Scrim 115 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Repubs have demonstrates their unwillingness to carry through with campaign promises for decades. That's why Trump got elected. Hardly makes sense that his base will blame him for them doing more of the same. The Democrats under Obama have done so much damage to the US Healthcare system that is going to be very hard to just return it to the state of dysfunction it was in before they reamed it down our throats. Besides the Democrats have lost over 1,000 seats in the last 8 years. We have such a cushion we can afford to lose a few seats and all maintain control. At least long enough to stack the Supreme Court for our lifetimes. Trump was elected by a zombie vote that is not guaranteed to turn out again in 2020, especially if they have 4 years of Reality-Trump which isn't quite as inspiring as Trump-In-Theory was in 2016. I've said since day 1 that if there was one thing about Trump that I could get behind, it was that he called for breaking up the insurance monopolies which would bring competition to the marketplace and likely bring down costs. Not only has that not happened and fallen completely off the radar, but they're now trying to repeal Obamacare without having any replacement at all and leaving the monopolies in place, meaning that we're literally going back to a time when insurance was only available to people in perfect health while healthcare costs were a guaranteed bankruptcy for anyone who endured them out of pocket. Obamacare absolutely corrected a horrible dysfunction in our system. This doesn't mean Obamacare is 'perfect' or even 'good' but throwing out the baby with the bathwater to 'fulfill a campaign promise' is going to cost them dearly against an inspired- bordering on hysterical- (D) base next go round. The Supreme Court is absolutely on the line. Is abolishing Obamacare and leaving a shitload of people in the lurch more important than that? Because if they choose that path, it will cost them those SCOTUS nominations and the Democrats will take it all away. Link to post Share on other sites
JustDoIt 10 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Country cleaning up the mess Obama, Clinton left. https://pjmedia.com/...singlepage=true Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 Trump was elected by a zombie vote that is not guaranteed to turn out again in 2020, especially if they have 4 years of Reality-Trump which isn't quite as inspiring as Trump-In-Theory was in 2016. I've said since day 1 that if there was one thing about Trump that I could get behind, it was that he called for breaking up the insurance monopolies which would bring competition to the marketplace and likely bring down costs. Not only has that not happened and fallen completely off the radar, but they're now trying to repeal Obamacare without having any replacement at all and leaving the monopolies in place, meaning that we're literally going back to a time when insurance was only available to people in perfect health while healthcare costs were a guaranteed bankruptcy for anyone who endured them out of pocket. Obamacare absolutely corrected a horrible dysfunction in our system. This doesn't mean Obamacare is 'perfect' or even 'good' but throwing out the baby with the bathwater to 'fulfill a campaign promise' is going to cost them dearly against an inspired- bordering on hysterical- (D) base next go round. The Supreme Court is absolutely on the line. Is abolishing Obamacare and leaving a shitload of people in the lurch more important than that? Because if they choose that path, it will cost them those SCOTUS nominations and the Democrats will take it all away. Disagree about Trump voters being a one off. Will have another election to see which of us is right. But I don't see Trump going down in polls, only going up. He's higher now than when he won the election. As far as Healthcare I don't believe obamacare did anything positive, nor do I think it was their intention to do positive. They (dems) want single payer. They needed to crash the existing system first, to force us into single payer. Republicans have shown that they are idiots, willing to ignore their promises. They keep getting elected. Hard to make the case that this time, they'll pay for being politicians. Any fix will hurt. Any fix. Government is not capable of fixing system by virtue of their make up. I have no hope anything positive will come for US Healthcare. But people who refuse to pay for coverage so they can get the latest iPhone and travel should not get to hold the system hostage when they get sick from life style choices. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 Country cleaning up the mess Obama, Clinton left. https://pjmedia.com/...singlepage=true Come on, Hillary and Obama wanted to show how pro Islam they were. A few hundred thousand deaths is a small price to pay for their feeling good at parties. Link to post Share on other sites
