Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Trump presidency

Status
Not open for further replies.
He's been made an arse on Obamacare, restricting immigration, but he's making good progress on removing environmental protections, therefore boosting the profits of the 1%ers and no doubt the GOP will back him 100% when it comes to cutting taxes (once again) for said group.
It's all about consolidating the base of the upper percentile by using the fears and ignorance (and racist bigotry) of the lowest percentile.
Any politician in America suggesting that universal healthcare could be easily provided by a bit of 'wealth
re-distribution' and a small cut in the defence budget would be crucified by the allegations of 'commie loving socialist scumbag'
Or have I missed something?
 
What did the bill propose?
  • Cuts the Medicaid programme for low earners
  • Provides tax credits to help people pay medical bills, but reduced compared to Obamacare
  • Ends penalties on those who do not buy health coverage
  • Allows insurers to raise premiums for older people
  • Blocks federal payments to women's healthcare provider Planned Parenthood for a year
Click to expand...
Fuck you combover cunt.
 
It was the worst bill I've ever seen. I have no idea how Ryan got it written, looked at it and thought "yeah, I can sell making rural 50 year olds pay 10k more a year in premiums". I know he believes that supporting people makes them lazy, but making them shit themselves at the prospect of leaving their job or starting a business if they even somehow can afford the premium, repealing the ACA would've destroyed small group plans.

Again, worst bill I've ever seen, can't explain how much was wrong with it. My question is was the whole thing a trump/Bannon attempt to fuck Paul Ryan up? Because they don't seem that competent, but motive wise it would fit.
 
The party of capital within the GOP saw the impact this bill would have on personal disposable incomes and effective demand. They blinked and undermined the fundamentalist, neoliberal faction that Trump was pandering to.
 
brogdale said:
The party of capital within the GOP saw the impact this bill would have on personal disposable incomes and effective demand. They blinked and undermined the fundamentalist, neoliberal faction that Trump was pandering to.
Click to expand...

Surely it was the other way around in a sense, the most extreme neoliberal faction went against the bill and said that they did so because it did not go far enough and on the other end of the Republican Party you had a few against it because it went too far. Those who were willing to vote for it are the 'middle'.
 
J Ed said:
Surely it was the other way around in a sense, the most extreme neoliberal faction went against the bill and said that they did so because it did not go far enough and on the other end of the Republican Party you had a few against it because it went too far. Those who were willing to vote for it are the 'middle'.
Click to expand...
Yes. This story was doing the rounds on Twitter yesterday:

Kochs pledge millions to GOPers in 2018 -- if they vote no on health care bill - CNNPolitics.com

In a last-minute effort to sink the Republican health care bill, a powerful network of conservative donors said Wednesday it would create a new fund for Republican 2018 reelection races -- but they'll only open it up to GOPers who vote against the bill.

The advocacy groups helmed by Charles and David Koch have unveiled a new pool of money for advertisements, field programs and mailings that would exclude those who vote for the health care bill they oppose on Thursday. The effort, which they described as worth millions of dollars, is an explicit warning to on-the-fence Republicans from one of the most influential players in electoral politics not to cross them.
The Koch-aligned networks oppose the bill because they think it does not do enough to scale back former President Barack Obama's health care policies.
Click to expand...
 
On Informed Comment It’s Class Warfare, Stupid. The GOP crusade against Health Care
The struggle over health care in the United States is a form of class warfare, complicated by racism.

The Republican proposal for the “American Health Care Act,” as they called it, made this warfare clear. The bill was not so much a health care act as a massive tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, paid for by tossing 24 million people off health care.

In fact the bill failed because it made the class warfare too transparent. You can’t give CEOs $500k tax breaks and throw 24 million people off health insurance and still be representing yourself as representing “the people.” When the GOP congressmen spoke on t.v. of letting the market solve health care, what they really meant is that the poor who can’t afford health insurance would just not be able to have it. In the US, unlike India, the poor don’t vote, so Congress has no reason to fear the poor. And since the corporations managed to largely get rid of unions, they don’t fear workers, either.

The outrage is Trump’s bait and switch. He campaigned on making sure everyone has health insurance. Then his healthcare bill massively reduces the number of people who have health care plans.
...
Click to expand...
Not quite as simple as that. Sure the GOP hates redistributive policies. Conservatives tend to think of any handout to poor folks as not just a waste of their money but a poisonously sinful act that undermines Godly aspiration. The well off deserve disproportionate rewards as folk like Trump create the countries wealth by being real smart and hard working. And this mindset is pretty American appealing to folks other societies would call working class in the middle deciles who may not directly benefit. They find liberals bleating about inequality quite perplexing: like that is a bad thing? Government is there, it's too big but those that are able should grab all the goodies they can from it.

