OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[Balta1701]

um... i'm pretty sure a lot of non-hippies were against the war in iraq from the very beginning. it NEVER made sense. not just in retrospect.

You don't understand. Everyone important agreed that was a great idea. Disagreeing with that idea makes you a dirty hippie.

 

Just listen to te guy from Starbucks. That unity was great.

[NorthSideSox72]

Greg-

 

Here is the thing. Kap says it is about "what's in it for me", Balta says it actually works because we disagree and the system allows for that, and you say it doesn't work at all. You are all correct.

 

Here, to me, is the biggest (but not only) variable in this equation that throws the whole thing out of whacK; The wolf in the hen house.

 

The system we have is the best there is, in my view, in the world, probably ever. The checks and balances in place are just artistically brilliant. They are not, however, perfect. The biggest chink in that armor, where poison can leak in, is when any branch of government is responsible for holding itself accountable in a way that is self-detrimental by nature. Campaign Finance.

 

The way people are elected to Congress and the Presidency (and how SCOTUS is filled by method), as it stands, creates a situation where corruption and self-interest have enough power over the officials that it often overwhelms the greater good. And the only body that can change these rules is Congress itself. This is the nuts running the asylum.

 

Now, the thing that SHOULD be the main check against that, is YOU. The voter. The less involved and less informed the voting public is, and the few people who bother to get involved or even just vote... the further entrenched their self-interest can become.

 

Basically, its your fault.

 

Peace.

 

-NSS72

 

[greg775]

Greg-

 

Here is the thing. Kap says it is about "what's in it for me", Balta says it actually works because we disagree and the system allows for that, and you say it doesn't work at all. You are all correct.

 

Here, to me, is the biggest (but not only) variable in this equation that throws the whole thing out of whacK; The wolf in the hen house.

 

The system we have is the best there is, in my view, in the world, probably ever. The checks and balances in place are just artistically brilliant. They are not, however, perfect. The biggest chink in that armor, where poison can leak in, is when any branch of government is responsible for holding itself accountable in a way that is self-detrimental by nature. Campaign Finance.

 

The way people are elected to Congress and the Presidency (and how SCOTUS is filled by method), as it stands, creates a situation where corruption and self-interest have enough power over the officials that it often overwhelms the greater good. And the only body that can change these rules is Congress itself. This is the nuts running the asylum.

 

Now, the thing that SHOULD be the main check against that, is YOU. The voter. The less involved and less informed the voting public is, and the few people who bother to get involved or even just vote... the further entrenched their self-interest can become.

 

Basically, its your fault.

 

Peace.

 

-NSS72

 

Nice post, but my point is, we elect a person and it's like his/her campaign meant nothing.

He/she gets elected and suddenly he/she joins the partisan game.

If a Democratic president comes up with a good solution, ah, the republican politician doesn't like that. Of course the Republican can't support something of Obamas.

Ditto if a Republication president comes up with a good plan. The other side has to blast it.

I don't see it changing. NOTHING IS GETTING DONE in government.

 

You say it's my fault. It's not because whomever we elect turns into a moron once in office. Nobody wants to lead; they want their own parties to succeed and that's it.

I say the public needs to call them on this. Give us some solutions. Nobody has any money. Years are flying by.

Edited July 9, 2012 by greg775

[Jenksismyhero]

Greg-

 

Here is the thing. Kap says it is about "what's in it for me", Balta says it actually works because we disagree and the system allows for that, and you say it doesn't work at all. You are all correct.

 

Here, to me, is the biggest (but not only) variable in this equation that throws the whole thing out of whacK; The wolf in the hen house.

 

The system we have is the best there is, in my view, in the world, probably ever. The checks and balances in place are just artistically brilliant. They are not, however, perfect. The biggest chink in that armor, where poison can leak in, is when any branch of government is responsible for holding itself accountable in a way that is self-detrimental by nature. Campaign Finance.