GOCUBSGO 77 Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 You know what I always say...if PJMedia.com runs the story, it HAS to be true. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/former-chairs-presidents-council-economic-advisers-urge-president-imposing-steel-tariffs/ Insight July 12, 2017 FORMER CEA CHAIRS URGE PRESIDENT NOT TO IMPOSE STEEL TARIFFS Dear Mr. President: The undersigned former Chairs of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers represent a broad swath of political and economic views. Among us are Republicans and Democrats alike, and we have disagreements on a number of policy issues. But on some policies there is near universal agreement. One such issue is the harm of imposing tariffs on steel imports. Media reports indicate that you are contemplating using your authority under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to initiate the process of imposing steel tariffs because of a putative threat to national security. We urge the Administration not to take this action. The United States already has over 150 countervailing and antidumping duties on steel imports, including some as high as 266 percent. We import steel from over 110 countries and territories, but the top source countries are important allies like Canada, Brazil, South Korea, and Mexico. Additional tariffs would likely do harm to our relations with these friendly nations; officials from Canada, United Kingdom, the European Union, Germany, and the Netherlands have already voiced concern. Previous experience with emergency steel tariffs under President Bush bear out these concerns. Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Thailand, and Turkey were given exemptions in response to the backlash, and the World Trade Organization ultimately ruled against the steel tariffs. The diplomatic costs might be worth it if the tariffs generated economic benefits. But they would not. Additional steel tariffs would actually damage the U.S. economy. Tariffs would raise costs for manufacturers, reduce employment in manufacturing, and increase prices for consumers. We urge you to avoid a policy that would likely incur greater economic and diplomatic costs than any conceivable national security gain. Sincerely, Martin Baily Bernard L. Schwartz Chair in Economic Policy Development and Senior Fellow in Economic Studies, The Brookings Institution Ben Bernanke Distinguished Fellow in Residence, Economic Studies, The Brookings Institution Michael J. Boskin T.M. Friedman Professor of Economics at Stanford University, Senior Fellow at The Hoover Institution Martin Feldstein George F. Baker Professor of Economics at Harvard University, President Emeritus of the National Bureau of Economic Research Jason Furman Professor of Practice, Harvard Kennedy School Austan Goolsbee Robert P. Gwinn Professor of Economics, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business Alan Greenspan President, Greenspan Associates, LLC Glenn Hubbard Dean and Russell L. Carson Professor of Finance and Economics, Columbia Business School Alan B. Krueger Bendheim Professor of Economics and Public Affairs, Princeton University Edward Lazear The Davies Family Professor of Economics at Stanford Graduate School of Business, Morris Arnold and Nona Jean Cox Senior Fellow at The Hoover Institution Greg Mankiw Robert M. Beren Professor of Economics, Harvard University Christina Romer Garff B. Wilson Professor of Economics, University of California, Berkeley Harvey S. Rosen John L. Weinberg Professor of Economics and Business Policy, Princeton University Joseph Stiglitz University Professor, Columbia University Laura Tyson Distinguished Professor of the Graduate School University of California, Berkeley Read more: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/former-chairs-presidents-council-economic-advisers-urge-president-imposing-steel-tariffs/#ixzz4mfHUPEwy Follow us: @AAF on Twitter Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Jason FurmanVerified account @jasonfurman If @JosephEStiglitz & Glenn Hubbard agree it is probably true. Steel tariffs would put US--& US manufacturing--last. First letter I am aware of that includes all former CEA Chairs (except Janet Yellen, who is precluded from considering such letters). The economics are not hard. Higher steel prices would hurt U.S. manufacturers that rely on steel. And U.S. industries hurt by retaliation. The geopolitics are not hard. Less than 5% of our steel comes from China. This would be an economic attack on allies like Canada and the EU. The law should not be hard. Claiming natl security is specious when a tiny fraction of steel used in defense. And it comes from US & allies. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 All I know about Kid Rock is he was playing for the troops when the rest of the celebrity class was bad mouthing the war. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/07/federal_court_to_rule_if_a_mon.html Next time you want to use the ACLU as an example of anything positive or good, remember that they brought a suit to argue an animal has copyright privileges on a photographer. Link to post Share on other sites
Scrim 115 Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Martin Baily Bernard L. Schwartz Chair in Economic Policy Development and Senior Fellow in Economic Studies, The Brookings Institution Ben Bernanke Distinguished Fellow in Residence, Economic Studies, The Brookings Institution Michael J. Boskin T.M. Friedman Professor of Economics at Stanford University, Senior Fellow at The Hoover Institution Martin Feldstein George F. Baker Professor of Economics at Harvard University, President Emeritus of the National Bureau of Economic Research Jason Furman Professor of Practice, Harvard Kennedy School Austan Goolsbee Robert P. Gwinn Professor of Economics, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business Alan Greenspan President, Greenspan Associates, LLC Glenn Hubbard Dean and Russell L. Carson Professor of Finance and Economics, Columbia Business School Alan B. Krueger Bendheim Professor of Economics and Public Affairs, Princeton University Edward Lazear The Davies Family Professor of Economics at Stanford Graduate School of Business, Morris Arnold and Nona Jean Cox Senior Fellow at The Hoover Institution Greg Mankiw Robert M. Beren Professor of Economics, Harvard University Christina Romer Garff B. Wilson Professor of Economics, University of California, Berkeley Harvey S. Rosen John L. Weinberg Professor of Economics and Business Policy, Princeton University Joseph Stiglitz University Professor, Columbia University Laura Tyson Distinguished Professor of the Graduate School University of California, Berkeley This strikes me as just more anti-Semitic trope about how the Jews are out to harm the American worker to benefit the "merchant class". Actually surprised to see Bob post this sort of thing. Link to post Share on other sites