Truth is the GOP was rather divided on this. They'd been finding all sorts of reasons to hate on Obamacare mainly as a partisan means of undermining Obama. It was plainly stated that Obama was to be made a failure just as Trump has faced much the same no holds barred opposition from day one and this was his signature policy. Part of the party is simply slavering for a regressive tax cut that's sold as boosting a slow moving economy that the party has talked down again for partisan reasons. Part saw Obamacare which in the end did not displease Healthcare lobbyists with Obama gone as a fairly conservative compromise they actually could live with. Part a socialistic ideological affront that had to be completely torn down. Part of the party sees an electoral risk in withdrawing entitlements that have become reasonably popular in states that ran with them. At back of this is a reality that most seats are locked in to one party and most Republicans are going to vote Republican regardless of policies short of an absolute economic disaster.

And the truth is despite Trump's bullshitting there was no "beautiful plan" prepared that the divided GOP could ever agree on quickly let alone a cheap, universal one as most Republicans see very profitable, very expensive, healthcare with a limited availability as a reward of the righteous.
 
coley said:
But seeing him get a kick in the knackers from his own side, so early in his term? Doesn't bode well for a second term, or to be hopeful, that he will actually complete his first?
Click to expand...
Despite doing very little and vacationing frequently Trump's numbers with GOP voters are still very high. Republicans may believe in MAGA but expect government to be dysfunctional. He's still dancing on air in the conservative media. We'll see if they blame all the liberals in Congress or Obama. With swing voters he's probably dodged a bullet here.
 
J Ed said:
Surely it was the other way around in a sense, the most extreme neoliberal faction went against the bill and said that they did so because it did not go far enough and on the other end of the Republican Party you had a few against it because it went too far. Those who were willing to vote for it are the 'middle'.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, I'm sure there were plenty of ideological extremists who thought it wasn't regressive enough, but clearly the "moderate/left" of the right party of capital saw it for the economic & electoral wrecking-ball that it was.
 
In Politico Inside the GOP’s Health Care Debacle
...
"Forget about the little shit," Trump said, according to multiple sources in the room. "Let's focus on the big picture here."

The group of roughly 30 House conservatives, gathered around a mammoth, oval-shaped conference table in the Cabinet Room of the White House, exchanged disapproving looks. Trump wanted to emphasize the political ramifications of the bill's defeat; specifically, he said, it would derail his first-term agenda and imperil his prospects for reelection in 2020. The lawmakers nodded and said they understood. And yet they were disturbed by his dismissiveness. For many of the members, the "little shit" meant the policy details that could make or break their support for the bill—and have far-reaching implications for their constituents and the country.

"We’re talking about one-fifth of our economy," a member told me afterward.
...
Click to expand...
Rather revealing that. This is a country where nearly 20% of GDP goes on healthcare. Much of that is public spending. 30% of this huge bill is gobbled up in admin costs. Healthcare inflation is galloping along at 3.5% down from a long term average of 5.4%. Where 25% of all senior citizens declare bankruptcy due to medical expenses.

Trump tried to bully/charm/placate the Freedom Caucus and did turn a few of them but not enough. If they'd given more away they'd have started to lose other Republicans. A basic problem is Trump has no real grasp of policy he left it to the nerdy Ryan who is an able technocrat but a lousy salesman who took lock step party support for granted.

Trump pissed off a lot Republicans by running against the establishment and came into this with little political capital on The Hill. He has got even less now.

Trump simply doesn't want to wrestle with the complexities even when he finally realises they are there. He wants a nice clean sales pitch that glosses over problems like a few coats of paint on a crumbling Florida mansion. Now he's blaming everyone else and sailing towards tax reform just as confident that his real estate magnate superpowers will overcome any minor problem. After all what could be so difficult about that?

There's a kicker:
...
The improbability of this sequence was not lost on anyone. Earlier, as Ryan's motorcade was zipping toward the White House, I spoke with Kevin Brady, the Ways and Means chairman whose committee sits at the intersection of health care and taxes. I’ve known Brady, one of Congress’s truly decent people and a reliably cheerful spirit, for years; never had I seen him looking so despondent and defeated. Positing that health care was about to die, I asked Brady if re-writing the tax code would be any easier. “Tax reform is the hardest lift in a generation,” he told me, shaking his head. “So that would be a big challenge.”

“If you couldn’t get health care done,” I ask him, “how can you get tax reform done?”

Brady thought for a moment. “Every Republican is all-in on tax reform. We still have a lot of work. But it’s just a natural issue for us in a very positive way.”

But every Republican was all-in on repealing and replacing Obamacare, too, I told him. “Won't the devil be in the details?”