 

The way people are elected to Congress and the Presidency (and how SCOTUS is filled by method), as it stands, creates a situation where corruption and self-interest have enough power over the officials that it often overwhelms the greater good. And the only body that can change these rules is Congress itself. This is the nuts running the asylum.

 

Now, the thing that SHOULD be the main check against that, is YOU. The voter. The less involved and less informed the voting public is, and the few people who bother to get involved or even just vote... the further entrenched their self-interest can become.

 

Basically, its your fault.

 

Peace.

 

-NSS72

 

Our system is f***ed for the reason you point out - the same groups of people are putting the same types of people into positions of power who only work for their own self-interest. We should have term limits, we should have better campaign finance rules, and we should do everything we can to have more than two major political powers. Yes, I agree in the end the voter holds all the power. But i'm convinced that 80% of this country is full of morons. The "OMG Obama is gonna pay for my gas! or OMG the gays have brought upon this drought!" crowd care more about who wins American Idol than they do who is President. The two major parties know it, they've fabricated this bulls*** "us against them" mentality because they know that even if they lose THIS election, the next one is right around the corner and it's always a 50/50 game.

 

[Balta1701]

Our system is f***ed for the reason you point out - the same groups of people are putting the same types of people into positions of power who only work for their own self-interest. We should have term limits, we should have better campaign finance rules, and we should do everything we can to have more than two major political powers. Yes, I agree in the end the voter holds all the power. But i'm convinced that 80% of this country is full of morons. The "OMG Obama is gonna pay for my gas! or OMG the gays have brought upon this drought!" crowd care more about who wins American Idol than they do who is President. The two major parties know it, they've fabricated this bulls*** "us against them" mentality because they know that even if they lose THIS election, the next one is right around the corner and it's always a 50/50 game.

I say this every time it comes up...after watching the California Legislature...I'm strongly opposed to term limits at the legislative level.

[Jenksismyhero]

I say this every time it comes up...after watching the California Legislature...I'm strongly opposed to term limits at the legislative level.

 

Because the benefit of having a guy like Strom Thurmond or Robert Byrd in the senate for FIFTY years is what? There's absolutely no positive from guys being in Congress that long. The longer they're in, the more corrupt/shady/unrepresentative they become.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

SCOTUSblog has a thorough recap of the process of the media reporting the court's decision:

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/07/were-get...ng-assessments/

[Balta1701]

Because the benefit of having a guy like Strom Thurmond or Robert Byrd in the senate for FIFTY years is what? There's absolutely no positive from guys being in Congress that long. The longer they're in, the more corrupt/shady/unrepresentative they become.

The other thing that happens though...they become better deal-makers. They actually improve at writing laws and getting them passed. You put a bunch of first or second term congresspeople in there, you get what the Republicans are dealing with right now...people who won't sign off on anything, to the detriment of not only the country, but even their own leadership/party.

[StrangeSox]

I'm much more in favor of something that lessens the power of incumbency than something that removes choice from the electorate.

[Jenksismyhero]

Here's an example of why our system sucks:

 

Obama wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for people making less than $250k. A good compromise in that it (1) keeps taxes low for the people that need them to be low, but (2) keeps taxes for those that can most afford it in a time when tax revenues are in demand.

 

So, you'd think a wonderful democratic system would help him achieve that good compromise, but nope! Not even his own party will go along with that. They want to extend the cut threshold to A MILLION DOLLARS. Because people that make ONE MILLION DOLLARS ...INDIVIDUALLY.... PER YEAR are really in need of not having to pay some additional taxes. They are starving in the bread lines with the rest of us.

 

And you think, well this is silly. Surely if these congressmen REPRESENT their constituents they would think the other way, because the vast majority of individuals within their districts would not fall anywhere near the ONE MILLION DOLLAR....INDIVIDUALLY....PER YEAR threshold. Ah, but who pays to get those people into office? THE PEOPLE IN THE MILLION DOLLAR f***ING THRESHOLD, so of course they - Republican or Democrat - will completely and utterly f*** this up so that at the end of the day the middle class will get f***ed again. Sigh.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

The other thing that happens though...they become better deal-makers. They actually improve at writing laws and getting them passed. You put a bunch of first or second term congresspeople in there, you get what the Republicans are dealing with right now...people who won't sign off on anything, to the detriment of not only the country, but even their own leadership/party.