mrfritz 885 Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 Wtf Bob Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 #CNNDIRT is amazing. People are scouring CNN employees twitter accounts and retweeing all the racists, vile, disgusting things they've tweeted. CNN employees are scrambling to erase, but the internet is forever. One guy erased his entire account, but not before his stuff was put out there. CNN must really be regretting that they tried to dox a guy over a meme. Never go to war with somebody wwho buys ink by the barrel?...pfft. Never go to war with people who buy Adderall by the case. Link to post Share on other sites
Scrim 115 Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 I've been reading a lot about Strategic Defense Initiative in the 1980's. https://en.wikipedia...ense_Initiative SDI was the proposed moonshot of the 1980's. While it was absolutely a major engineering challenge, notwithstanding various media fantasies... ...nothing about the concept was impossible or even improbable. Tough? Yes... but so was the idea of flying a rocketship into space with men on the tip, blasting that and some kind of launch vehicle off onto the moon, then returning in a capsule. That's how engineering goes. Shit seems insane until someone does it, then nobody thinks twice about the fact that we now carry supercomputers in our pockets. An interesting fact about SDI is that while the proposed technology was definitely aggressive, most of the people who sneered at it fundamentally didn't understand how ICBMs actually worked and that they operated largely in space (the space race itself had nothing to do with astronauts or achievements of mankind. That was a byproduct. It was ICBMs with nuclear warheads and nuking Russians). Most people thought that they were like 'cruise missiles' and that SDI was a grandiosity. The Russians knew better. It wasn't. But, as history has shown constantly, the threat of something is often times enough to achieve desired ends without actually doing that thing. So, SDI was literally all upside. It was a huge engineering challenge that we would either take on (and thrust our aerospace industry and near-earth orbit operational capacity ahead by 100 years) or not take on but make the Russians shit themselves. SDI was the great masterstroke of the Reagan presidency. It lead to the absurd over-construction of grossly expensive ICBM systems by the Russians, until the camels back broke in the mid 80's and they went all peristroika later that year. Collapsed all together a few years later. All because of economic conditions created in response to SDI. We need to return to an era of high stakes geopolitical trolling... but I think the reason we didn't nuke ourselves in the 1960's-1980's is because the world was run by people who saw World War II and realized that nuclear war would be much worse. The world is now run by people who have never seen the horrors of civilization-wide devastation so its far more abstract. A very good 1980's documentary'ish breakdown of SDI (30 or so minutes, worth it) Link to post Share on other sites
JustDoIt 10 Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 Why these Canadians would take Trump over Trudeau http://nypost.com/2017/07/15/why-these-canadians-would-take-trump-over-trudeau/ Link to post Share on other sites
Scrim 115 Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 Canada is presently in that 'early Sweden' phase where they can keep taking in the 3rd World without the consequences spilling onto the doorsteps of regular Canadians, so the idealists control things and the people forced to live with the reality of their idealism and speak out about it are shouted down as 'racists'. It will take another generation of these policies before the consequences set in, idealism is abandoned by large groups of the population and the expected backlash begins. This could accelerate if ultra left wing policy changes are implemented or there's some critical mass of "refugees" that starts turning entire cities like is happening in Europe and to a much lesser (cut still real) extent, the US. Also, I, for one, find Canada a bit racist in that they seem to have a strong bias for Asian immigrants. Why such a hard line on Africans? And particularly all those Ethiopians fleeing the brutal civil war in Syria. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
JustDoIt 10 Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 A true journalist https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/07/17/sharyl_attkisson_journalists_are_so_afraid_of_president_trump_they_have_suspended_normal_rules_and_standards.html Link to post Share on other sites
JustDoIt 10 Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 A true journalist......she is back today. Powerful timeline. It’s revealed that in the election year of 2016, the Obama administration vastly expanded its searches of NSA database for Americans and the content of their emails and phone calls: From 9500 searches involving 198 Americans in 2013 to 30,355 searches of 5,288 Americans in 2016. https://sharylattkisson.com/obama-era-surveillance-timeline/ Link to post Share on other sites
