Archive

Impressed by Trump administration

  • Con_Alma
    sleeper;1833198 wrote:So no acknowledgement of the nearly triple investment from GM during Obama's Presidency?

    Your bias is showing.
    I congratulate President Obama for inspiring/convincing this large investment from GM.
  • CenterBHSFan
    @ Sleeper

    When the democrats shoved Obamacare down our throat, it had long-lasting consequences. Most American's don't want all that the bill forces on them, must less a more condensed version or single payer.
    Don't want to take my word for it? Ok.

    While it is normal/common for a President to lose others seats of his political party throughout the nation, Obama owns the all time record.

    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-lost-900-seats-state-legislatures-o/
    Democrats during Obama’s presidency lost 11 governorships, 13 U.S. Senate seats, 69 House seats, and 913 state legislative seats and 30 state legislative chambers.
    http://www.npr.org/2016/03/04/469052020/the-democratic-party-got-crushed-during-the-obama-presidency-heres-why

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/14/obamas-legacy-democratic-losses-party-chaos/

    People in the US reject ideologies and force-feedings by revolting through votes. The numbers speak for themselves on this. And, while you may very well admire what most of Europe does, most American's could not care less. The factual numbers tell that story. Don't hold your breath for single payer.
  • jmog
    ptown_trojans_1;1833177 wrote:
    Soooo that will do nothing.
    DOD will increase and the cuts are not part of the mandatory spending. That means you are only cutting at the margins and really less than 5% of the annual budget.Also this would largely by the FY19 budget as the FY18 is largely written already.
    Cool story bro.

    If you are really serious about shrinking Government, talk to me when DOD and all the entitlements are on the table.
    100% correct, all 3 major entitlements as well as the DoD need to be on the table for cuts if we really want to be serious about shrinking government.

    The problem is that the Rs won't agree with cutting DoD costs and the Ds will run ads about "throwing granny off a cliff" if SS/Medicare is mentioned for cuts.

    Trump is such an "outsider" that he may be able to get that done, but I don't believe it until I see it.
  • sleeper
    CenterBHSFan;1833205 wrote:@ Sleeper

    When the democrats shoved Obamacare down our throat, it had long-lasting consequences. Most American's don't want all that the bill forces on them, must less a more condensed version or single payer.
    Don't want to take my word for it? Ok.

    While it is normal/common for a President to lose others seats of his political party throughout the nation, Obama owns the all time record.

    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-lost-900-seats-state-legislatures-o/


    http://www.npr.org/2016/03/04/469052020/the-democratic-party-got-crushed-during-the-obama-presidency-heres-why

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/14/obamas-legacy-democratic-losses-party-chaos/

    People in the US reject ideologies and force-feedings by revolting through votes. The numbers speak for themselves on this. And, while you may very well admire what most of Europe does, most American's could not care less. The factual numbers tell that story. Don't hold your breath for single payer.
    Most Americans are stupid and don't have the capacity to understand the intricacies of health insurance/care in this country.

    There are a couple of realities that people don't understand and that Obamacare addressed:

    #1) For pre-existing conditions, by sending these Americans into high risk pools you make their costs prohibitively high enough that they can't get health insurance. The pool of Americans that can afford $15,000 a month in healthcare is about zero so these people are either A) sentenced to death(the christian thing to do) or B) They don't get any form of insurance, default on medical bills, and burden the American people anyway(this is what happens). Obamacare allowed us to collect something from these high risk pools by forcing them to get insurance in exchange for monthly payments to a insurance plan.

    #2) ER visits, which you cannot legally turn away for financial reasons, are THE most expensive form of healthcare. They are also the most used for non-emergency services because you can't go to a cheaper PCP if you don't have health insurance. Obamacare attempted to reduce overall costs by driving down emergency room visits and therefore costs but I'd argue it didn't go far enough. Single payer allows the pool to always opt for the lowest cost for the service needed.