 

Yeah because Democrats that have been there long-term, the Dick Durbin's of the world, are really all about getting laws passed even if it means compromising.

[StrangeSox]

Here's an example of why our system sucks:

 

Obama wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for people making less than $250k. A good compromise in that it (1) keeps taxes low for the people that need them to be low, but (2) keeps taxes for those that can most afford it in a time when tax revenues are in demand.

 

So, you'd think a wonderful democratic system would help him achieve that good compromise, but nope! Not even his own party will go along with that. They want to extend the cut threshold to A MILLION DOLLARS. Because people that make ONE MILLION DOLLARS ...INDIVIDUALLY.... PER YEAR are really in need of not having to pay some additional taxes. They are starving in the bread lines with the rest of us.

 

And you think, well this is silly. Surely if these congressmen REPRESENT their constituents they would think the other way, because the vast majority of individuals within their districts would not fall anywhere near the ONE MILLION DOLLAR....INDIVIDUALLY....PER YEAR threshold. Ah, but who pays to get those people into office? THE PEOPLE IN THE MILLION DOLLAR f***ING THRESHOLD, so of course they - Republican or Democrat - will completely and utterly f*** this up so that at the end of the day the middle class will get f***ed again. Sigh.

 

That's not what that link says. It says the Pelosi and Schumer have a plan that would push it up to $1M, not that they have rejected going along with the $250k level. There's no links to anything, no cites or explanation, so it's hard to figure out WTF that person is talking about.

[greg775]

Our system is f***ed for the reason you point out - the same groups of people are putting the same types of people into positions of power who only work for their own self-interest. We should have term limits, we should have better campaign finance rules, and we should do everything we can to have more than two major political powers. Yes, I agree in the end the voter holds all the power. But i'm convinced that 80% of this country is full of morons. The "OMG Obama is gonna pay for my gas! or OMG the gays have brought upon this drought!" crowd care more about who wins American Idol than they do who is President. The two major parties know it, they've fabricated this bulls*** "us against them" mentality because they know that even if they lose THIS election, the next one is right around the corner and it's always a 50/50 game.

Great great post.

 

Here's an example of why our system sucks:

 

Obama wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for people making less than $250k. A good compromise in that it (1) keeps taxes low for the people that need them to be low, but (2) keeps taxes for those that can most afford it in a time when tax revenues are in demand.

 

So, you'd think a wonderful democratic system would help him achieve that good compromise, but nope! Not even his own party will go along with that. They want to extend the cut threshold to A MILLION DOLLARS. Because people that make ONE MILLION DOLLARS ...INDIVIDUALLY.... PER YEAR are really in need of not having to pay some additional taxes. They are starving in the bread lines with the rest of us.

 

And you think, well this is silly. Surely if these congressmen REPRESENT their constituents they would think the other way, because the vast majority of individuals within their districts would not fall anywhere near the ONE MILLION DOLLAR....INDIVIDUALLY....PER YEAR threshold. Ah, but who pays to get those people into office? THE PEOPLE IN THE MILLION DOLLAR f***ING THRESHOLD, so of course they - Republican or Democrat - will completely and utterly f*** this up so that at the end of the day the middle class will get f***ed again. Sigh.

 

Excellent post. What a country.

 

[StrangeSox]

That was not an excellent post. There's not some huge amount of tension between Obama and Pelosi on that, and Obama wouldn't veto an extension along the lines that Pelosi proposed.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

That was not an excellent post. There's not some huge amount of tension between Obama and Pelosi on that, and Obama wouldn't veto an extension along the lines that Pelosi proposed.