GOCUBSGO 77 Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 A true journalist https://www.realclea..._standards.html Nothing about that article is true or balanced journalism. She was pushing a pro-Republican agenda for years at CBS and has had an axe to grind ever since she resigned. Maybe she really did resign because she wasn't willing to spin the news the way CBS wanted her to, but she's refused to ever show an example or cite specifics regarding how they supposedly stifled her reporting. And the notion that this woman is a credible journalist is laughable. This is a woman who pushed the anti-vaccine movement and claims that a link exists between vaccines and autism, which of course has been widely dismissed by the science community. She also claimed to have Benghazi emails that were authentic, but ended up being edited summaries provided to her by Republicans that included made up quotes and missing information. She basically pushed every discredited conspiracy about Benghazi that Republicans fed to her. She pushed a false story about security risks associated with the Obamacare website. She was either a really shitty journalist or she was pushing the right's agenda. CPAC tried to give her an award for christ's sake. If that doesn't raise a red flag for you, then you are even more oblivious than I could have imagined. She claims she isn't a conservative but immediately went to work for a news site run by a conservative think tank following her departure for CBS. Your promotion of her as a true journalist is nothing but you finding someone who validates the narrative you want to believe. Link to post Share on other sites
GOCUBSGO 77 Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 It's also very telling how the right only wants to discuss Obama and Hillary instead of the actual President. I suppose it is an understandable defense mechanism to deflect given the constant failures of the Trump administration. I can see why you would want to shift the focus somewhere else with the constant investigations, resignations, and continuing emergence of additional evidence further linking Trump to Russia, etc. Link to post Share on other sites
GOCUBSGO 77 Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 Let's see how quickly Trump backtracks on the whole "let's let Obamacare fail, it will be easier" statement. I'm guessing tomorrow. Within the week for sure. They'll throw together another awful plan that they will try to shove down everyone's throats or maybe they'll realize its hopeless and just punt all together. It's comical how bad they've bungled what should have been their biggest win. Obamacare isn't failing fast enough for waiting to be a viable strategy. Unfortunately for them, they can't agree on how healthcare should look moving forward and refuse to work with the Dems because they know they would lose all leverage. Basically they are screwed. Link to post Share on other sites
JustDoIt 10 Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 Nothing about that article is true or balanced journalism. She's been a right wing media darling ever since resigning from CBS after revealing herself as anti-Obama. She isn't writing fair and balanced articles. She's writing anti-Obama, pro-Trump pieces littered with conservative bias. Check her out on Full Measure......Real Journalism. She isn't writing fair and balanced articles. She's writing anti-Obama, pro-Trump pieces littered with conservative bias. Really, obvious you have not read her stuff, she has taken them down on both sides of the isles. You really are clueless and totally blinded. Link to post Share on other sites
JustDoIt 10 Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 Sharyl Attkisson gives it straight to Loretta Lynch http://www.politico....-hearing-001103 David Rhodes the brother of Ben Rhoades is the President of CBS News. To many inbred s in Washington. Media career path: Cry 'media bias' By DYLAN BYERS http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/sharyl-attkisson-media-bias-105153?o=0 Link to post Share on other sites
GOCUBSGO 77 Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 Check her out on Full Measure......Real Journalism. She isn't writing fair and balanced articles. She's writing anti-Obama, pro-Trump pieces littered with conservative bias. Really, obvious you have not read her stuff, she has taken them down on both sides of the isles. You really are clueless and totally blinded. I'm actually very familiar with her work. If she is taking them down on both sides of the aisle like you supposedly claim she is, how come she is a right wing media darling? They've defended her vehemently ever since she resigned from CBS. I don't know about the fantasy land that you live in, but in the real world, the right doesn't support or defend journalists who are critical of them. Fair journalists wouldn't be nominated by CPAC for awards or defended by every major right wing media outlet, especially if she was taking them down on both sides of the aisle. Her work towards the end of her career at CBS was laughably bad. But since she is anti Obama and supports the narratives you wish to believe, you trumpet her as a true journalist. Link to post Share on other sites
GOCUBSGO 77 Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 Let's see how quickly Trump backtracks on the whole "let's let Obamacare fail, it will be easier" statement. I'm guessing tomorrow. Within the week for sure. They'll throw together another awful plan that they will try to shove down everyone's throats or maybe they'll realize its hopeless and just punt all together. It's comical how bad they've bungled what should have been their biggest win. Obamacare isn't failing fast enough for waiting to be a viable strategy. Unfortunately for them, they can't agree on how healthcare should look moving forward and refuse to work with the Dems because they know they would lose all leverage. Basically they are screwed. Nailed it. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-idUSKBN1A40UX 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now