The policy and politics of Trumpism

92tide

Hall of Fame
May 9, 2000
37,524
13
38
50
East Point, Ga, USA
Agree 100%.


I think we'd be looking at significant tax increases to match the coverage you see in most European countries - which is why their tax rates are way higher than ours. Of course, they aren't spending the tax dollars on the military industrial complex like we are, so there's that...


Again, I get it, BTDT.

Ultimately, it comes down to this - MOST people can afford health insurance without subsidies. MOST can. Because MOST people have flat-screen TVs, MOST have cell phones with monthly bills, MOST have relatively nice cars to drive around in. There are some truly poor folks in the US, but there are tons who 'cannot afford insurance' but can afford lots of life's luxuries.

I guess ultimately, if you're going to take money from my family in order to help someone else, you best make sure they need it. I'm a very charitable person, but I also use discernment before giving money to fill a 'need'. And no, this is not some sort of 'welfare abuse' comment, I'm simply reiterating the point that healthcare isn't not some innate right, so if you're going to force me to pay someone's way, we should at least be certain they cannot afford it.

This sort of subject really gets my libertarianism fired up.
it's not just about poor folks not being able to afford health insurance without subsidies. if you remove pre-existing condition protections, limits on lifetime caps, etc. insurance/health care can become prohibitively expensive very quickly if you have a chronic condition, get cancer, have an accident, etc. and it spirals down from there.
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
44,175
17
38
crimsonaudio.net
it's not just about poor folks not being able to afford health insurance without subsidies. if you remove pre-existing condition protections, limits on lifetime caps, etc. insurance/health care can become prohibitively expensive very quickly if you have a chronic condition, get cancer, have an accident, etc. and it spirals down from there.
Yah, those are all reform issues, which I agree need to be addressed. And many of those could be easily addressed by lowering overhead costs by allowing nationwide plans to absorb more variance in the insured pool. My point is the ACA's main selling point was insuring the uninsured, and my point is that if we're going to do that, we better be sure they need it.

The reality is we live under an oligarchy, have for decades (perhaps since the country was founded) and if we don't address the corruption that's at the core of the constantly rising costs of healthcare, no amount of robbing Peter to pay for Paul is going to rule help.

Fix the system then see where things land - I'm betting we'd find that a lot of people who truly cannot afford it now could if we corrected these issues. Right now what we have is a bandaid over a bullet hole - we're not even touching the hemorrhaging, but from the outside things look like they're improved...
 

NationalTitles17

Super Moderator
May 25, 2003
13,675
18
38
Mountainous Northern California
Agree 100%.


I think we'd be looking at significant tax increases to match the coverage you see in most European countries - which is why their tax rates are way higher than ours. Of course, they aren't spending the tax dollars on the military industrial complex like we are, so there's that...


Again, I get it, BTDT.

Ultimately, it comes down to this - MOST people can afford health insurance without subsidies. MOST can. Because MOST people have flat-screen TVs, MOST have cell phones with monthly bills, MOST have relatively nice cars to drive around in. There are some truly poor folks in the US, but there are tons who 'cannot afford insurance' but can afford lots of life's luxuries.

I guess ultimately, if you're going to take money from my family in order to help someone else, you best make sure they need it. I'm a very charitable person, but I also use discernment before giving money to fill a 'need'. And no, this is not some sort of 'welfare abuse' comment, I'm simply reiterating the point that healthcare isn't not some innate right, so if you're going to force me to pay someone's way, we should at least be certain they cannot afford it.

This sort of subject really gets my libertarianism fired up.
I'm sure that you know that we subsidize them in this area, making their health insurance more affordable for them, but it needs to be reiterated for the ignorant.
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
0
0
Birmingham, AL
I only have about 40 years of experience managing businesses, but I have managed through waves of process improvements which reduced employees. Every one of them made our product cheaper which increased sales. When that happened we needed more capacity. Then we hired those people back and a few more. While I realize that won't always happen but over my years it did about 85% of the time. I do know that whatever you reward you will get more of. So we must be careful about offering incentives to not work.

