Trump 2.0

exchemist said:
I agree. Sarkus seems to have made a clear and concise summary of the latest developments. But for him, we might be having to rely on Tiassa to explain it. To the one...to the other.....-_O
Click to expand...
And how long do you ponder on Tiassa’s pictures, to get an inkling of wtf his text below it, is all about?
 
The whole "we'll vote on that ACA thing later" is a giant flaming crock of horseshit. The Demos caved. Never happier to be an Independent.
 
TheVat said:
The whole "we'll vote on that ACA thing later" is a giant flaming crock of horseshit. The Demos caved. Never happier to be an Independent.
Click to expand...
One of those that "caved" was an Independent. If you're going to criticise Democrats as a whole for 2 of their number caving in, you surely need to criticise the Independents as a whole for doing the same? Think of it this way: a higher proportion of the Senate Independents "caved". ;)
 
I find it interesting to consider legislators finally opening the government as "caving". Also, everyone says that they wish politicians would compromise more but when they do, they are "caving"?

I saw a "news" headline that said "A rogue gang of Democrat Senators caved to the Senate Republicans". Is that really news "journalism"?

It seems to me that the least Congress could do is to stay open and present full budgets every year and debate the merits. Such a budget hasn't been presented since 1998 and the continual threat of a shutdown, raising debt limits with no cuts in spending is the common practice now.

The worse employee in any other sphere would have a better track record than this.
 
Sarkus said:
One of those that "caved" was an Independent. If you're going to criticise Democrats as a whole for 2 of their number caving in, you surely need to criticise the Independents as a whole for doing the same? Think of it this way: a higher proportion of the Senate Independents "caved". ;)
Click to expand...
Cave Independentes ?
 
Seattle said:
I find it interesting to consider legislators finally opening the government as "caving".
Click to expand...
I think it's because they made it very clear they were fighting to keep the credits in the bill so that Americans wouldn't see 2x and 3x increases in their healthcare.

They didn't get that. And that was their one issue with the bill. So yeah, they caved. And now Americans will see those increases.
 
billvon said:
I think it's because they made it very clear they were fighting to keep the credits in the bill so that Americans wouldn't see 2x and 3x increases in their healthcare.

They didn't get that. And that was their one issue with the bill. So yeah, they caved. And now Americans will see those increases.
Click to expand...
They were meant to be temporary, during Covid, which is why they are expiring now. They only apply to those making 400% of the poverty line. They don't fix any problems with high healthcare costs, they just mask the costs.

This is hardly a reasonable hill to stand on to shut down the government for, wouldn't you agree?
 
Sarkus said:
One of those that "caved" was an Independent. If you're going to criticise Democrats as a whole for 2 of their number caving in, you surely need to criticise the Independents as a whole for doing the same? Think of it this way: a higher proportion of the Senate Independents "caved". ;)
Click to expand...
Independent means something different in the Senate. Usually, "I'm a Democrat, but my constituents who favor mostly a Democratic platform don't want to be seen actually acknowledging this preference." Notice that all three US Sen. Independents "caucus with Democrats." My feeling, as an actual Independent, is that both parties are subservient to their respective donor bases, and are often paralyzed or two-faced when it comes to acting on behalf of their non-billionaire constituents. While I appreciate most Democrats didn't cave on ACA subsidies, when 8 of the Dem caucus do cave that's not, to me, the sign of a functional party serious about securing healthcare for all Americans.
 
Seattle said:
They don't fix any problems with high healthcare costs, they just mask the costs.
Click to expand...
Which is like saying mortgages don't solve any problems with owning a home, they just mask the cost.
This is hardly a reasonable hill to stand on to shut down the government for, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

If they are vital to the people these polticians represent - it is very reasonable.
 
billvon said:
Which is like saying mortgages don't solve any problems with owning a home, they just mask the cost.


If they are vital to the people these polticians represent - it is very reasonable.
Click to expand...
That's why we have bad government and $38 trillion debt.
 
billvon said:
I think it's because they made it very clear they were fighting to keep the credits in the bill so that Americans wouldn't see 2x and 3x increases in their healthcare.

They didn't get that. And that was their one issue with the bill. So yeah, they caved. And now Americans will see those increases.
Click to expand...

You think Americans weren't hurt by their refusal to compromise earlier. Wake up.
 
Seattle said:
They don't fix any problems with high healthcare costs, they just mask the costs.
Click to expand...
If an individual is presently paying a 600 dollar monthly premium and in January they will be paying a 2200 dollar monthly premium, they will be spending at least an additional 1600 dollars per month for healthcare. What is this "masking" you speak of?
Seattle said:
That's why we have bad government and $38 trillion debt.
Click to expand...
What is "why we have bad government and $38 trillion debt"? The idea of politicians attempting to address the needs and concerns of the people they represent?

This is a discussion forum. It is not our job to read your mind or attempt to decipher your inadequate scrawlings which effectively convey nothing.
 
Seattle said:
That's why we have bad government and $38 trillion debt.
Click to expand...
We are $38 trillion in debt because people keep electing republicans. With more democrats we'd be around $20 trillion in debt. Still not ideal but WAY better.

As a simple example, the "Big Beautiful Bill" will increase the debt by $3.4 trillion - close to a 10% increase - in 10 years. And this is just one bill. An analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that, according to their published plans, the Harris administration would have increases the deficit by 3.95 trillion. The Trump administration would increase it by 7.75 trillion - about twice as much.

This is because both parties spend about as much - democrats on social programs, republicans on military. But democrats tend to increase taxes; republicans tend to decrease them. One method leads to much higher deficits than the other.

This isn't something that republicans like to hear; they immediately fall back on the "well both parties" line. But I have found it is wise to trust results more than rhetoric - and over time the democrats have increased the debt far more slowly than republicans have.

www.crfb.org

The Fiscal Impact of the Harris and Trump Campaign Plans | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

Note: This analysis has been updated to incorporate new proposals announced by the candidates since we initially published on October 7.
www.crfb.org www.crfb.org
 
billvon said:
We are $38 trillion in debt because people keep electing republicans. With more democrats we'd be around $20 trillion in debt. Still not ideal but WAY better.

As a simple example, the "Big Beautiful Bill" will increase the debt by $3.4 trillion - close to a 10% increase - in 10 years. And this is just one bill. An analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that, according to their published plans, the Harris administration would have increases the deficit by 3.95 trillion. The Trump administration would increase it by 7.75 trillion - about twice as much.

This is because both parties spend about as much - democrats on social programs, republicans on military. But democrats tend to increase taxes; republicans tend to decrease them. One method leads to much higher deficits than the other.

This isn't something that republicans like to hear; they immediately fall back on the "well both parties" line. But I have found it is wise to trust results more than rhetoric - and over time the democrats have increased the debt far more slowly than republicans have.

www.crfb.org

The Fiscal Impact of the Harris and Trump Campaign Plans | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

Note: This analysis has been updated to incorporate new proposals announced by the candidates since we initially published on October 7.
www.crfb.org www.crfb.org
Click to expand...
I didn't mention parties. I want debt reduction. You don't get that via politicians "representing their constituent's concerns" in the face of $38 trillion in debt. Throwing money at a problem doesn't fix the problem.
 
billvon said:
You think Americans won't be hurt by skyrocketing health care premiums. Wake up.
Click to expand...
I am awake. You are not. They could have reached the same compromise weeks ago. They put unnecessary pain on the people by refusing to. And what did they getting? Not health care renewal, their main objective. A waste of time it was, but they will blame it on the GOP.

You have to pick the time and place for your battles. This wasn't it. It caused untold suffering and harm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top