 

You missed my point. I'm not saying that inter-party squabbles are a problem. I'm talking about the fact that it doesn't matter what party you are, you're the same because you work for people with money (I didn't think it was necessary to post a link establishing that Republicans also want the threshold to be much, much higher). A million dollar threshold is asinine. If people in government were truly representing their districts, that would not be a consideration. But as it is the middle class will get f***ed because congress works for what put them in office - $$. And the longer they're there, the more they get for those donors.

 

[Balta1701]

You missed my point. I'm not saying that inter-party squabbles are a problem. I'm talking about the fact that it doesn't matter what party you are, you're the same because you work for people with money (I didn't think it was necessary to post a link establishing that Republicans also want the threshold to be much, much higher). A million dollar threshold is asinine. If people in government were truly representing their districts, that would not be a consideration. But as it is the middle class will get f***ed because congress works for what put them in office - $$. And the longer they're there, the more they get for those donors.

So...do you think that the people who insist "getting more money in the hands of the job creators is the way out of this recession" are lying to cover for their donors or does the party that sounds like actually believe that is true?

[StrangeSox]

The $1M threshold is a small business thing. Many sb's are s-corps, so they're taxed at individual rates. Just look at the CNN link where the Republicans were already bashing him for destroying our holy job creators. Republicans don't want a threshold period. They want tax cuts for all or for none.

 

But you point to a disagreement between Obama's announced preferences and Pelosi's announced preferences as some sort of failure to negotiate and compromise, that "not even his own party will go along with that." There's an equivalency problem here, but there's also a very, very basic flaw: Pelosi's position is closer to a compromise than Obama's. If Obama's position is a good compromise with the Republican position (in political terms), then Pelosi's is even better yet but is still going to receive exactly zero support from Republicans. Your complaint here doesn't make sense and it's framed around disparaging Democrats while completely failing to note the Republican policy preferences and negotiating willingness.

Edited July 9, 2012 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

The $1M threshold is a small business thing. Many sb's are s-corps, so they're taxed at individual rates. Just look at the CNN link where the Republicans were already bashing him for destroying our holy job creators. Republicans don't want a threshold period. They want tax cuts for all or for none.

 

But you point to a disagreement between Obama's announced preferences and Pelosi's announced preferences as some sort of failure to negotiate and compromise, that "not even his own party will go along with that." There's an equivalency problem here, but there's also a very, very basic flaw: Pelosi's position is closer to a compromise than Obama's. If Obama's position is a good compromise with the Republican position (in political terms), then Pelosi's is even better yet but is still going to receive exactly zero support from Republicans. Your complaint here doesn't make sense and it's framed around disparaging Democrats while completely failing to note the Republican policy preferences and negotiating willingness.

The whole small business thing is blown way out of proportion. Most small businesses don't retain that level of income anyway, they pay it out, plow it back in, costs, depreciation, etc. Honestly, if you are running a business successful enough to retain $1M per year in earnings, you should be re-organizing to a business mode that actually makes sense for you. Most do. The number of businesses effected by this, who retain earnings between $250k and $1M as an S-corp, is very, very small.

 

Also, IMO, the best way to address this is as a structural problem in the tax code. An incorporated business should never be paying individual tax rates.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

So...do you think that the people who insist "getting more money in the hands of the job creators is the way out of this recession" are lying to cover for their donors or does the party that sounds like actually believe that is true?

 

Both. I think they're playing to the rich that got them there, and they believe as a general philosophy that the rich invest and get the economy rolling. I don't necessarily disagree with that position, but the timing isn't right for it. If taxes are going to be raised (be it raised by new legislation or raised via a refusal to extend a cut) it's stupid to do that now when the middle class, the driving force for the economy, is in the worst shapes it's been in decades.

[Jenksismyhero]

The $1M threshold is a small business thing. Many sb's are s-corps, so they're taxed at individual rates. Just look at the CNN link where the Republicans were already bashing him for destroying our holy job creators. Republicans don't want a threshold period. They want tax cuts for all or for none.