    #3) Drug prices. Drug prices are high in this country because the government allows them to be. The pharmaceutical industry spends billions a year convincing people that they need high drug prices to drive innovation for new products when that simply is not true. The government already subsidies medical research through the NIH and the high drug prices are just to pilfer American citizens. Other countries don't put up with that shit and therefore spend far less in drugs than America. Single payer basically makes the government the only negotiating entity and can drive down drug costs to be in line with the rest of the world.

    #4) Healthcare is not a normal market. I'm all for the free market but the reality is, if you took any Econ course greater than 101, you'd understand how unique the healthcare market is. For example, the price of a service is by an "invisible hand" that guides the buyer and the seller into a market clearing price. If they can't agree, the buyer can find another seller until an agreement is made. Now imagine you are having a heart attack and you need medical attention within the next 5 minutes or you will DIE. You aren't going to go to hospital A and say "How much to treat a heart attack"? and if the price is too high you aren't going to drive 20 minutes to Hospital B and try the same thing. In addition, you don't know all the services you will need upon entering therefore the price isn't always transparent(maybe you need a stent, maybe you need to use the AED machine, maybe you need a blood transfusion, etc.) With single payer, the government can look at data and go "We will reimburse you X dollars for Y service based on historical cost" and the hospital can either agree or close. They will agree just like every other country on the planet because they want to make money too.

    #5) Early treatment. The earlier you catch a disease/issue the cheaper the issue is to resolve. The problem is, with the current system, going to the ER room when the issue materializes instead a disaster is the highest cost/worst outcome. If we had single payer, people can catch diseases earlier by going to the PCP for annual physicals and therefore reduce total aggregate costs.

    Anyways, that's just some of the examples of the realities that Americans don't understand. Obamacare isn't great, but it did push the issue in the right direction and reversing that direction is absolute insanity. If anything, Obamacare should be scrapped and replaced with Single Payer insurance for all paid through taxes.
  • sleeper
    Con_Alma;1833203 wrote:I didn't vote for him but I'd be happy to own it s long as the increased spending is for military and defense purposes.
    Right because we currently don't spend enough right now on defense. It's only more than the next 30 countries combined, it needs to be more than the next 100.
  • BGFalcons82
    Why did you respond to QO's correct statements about the failed February 2009 "Stimulus" plan with a link to a report about TARP, which was enacted in late 2008? As you know, a large part of TARP has been re-paid while none, zero, nada, zilch of the $800,000,000,000+ "Stimulus" was ever repaid.

    Quaker is spot on when he notes the $2,700,000,000,000 budget expanded by roughly $800,000,000,000 and never returned to the pre-"Stimulus" level. Ever. We need to also remember the $350,000,000,000 Omnibus Spending Bill that Obama signed about a month after the "Stimulus" bill was signed. He literally threw over a trillion$ into the economy and it had no significant impact, other than to reward his supporters with taxpayer money.
  • Con_Alma
    sleeper;1833220 wrote:Right because we currently don't spend enough right now on defense. It's only more than the next 30 countries combined, it needs to be more than the next 100.
    I would support such efforts.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    BGFalcons82;1833237 wrote:Why did you respond to QO's correct statements about the failed February 2009 "Stimulus" plan with a link to a report about TARP, which was enacted in late 2008? As you know, a large part of TARP has been re-paid while none, zero, nada, zilch of the $800,000,000,000+ "Stimulus" was ever repaid.