Brady stared back at me. “It always is,” he said. “It always is.”
Click to expand...
My bold.
 
CrabbedOne said:
In Politico Inside the GOP’s Health Care Debacl

There's a kicker:
My bold.
Click to expand...
So in short what many people have been saying since November.

C7t2dyaWsAEKCKu.jpg:large
 
coley said:
He's been made an arse on Obamacare, restricting immigration, but he's making good progress on removing environmental protections, therefore boosting the profits of the 1%ers and no doubt the GOP will back him 100% when it comes to cutting taxes (once again) for said group.
Click to expand...
Cutting environmental regulations is not about helping "the 1%". Its about a small group of industries that are in some cases under existential threat. Among the worlds top economists and central bankers there has been talk for a few years of "the carbon bubble".
The carbon bubble refers to the idea that there is a bubble in the valuation of companies dependent on fossil-fuel-based energy production, because the true costs of carbon dioxide in intensifying global warming are not yet taken into account in a company's stock market valuation.[1][2] Currently the price of fossil fuels companies' shares is calculated under the assumption that all fossil fuel reserves will be consumed. An estimate made by Kepler Chevreux puts the loss in value of the fossil fuel companies due to the impact of the growing renewables industry at US$28 trillion over the next two decades-long.[3][4] A more recent analysis made by Citi puts that figure at $100 trillion.[5][6]
Click to expand...
Carbon bubble - Wikipedia

Developing new oil reserves is very expensive, the big ones that are left tend to be places like ultradeep water or in the Arctic off shore. Coal is being strongly pressured by its health effects in places like China and its global warming impact across Europe. Coming down the other side of the road is a raft of new technologies that are rapidly approaching "grid parity" like solar pv, on shore wind. Others that are way way ahead of where we thought they would be a couple of years ago like grid scale lithium batteries and electric cars are starting to gain market penetration (new black cabs will be electric in a couple of years).

Most of the 1% will be little affected by this other than losses in their energy portfolios. People like the Kochs, al Sauds and Putin stand to lose massively. They are not stripping environmental regulations for more profits but to keep in business in the coming decade.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
The equivalent stat for here will be pretty high, too, I would think. Not bankruptcy per se, but selling your house and all other assets to pay for care home costs.
Click to expand...
There's something of a difference between equity release via eg Age Concern, or selling to move somewhere sheltered, and creating bankrupted paupers. Even then the tories are tied in knots by the economics of social care for the elderly, mostly from the right who care more about asset preservation than the left. As happened when the chancellor increased probate fees in the last budget, immediately leading to accusations of a 'death tax' even though it's progressive and hypothecated to pay for social care. Increasing inheritance tax is more or less politically impossible, because even people who'll never be in a position to pay it are opposed.

point being that a political system which bankrupted a quarter of the elderly wouldn't be sustainable here. (least i don't think so/hope not).
 
newbie said:
There's something of a difference between equity release via eg Age Concern, or selling to move somewhere sheltered, and creating bankrupted paupers. Even then the tories are tied in knots by the economics of social care for the elderly, mostly from the right who care more about asset preservation than the left. As happened when the chancellor increased probate fees in the last budget, immediately leading to accusations of a 'death tax' even though it's progressive and hypothecated to pay for social care. Increasing inheritance tax is more or less politically impossible, because even people who'll never be in a position to pay it are opposed.

point being that a political system which bankrupted a quarter of the elderly wouldn't be sustainable here. (least i don't think so/hope not).
Click to expand...
The system in England and Wales in particular is increasingly shit, but you're right that there are important differences. At least the elderly in the US are eligible for some help, though. For me, the most shocking facts about the US system are to do with younger people and their lack of help. It is the absence of help for those people that results in the very very ordinary overall ranking of the US on various health measures internationally, despite the vast amounts of money spent on health care overall.
 
ferrelhadley said:
Cutting environmental regulations is not about helping "the 1%". Its about a small group of industries that are in some cases under existential threat...
Click to expand...
And Golf Course owners and real estate developers. There are a lot of vested interests that would see a fast profit from a cut in environmental regs.

I'd see this more as part of an ideologically driven anti-regulatory agenda which actually has pretty wide support.

Prop up a blue collar bar and you can find a lot of distaste for state interference which does often effect working people's lives in negative ways. Bad water is often a less immediate problem than a logging business being shutdown or jobs in the shale boom contracting. Pointy headed folks trying to preserve a rare species environment really do not attract a lot of sympathy. And they don't like being made to feel like bad people for making a decent living like granddaddy with a chainsaw or some such thing.

Libertarians of Ayn Randian Objectivist variety get pretty irate about this insisting all the state needs provide is a monopoly of force and that all that needed to stave off environmental disaster is after the fact litigation.