 

But you point to a disagreement between Obama's announced preferences and Pelosi's announced preferences as some sort of failure to negotiate and compromise, that "not even his own party will go along with that." There's an equivalency problem here, but there's also a very, very basic flaw: Pelosi's position is closer to a compromise than Obama's. If Obama's position is a good compromise with the Republican position (in political terms), then Pelosi's is even better yet but is still going to receive exactly zero support from Republicans. Your complaint here doesn't make sense and it's framed around disparaging Democrats while completely failing to note the Republican policy preferences and negotiating willingness.

 

So write a little line that exempts small business income. That's not a big hurdle to this.

 

And you're still not getting my point. None of this should be on the table. They all pander to the rich and govern for the benefit of the rich (which happens to include themselves) and not their actual constituents.

 

I'm not letting Repubs off the hook. I think it's patently obvious they're a part of this same problem.

[Jake]

All I can say about the current healthcare system is this: My parents both in their early 60's, have no health problems or any significant past health events, but are both slightly overweight.

 

They make just over 100,000/year

 

over 30% of our income goes to health insurance, and it doesn't even pay for preventative care like "wellness checks," gynecologist visits, colonoscopy, etc etc

[StrangeSox]

The whole small business thing is blown way out of proportion. Most small businesses don't retain that level of income anyway, they pay it out, plow it back in, costs, depreciation, etc. Honestly, if you are running a business successful enough to retain $1M per year in earnings, you should be re-organizing to a business mode that actually makes sense for you. Most do. The number of businesses effected by this, who retain earnings between $250k and $1M as an S-corp, is very, very small.

 

Also, IMO, the best way to address this is as a structural problem in the tax code. An incorporated business should never be paying individual tax rates.

 

I do not disagree. IIRC Bechtel (among others) is multi-billion dollar firm but gets lumped under the "small business" definition politically because it's an S-Corp.

[StrangeSox]

So write a little line that exempts small business income. That's not a big hurdle to this.

 

And you're still not getting my point. None of this should be on the table. They all pander to the rich and govern for the benefit of the rich (which happens to include themselves) and not their actual constituents.

 

I'm not letting Repubs off the hook. I think it's patently obvious they're a part of this same problem.

 

But the whole way you framed that post still doesn't make any sense. You brought that up as an example of how nobody can compromise and get things done. Obama's reasonable $250k position, as you called it, is further away from a compromise than Pelosi's $1M position. That whole section of the post doesn't make any sense if it's b****ing about pandering to the wealthy.

 

[StrangeSox]

All I can say about the current healthcare system is this: My parents both in their early 60's, have no health problems or any significant past health events, but are both slightly overweight.

 

They make just over 100,000/year

 

over 30% of our income goes to health insurance, and it doesn't even pay for preventative care like "wellness checks," gynecologist visits, colonoscopy, etc etc

 

Are they on employer-provided plans or individual family plans?

[Jenksismyhero]

But the whole way you framed that post still doesn't make any sense. You brought that up as an example of how nobody can compromise and get things done. Obama's reasonable $250k position, as you called it, is further away from a compromise than Pelosi's $1M position. That whole section of the post doesn't make any sense if it's b****ing about pandering to the wealthy.

 

Yeah my post (1) isn't that complicated and (2) isn't about "getting things done." I'm not arguing that our system sucks because no one can agree so everything just gets stuck in the mud. I'm saying Obama's position is pretty reasonable given the circumstances and benefits the most people. Yet our system is f***ed up because politicians on the same side of the aisle (who should be backing him) won't agree to it because they're beholden to the wealthy people that got them in office. You can parse words if you wish and say they haven't yet disagreed, they're just proposing a higher threshold, but to me it's the same thing. And they're acting just like the other side that won't even come to the negotiating table because they too are beholden to their wealthy people (a point I didn't think needed to be spelled out). Ergo, our system sucks because no one is working for what benefits the most people - the middle class.

 

Perhaps you're getting hung up on my use of "compromise." I meant it more like, hey this position is a good middle-of-the-road solution for this issue.