If and When politicians get serious about controlling healthcare costs they will pass torte reform. Without that there will be no way to make any major changes to cost.
I read this column the other day -- it discusses the productivity phenomenon that you describe:

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2016-12-31-0000/donald-trump-job-conservatives

The column covers much more ground than what is stated in this paragraph:

Wait, policymakers will say. What about jobs? Won’t automation eventually leave most everyone unemployed? No, just the opposite. History, logic, and scores of economic studies all show that higher productivity is associated with faster job growth, not slower. Faster productivity growth frees up purchasing power, which in turn creates jobs. It stirs “animal spirits,” as Keynes called them, and encourages companies to invest and people to spend, creating a virtuous cycle of yet more economic activity and job creation. There is no reason to believe this will change in the future, despite what some techno-utopians claim about the transformative power of technologies such as artificial intelligence and robots. This dynamic of growth leading to purchasing power leading to jobs will exist as long as human needs remain unmet. And given that U.S. median income could increase by a factor of 10 (to $510,000), with most people still having plenty of things to spend that money on (e.g., better vacations, a new boat, eating out more, a college education for their kids), we have a long way to go before we have to worry about running out of work (and even then productivity gains would be used to shorten the work week).
This post also applies to the Japanese company (IBM Watson) thread.
 
Last edited:

Bazza

Hall of Fame
Oct 1, 2011
23,014
4
38
New Smyrna Beach, Florida
There are some truly poor folks in the US, but there are tons who 'cannot afford insurance' but can afford lots of life's luxuries.

I guess ultimately, if you're going to take money from my family in order to help someone else, you best make sure they need it. I'm a very charitable person, but I also use discernment before giving money to fill a 'need'. And no, this is not some sort of 'welfare abuse' comment, I'm simply reiterating the point that healthcare isn't not some innate right, so if you're going to force me to pay someone's way, we should at least be certain they cannot afford it.

This sort of subject really gets my libertarianism fired up.
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
0
0
Birmingham, AL
After the National Park Service re-tweeted pictures of the National Mall during the 2009 and 2017 inaugurations, which highlighted this year's comparatively small crowd, Trump's administration has banned the entire Interior Department from Twitter, including tweets meant for emergency use and safety updates.

WaPo: Interior Department told to stop tweeting after unflattering retweets about Trump

Out of curiosity, what do you think was the purpose of a government agency tweeting out a comparison of 2009 and 2017?
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
6,779
7
38
Out of curiosity, what do you think was the purpose of a government agency tweeting out a comparison of 2009 and 2017?
It was probably a snarky tweet from someone who was walking out the door, and I'm not defending it. But do you think it's a slight overreaction to silence the entire Department of the Interior because of one tweet made by a single individual employed by a relatively small service within said department?
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
0
0
Birmingham, AL
It was probably a snarky tweet from someone who was walking out the door, and I'm not defending it. But do you think it's a slight overreaction to silence the entire Department of the Interior because of one tweet made by a single individual employed by a relatively small service within said department?
Apparently the shutdown was less than 24 hours. The article you posted indicates as much. The twitter account was back up and running first thing this morning. If twitter is an essential emergency communications channel, a long-term shutdown would be inappropriate in my opinion. As it was, essentially momentary, the shutdown seems to have been prudent.

Here's a tweet from this morning:

If you like stargazing, you’ll love this pic of the Milky Way @AcadiaNPS by Manish Mamtani #Maine
 
Last edited:

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
6,779
7
38
Apparently the shutdown was less than 24 hours. The article you posted indicates as much. The twitter account was back up and running first thing this morning. If twitter is an essential emergency communications channel, a long-term shutdown would be inappropriate in my opinion. As it was, essentially momentary, the shutdown seems to have been prudent.

