire up the base, then introducing feel-good policies and counting on people's forgetfulness once 2018 draws closer.

The issue is that there just aren't that many people who will switch sides most of the time. No matter how bad things got. This is the real lesson of Trump - that there just really weren't that many people willing to switch sides, no matter who was running. While all of this looks horrible you have to understand that for most people being a Republican isn't a political viewpoint - it is an identity, and asking them to vote another way would be akin to asking them to start practicing Judaism. 

[Swordfish]

Here's the full list, in case it hasn't been posted yet.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/16/what-does-trump-budget-eliminate/99223182/

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  Lost in the bluster of Trump, as is generally the case, is that there is a kernel of truth in the concerns around some of these agencies, and why they exist and how effective they are.

[denstorebog]

19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think you're still underestimating how incredibly formidable the twin pillars of gerrymandering and partisanship are in the US. Ryan assumes that for the most part there just aren't that many vulnerable seats in the House - and he's largely right. 

The senate is another story, but Ryan is thinking tactically, not strategically - all he cares about is passing in the House. The Senate is beyond his control and beyond his care. 

Same thing goes for the budget, honestly. 

The issue is that there just aren't that many people who will switch sides most of the time. No matter how bad things got. This is the real lesson of Trump - that there just really weren't that many people willing to switch sides, no matter who was running. While all of this looks horrible you have to understand that for most people being a Republican isn't a political viewpoint - it is an identity, and asking them to vote another way would be akin to asking them to start practicing Judaism. 

No, I agree with that. When I talk about losing voters, I don't mean losing them to the other side as much as losing turnout because of apathy. I'm only aware of the turnout numbers for the presidential elections for this millennium, so I don't know how much that is typically a factor in congressional / gubernatorial elections, but I suppose it is pretty much the only hope for Democrats at the moment. So I guess my point it that if there are examples of low enthusiasm deciding congressional races in recent times, the administration's current course seems like it could trigger something like that if they're not careful.

[Fez]

24 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Here's the full list, in case it hasn't been posted yet.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/16/what-does-trump-budget-eliminate/99223182/

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  Lost in the bluster of Trump, as is generally the case, is that there is a kernel of truth in the concerns around some of these agencies, and why they exist and how effective they are.

For a few of them, that's true. Job training programs I'll grant you. That's something a lot of people love, but most of them have zero evidence of being effective. And its not that they haven't been studied, its that they have been studied and didn't find long-term benefits.

But for stuff like NIH research, there's huge benefits to funding that. So much so that it was only a few months ago that Congress passed a big bipartisan bill that Obama signed that increased its funding.

And then there's stuff like meals-on-wheels. Where the point isn't to look at if it improves economic outcomes, the point is to look at if people are getting decent food (and for the elderly and disabled, human contact) that they otherwise wouldn't.

[LongRider]

8 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Commodore - so they ban use within their borders, what about runoff into their neighbor?

Bwahahaha!!  The wind will stop blowing just for Commodore.    heeeheeeheee

[Swordfish]

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

For a few of them, that's true. Job training programs I'll grant you. That's something a lot of people love, but most of them have zero evidence of being effective. And its not that they haven't been studied, its that they have been studied and didn't find long-term benefits.

But for stuff like NIH research, there's huge benefits to funding that. So much so that it was only a few months ago that Congress passed a big bipartisan bill that Obama signed that increased its funding.

And then there's stuff like meals-on-wheels. Where the point isn't to look at if it improves economic outcomes, the point is to look at if people are getting decent food (and for the elderly and disabled, human contact) that they otherwise wouldn't.

I don't disagree.  And the increase in military spending is obscene.  At least part of it seems tagged for our vets, I guess.

[LongRider]

2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I'd have to give the lion's share to Ryan. This looks like the same old "Patients Choice" crap he's been peddling since 2009 or so. It got laughed off the floor then, and should be laughed off the floor now. 

I think this new and improved one kills even more grannies and the richy riches get celebrate loosing the dead weight taker grannies while quaffing each other with the finest imported champagne!  Who needs all those taker grannies anyway, they were supposed to die off in Obama's death panels.  

[Sivin]

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

I don't disagree.  And the increase in military spending is obscene.  At least part of it seems tagged for our vets, I guess.

Huh. Any solid evidence of these future benefits? Be nice to receive something before I'm lynched.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

Reporter: You were talking about the steel worker in Ohio and the coal miner in Pennsylvania and so on. But those workers may have an elderly mother who depends on the Meals on Wheels program, who may have kids in Head Start. And yesterday or the day before you described this as a hard power budget but is it also a hard-headed budget?