Way up the food chain you've got predatory hedge funders like Bannon's paymaster Mercer who actually don't see need for anything but a nightwatchman state occasionally rigging the game in their favour. They want the state out of their way as they ride the ups and downs of the economy like pirates. It's a Robber Baron mentality.

A problem like global warming that requires not just state intervention but multilateral international action is simply an affront to that worldview. All that Godly extractive striving could surely not wreck the planet? Treating it as a vast conspiracy as has lately become fashionable in the GOP is in someways a logical response. It's like Young Earth Creationists and their problems with evolution. It's actually why they can't get to grips with healthcare which requires a great deal of state intervention to prevent gouging by providers.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
The system in England and Wales in particular is increasingly shit, but you're right that there are important differences. At least the elderly in the US are eligible for some help, though. For me, the most shocking facts about the US system are to do with younger people and their lack of help. It is the absence of help for those people that results in the very very ordinary overall ranking of the US on various health measures internationally, despite the vast amounts of money spent on health care overall.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with that, but what shocked me about the stat is precisely that there is medicare available for the elderly and yet still the greed in their healthcare system manages to make 1/4 of OAPs bankrupt.

{ps taking the stat at face value, I'm not pretending to know anything about what they get up to over there}.
 
newbie said:
I don't disagree with that, but what shocked me about the stat is precisely that there is medicare available for the elderly and yet still the greed in their healthcare system manages to make 1/4 of OAPs bankrupt.

{ps taking the stat at face value, I'm not pretending to know anything about what they get up to over there}.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is a shocking stat at face value. One of the problems with the 'consumer-led' model of healthcare that the US has is that all of us are very very likely to neglect our health care until an emergency, at which point we chuck everything we have at it. And that's what happens in the US - huge amounts of money are spent on what turn out to be the final months of a person's life. We all need a planning authority to take money off us when we're healthy to avoid this lopsided spending. (I definitely recognise myself in this - the power of denial is strong.)
 
littlebabyjesus said:
And that's what happens in the US - huge amounts of money are spent on what turn out to be the final months of a person's life. We all need a planning authority to take money off us when we're healthy to avoid this lopsided spending. (I definitely recognise myself in this - the power of denial is strong.)
Click to expand...
Even in the NHS 90% of the money that will be spent on you will be spent during the final months of your life, and often this spending neither lengthens nor improves the quality of your end of life one iota. There's a real problem with a perfect storm of poor social care, expectations vs reality and the tendency of modern medicine to chuck the kitchen sink at you treatment wise to increasingly diminishing returns.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Yeah, it is a shocking stat at face value. One of the problems with the 'consumer-led' model of healthcare that the US has is that all of us are very very likely to neglect our health care until an emergency, at which point we chuck everything we have at it. And that's what happens in the US - huge amounts of money are spent on what turn out to be the final months of a person's life. We all need a planning authority to take money off us when we're healthy to avoid this lopsided spending. (I definitely recognise myself in this - the power of denial is strong.)
Click to expand...
the costs towards the end are huge. I've been quite shocked at the scale of provision and expense the NHS has thrown at the three 90+ parents my partner and I have between us. Fantastic care, apparently endless resources and lovely NHS staff add up to a much better quality of life than they could possibly have ever afforded to pay for directly. Or indirectly via insurance, given that all 3 have lived for 30 years longer than their life expectancy at birth, and more than twice as long as their expectation at retirement, so it seems most unlikely an insurance company could have made a profit from them over the course of their lives.

The only sane way to deal with this is to socialise all medical care, pay for it through taxation (& NI), and allow as little profiteering as possible. But pretty much everyone this side of the pond accepts that, which is what makes their bizarre system seem so awful and inhuman.
 
Plumdaff said:
Even in the NHS 90% of the money that will be spent on you will be spent during the final months of your life, and often this spending neither lengthens nor improves the quality of your end of life one iota.
Click to expand...
fall over, break hip, hospitalised, have hip replacement, have aftercare, ongoing pain relief, physio etc until mobility restored. That's what's happened with 2 out of the 3. I don't think that can be described as 'not improving quality of life'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

editor
  • Locked
  • Poll
Merging the two Trump threads yes/no?
Replies
27
Views
734
editor
editor
J
DONALD TRUMP
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
J
Choose Kamala Harris over Donald Trump
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
Kevbad the Bad
K
J
Choose Kamala Harris over Donald Trump
Replies
5
Views
501
frogwoman
frogwoman
singsongfun
What chance does Trump have of winning the 2024 Presidential Election?
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
216
Views
12K
Lucky 888
L
Back
Top Bottom