Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't, but that doesn't mean that any random change will fix it. Your argument is then as follows: 1-We must do something 2-{This} is something 3-Therefore, me must do {This} You won't find many of us arguing against the first assertion, but I don't think real numbers say that it's insurance regulation that made the prices go up: It's the fact that the risk pools are full of very sick people. While deregulation wo…
> The ACA is working great for people that make so little they get subsidies. Not everyone. In NC alone, there are 377,000 people who make too little to qualify for ACA subsidies yet are not covered by Medicaid. That's a lot of people, and that's just one state. There are 19 other states that also don't have expanded Medicaid. http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts-and-features/state-by-st... Even with subsidized ACA, t…
Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]
941–950 of 1001 posts
Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]
#942Earlier quoted context omitted.
>High brow smack (condescension) like that and "basket of deplorables" are what America revolted against. Actually, the majority of Americans agreed with Hillary Clinton. She won the popular vote by over a million votes. We just use an outdated system built to appease slaveholders that does not necessarily represent the bulk will of the people. Trump won on a technicality of our (antiquated and frankly awful) system,…
> Actually, the majority of Americans agreed with Hillary Clinton. She won the popular vote by over a million votes. We just use an outdated system built to appease slaveholders that does not necessarily represent the bulk will of the people. Trump won on a technicality of our (antiquated and frankly awful) system, not on a mandate. While I agree that the electoral college is not the best system, we can't really know…
Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]
#943Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not the majority, though.
If you're talking about majority of voters, CNN projects Trump to win the popular vote http://www.cnn.com/election/results
Hillary Clinton lost the election but is winning the popular vote
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-...
Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]
#944So he's going to lower taxes on the wealthy, drop taxes on businesses, increase spending on military, destroy our national parks to extract oil, and lay off federal employees. This is going to help the middle class and the uneducated who are struggling through... magic. None of the lobbying stuff will ever see the light of day. The term limits won't happen. He's going to repeal the "illegal" Obama executive orders bu…
> A middle-class family will get a 35% tax cut. I did some back-of-the-envelope calculation to figure how our taxes could change for various income levels for married joint filers. This does not factor in any deductions. Nobody is getting a 35% tax cut. Tax rate for middle-class families will go down by around 1% only, and taxes will go up for low-income families by 2%. Single tax filers will also see an increase in…
Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]
#945Some of this sounds great - term limits on congress, a measure to reduce the revolving door effect of government officials going into lobbying. Some of it sounds ridiculous - for every new federal regulation, 2 existing regulations must be eliminated. How is that considered feasible by any rational person? It might sound great if you don't think too hard about it. The scariest things for me are the backing out of cli…
We will exactly be heading in the wrong directions. One regulations for rich Republicans and remove 2 regulations protecting poor minorities.
Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]
#946Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't, but that doesn't mean that any random change will fix it. Your argument is then as follows: 1-We must do something 2-{This} is something 3-Therefore, me must do {This} You won't find many of us arguing against the first assertion, but I don't think real numbers say that it's insurance regulation that made the prices go up: It's the fact that the risk pools are full of very sick people. While deregulation wo…
> The ACA is working great for people that make so little they get subsidies. Not everyone. In NC alone, there are 377,000 people who make too little to qualify for ACA subsidies yet are not covered by Medicaid. That's a lot of people, and that's just one state. There are 19 other states that also don't have expanded Medicaid. http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts-and-features/state-by-st... Even with subsidized ACA, t…
http://m.indyweek.com/indyweek/pat-mccrorys-refusal-to-expan...
The tax penalty is rather modest, and there are alternatives to health insurance such as religious health co-ops that control costs.
Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]
#947Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't, but that doesn't mean that any random change will fix it. Your argument is then as follows: 1-We must do something 2-{This} is something 3-Therefore, me must do {This} You won't find many of us arguing against the first assertion, but I don't think real numbers say that it's insurance regulation that made the prices go up: It's the fact that the risk pools are full of very sick people. While deregulation wo…
> The ACA is working great for people that make so little they get subsidies. Not everyone. In NC alone, there are 377,000 people who make too little to qualify for ACA subsidies yet are not covered by Medicaid. That's a lot of people, and that's just one state. There are 19 other states that also don't have expanded Medicaid. http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts-and-features/state-by-st... Even with subsidized ACA, t…
Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]
#948Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump railed against the system that allowed politicians to be bought. It turns out his solution is to term limit congress. Sounds like treating a symptom not the root cause.
I don't see how elections themselves aren't term limits. You want to end someone's reign, vote them out. Am I missing something?
Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]
#949Earlier quoted context omitted.
This falls prey to the same fallacious thinking as gambling with the house's money. Assuming we can extort billions of dollars from Mexico, that's money we could be spending on anything – why is a wall the best use for it? And if a wall is the best use for it, the government should be prepared to build it with our own tax dollars, regardless of whether we extort money from Mexico.
I believe the idea is that illegal immigrants are causing more than that amount in harm to our society, i.e. through free healthcare
Re: Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter [pdf]
#950Earlier quoted context omitted.
So then what's your alternative? Would you prefer a system without politicians? What kind of system is that? We must elect trustworthy politicians, we must make it harder for big money to interfere, and we must have faith in our government. It's hard for me to say right now, given our current president-elect, but it's true. There truly is no good alternative to democracy.
While any such system would obviously be a radical change from our current system, such systems do exist both conceptually and historically, and it's not just stateless societies. The most obvious example is sortition, whereby officials are selected randomly. Again, applying that everywhere overnight is obviously radical, but the idea is fairly sound. It's how jury duty works in the United States, and it's how Atheni…
Case in point: A couple of weeks ago, a jury acquitted the Bundys after they'd occupied a federal building and used threat of lethal force to keep federal authorities from evicting them. If you'll pardon my snark, this is what happens when you turn jurisprudence over to a handful of rednecks.
Along very similar lines, modern-day politicians make decisions affecting (in some cases) millions of lives and trillions of Dollars. The issues they decide on are complex, and ideally we'd want lawmakers to really work at their "trade:" To deeply study the issues and consult competent experts. Our current crop of professional career politicians, some of whom are evolution and warming deniers heading up education and environmental/energy committees are spectacularly failing to live up to this expectation, and there's no good reason to believe a selection of people randomly chosen from the population would do better, on average.