Mulvaney: I don't think so. I think it's probably one of the most compassionate things we can do to—

Reporter: Cutting programs that help the elderly?

Mulvaney: You're only focusing on half of the equation, right? You're focusing on recipients of the money. We're focusing on recipients of the money and people who give us the money in the first place. I think it's fairly compassionate to go to them and say, look, we're not going to ask you for your hard-earned money anymore. Single mom of two in Detroit, OK, “Give us your money!” We're not going to do that anymore unless we can—please let me finish. Unless we can guarantee that money will be used in a proper function. That is about as compassionate as you can get.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/03/16/mulvaney_says_cutting_aid_to_the_poor_is_compassionate.html

Trump’s Budget Director Has a Breathtakingly Cynical Excuse for Cutting Aid to the Poor 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

34 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

Huh. Any solid evidence of these future benefits? Be nice to receive something before I'm lynched.

It looks like he tagged the VA for a nice boost. Outside of that, I'm not sure. 

[The Anti-Targ]

Wait, so the budget has big tax cuts for the working poor? I thought they all paid no federal income tax already, so what money are they giving back?

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

Another Republican senator who requested anonymity to discuss the House bill candidly said, “There are no good options.”

The lawmaker acknowledged that not fulfilling the party’s campaign promise to repeal and replace ­ObamaCare would be politically painful in the short-term but worried that voting for bad policy could have negative reverberations for the GOP over the next decade.

 

Quote

“The best thing may be to kill it early so it doesn’t come over here,” the GOP senator said.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/senate-republicans-hope-house-health-care-bill-dies-already.html

Senate Republicans Hope House Health-Care Bill Dies Already

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/senate-republicans-hope-house-health-care-bill-dies-already.html

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

16 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/03/16/mulvaney_says_cutting_aid_to_the_poor_is_compassionate.html

Trump’s Budget Director Has a Breathtakingly Cynical Excuse for Cutting Aid to the Poor 

Not just cynical, chock full o bullshit. Are you cutting Single Mom of twos tax rate? 

[The Anti-Targ]

13 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Not just cynical, chock full o bullshit. Are you cutting Single Mom of twos tax rate? 

The single moms who voted for Trump won't realise they are being duped by that statement. They'll think that they are actually getting something back.

Of course the ultimate line is, the cuts in govt spending will help make the economy grow and so single moms will earn more at their jobs because wages will rise. If that was a sure thing and a provable correlation then maybe there could be a justification for the cuts. But I dunno if there has ever been proof of a direct correlation between cuts in govt social spending and wage rises for the lower end.

[DMC]

I again apologize for the delay.  This has been one of the crazier weeks I've experienced in the past few years both personally (neighbor had a heart attack, died, and totaled my car in the process) and professionally (dissertation chair is taking another job at another university this fall).  So...yeah.

On 3/15/2017 at 5:59 AM, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Right, and see same argument can be used to answer the question why "socialist" is a bad word in many circles today. If individuals adhering to a certain ideology kill tens of millions of people and destroy numerous countries, it will probably get a bit of a sketchy reputation among many persons regardless of what its present day adherents self define as, claim to want, or if they attempt to wash their hands of the crimes of their predecessors or not. 

The point I was trying to emphasize is Mao, Stalin, and the like (Pol Pot) are not "adhering" to a socialist ideology at all.  Please explain to me how their actions once in control of government differentiate from "fascist" Nazis or ideologically ill-defined totalitarian dictators in Africa or South America (e.g. Pinochet, off the top of my head).  Their relationship to socialism is decidedly nominal and has little to nothing to do with any of its precepts beyond government control, which can be attributed with a wide variety of totalitarian dictators.

On 3/15/2017 at 6:00 AM, Toth said:

And yeah, I have to admit that worded myself a bit awkward earlier. Of course misguided economic policies were one of the factors that made living under communist dictactorships miserable. Doesn't change the fact that they didn't use social market economy.

Exactly.

On 3/15/2017 at 7:07 AM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

DCM,

Are you excluding Maxist-Leninist Socialism from Socialism by definition and claiming only "Fabian Socialism" is "True Socialism"?  How is that not the "no true Scotsman" fallacy?

First of all, who's DCM?   Second, describing my perspective simply by Fabian Socialism is fairly British-centric.  There is an understanding among most within the western world at this point that socialism (1) does not include any violent, overthrow-y precepts, and (2) is essential in providing a social safety net that controls for the volatility of unchecked capitalism.  That is the range of my argument, nothing more.