Here's a tweet from this morning:
Looks like the NPS twitter is back up as well. In that case, it's a non-story.
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
0
0
Birmingham, AL
Here's some rational thought about foreign policy under Trump, including relations with Russia which seems to tightened many a sphincter around here:

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2017/01/20/donald_trump_has_a_coherent_radical_foreign_policy_doctrine_112180.html

During the campaign for the American presidency, Donald Trump promised that in his administration only good things would happen. He was somewhat vague about what precisely was good and what was bad. In this, he was exactly like any other American presidential candidate. Unlike many, however, he provided some details of the specific issues that worried him, and a broader strategic vision. This vision was embedded in his unique rhetoric, but if we extract it, we have a clear roadmap. Trump’s rhetoric is a problem, but so is conventionally clear political rhetoric that clearly says nothing. I say this because I think that observers tend too readily to dismiss what he says. This is an attempt to decode it.
Also, I posted a column somewhere around here that discusses how diplomacy works. Strangely enough, diplomacy revolves around...wait for it...relationships with others. I think I posted it in a Tillerson thread if anyone is interested in reading it.
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
6,779
7
38
Will be interesting to see where this goes, but I doubt Trump will be able to settle his way out of this one.

NYT: Foreign Payments to Trump Firms Violate Constitution, Suit Will Claim


A team of prominent constitutional scholars, Supreme Court litigators and former White House ethics lawyers intends to file a lawsuit Monday morning alleging that President Trump is violating the Constitution by allowing his hotels and other business operations to accept payments from foreign governments.

The lawsuit is among a barrage of legal actions against the Trump administration that have been initiated or are being planned by major liberal advocacy organizations. Such suits are among the few outlets they have to challenge the administration now that Republicans are in control of the government.

In the new case, the lawyers argue that a provision in the Constitution known as the Emoluments Clause amounts to a ban on payments from foreign powers like the ones to Mr. Trump’s companies. They cite fears by the framers of the Constitution that United States officials could be corrupted by gifts or payments.
 

bama_wayne1

Registered
Jun 15, 2007
2,687
0
0
It was probably a snarky tweet from someone who was walking out the door, and I'm not defending it. But do you think it's a slight overreaction to silence the entire Department of the Interior because of one tweet made by a single individual employed by a relatively small service within said department?
Well let's remember where this POTUS is coming form. He is a businessman. As I'm sure you know if you tweet, email, or publicly malign your boss in the "real world" you get fired and or your privileges are restricted. I think the government will run smoothly once people realize they have a boss.
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
6,779
7
38
I wonder how many tax dollars this solution-looking-for-a-problem will cost?

Donald J. Trump said:
I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal and even, those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time). Depending on results, we will strengthen up voting procedures!
He's either just trying to back up his voter fraud lie with the facade of an investigation, or more worrying, it's an Orwellian excuse to further curb voting access.
 

92tide

Hall of Fame
May 9, 2000
37,524
13
38
50
East Point, Ga, USA
I wonder how many tax dollars this solution-looking-for-a-problem will cost?



He's either just trying to back up his voter fraud lie with the facade of an investigation, or more worrying, it's an Orwellian excuse to further curb voting access.
c'mon, he's the boss, he sets the direction and tone. everyone else just needs to put on their big boy pants and follow along. he's a great leader, he just needs the whiny sjw's and media to shut up so he can do his job effectively
 

92tide

Hall of Fame
May 9, 2000
37,524
13
38
50
East Point, Ga, USA
Well let's remember where this POTUS is coming form. He is a businessman. As I'm sure you know if you tweet, email, or publicly malign your boss in the "real world" you get fired and or your privileges are restricted. I think the government will run smoothly once people realize they have a boss.
president <> ceo.

and yes trump is a business man. he has made a fortune off of his name. his name is valuable in large part because he has spent the better part of the last 30-40 years making a fool of himself and cashing in on it (then he parlayed that into a reality tv show).