    Quaker is spot on when he notes the $2,700,000,000,000 budget expanded by roughly $800,000,000,000 and never returned to the pre-"Stimulus" level. Ever. We need to also remember the $350,000,000,000 Omnibus Spending Bill that Obama signed about a month after the "Stimulus" bill was signed. He literally threw over a trillion$ into the economy and it had no significant impact, other than to reward his supporters with taxpayer money.
    Correct. The guy mentioned TARP, and I just a quick search for 5 seconds. As for the stimulus that has kept going, fine, the R's have the Congress and White House, then find it and cut it. Simple.
    If they are serious about cutting the budget, they will find it and cut it. That is Paul Ryan's job right?
  • Con_Alma
    I'd take a balanced budget path plan. Extended it over 20 years or so. Build in a clause for exemptions based on congressional declaration of war.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Con_Alma;1833248 wrote:I'd take a balanced budget path plan. Extended it over 20 years or so. Build in a clause for exemptions based on congressional declaration of war.
    Yet, you want to continue DOD spending?
    Good luck squaring that circle.
  • Con_Alma
    I'd take DOD spending over social program increases, yes. Show me a balanced budget path over several decades. I'll listen. Until then if we're going to go further in debt I'd rather see in on defense.
  • QuakerOats
    Con_Alma;1833248 wrote:I'd take a balanced budget path plan. Extended it over 20 years or so. Build in a clause for exemptions based on congressional declaration of war.
    It could easily be balanced in 4 years if all the marbles are on the table, and frankly with very little pain. Even an average turnaround professional could get it done. We inflated the budget by $800 billion beginning in '09; we could easily back that off by $200 billion a year for 4 years and cover our deficit. Then the longer-term, 20 year path, of running surpluses and paying off at least half our debt needs to be put in place. I would have a field day knocking out 20% of the federal budget; the largesse and lack of accountability are stunning.
  • QuakerOats
    Hyundai increasing US investment by 50% to $3.1 billion.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Con_Alma;1833251 wrote:I'd take DOD spending over social program increases, yes. Show me a balanced budget path over several decades. I'll listen. Until then if we're going to go further in debt I'd rather see in on defense.
    Fair from a defense hawk.
    QuakerOats;1833275 wrote:It could easily be balanced in 4 years if all the marbles are on the table, and frankly with very little pain. Even an average turnaround professional could get it done. We inflated the budget by $800 billion beginning in '09; we could easily back that off by $200 billion a year for 4 years and cover our deficit. Then the longer-term, 20 year path, of running surpluses and paying off at least half our debt needs to be put in place. I would have a field day knocking out 20% of the federal budget; the largesse and lack of accountability are stunning.
    I want world peace, which is just as likely as what you outlined.

    I will say I agree that there needs to be accountability in the Budget, especially in the big 3 programs. The DOD has a lot of redundancy that could easily be sliced. Same I'm sure goes to SS and Medicare/ caid. If we cannot give a massive balance, let's hope the new admin and Congress can put forth good budget measures that at least tackle these issues.
    But, I'm not holding my breath.
  • like_that
    ptown_trojans_1;1833250 wrote:Yet, you want to continue DOD spending?
    Good luck squaring that circle.
    I am down for making DOD cuts. I remember Gary Johnson wanted to cut them by 43% and it still would take the DOD back to 2005 spending. Sign me up for that. There is a ton of fat in the DOD that needs to be cut. It drives me crazy. The JSF acquisition team has also done a terrible job keeping that program under budget.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    like_that;1833282 wrote:I am down for making DOD cuts. I remember Gary Johnson wanted to cut them by 43% and it still would take the DOD back to 2005 spending. Sign me up for that. There is a ton of fat in the DOD that needs to be cut. It drives me crazy. The JSF acquisition team has also done a terrible job keeping that program under budget.
    Oh, agree. Last month the Post released a story about an internal DOD review about cutting the fat from the back end, places like the Defense Logistics Agency, and streamlining the process. Report said it would have saved about $125B over 5 years. But, the DOD leadership squashed it.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-buries-evidence-of-125-billion-in-bureaucratic-waste/2016/12/05/e0668c76-9af6-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.3ef4cb1edea3
  • like_that
    ptown_trojans_1;1833283 wrote:Oh, agree. Last month the Post released a story about an internal DOD review about cutting the fat from the back end, places like the Defense Logistics Agency, and streamlining the process. Report said it would have saved about $125B over 5 years. But, the DOD leadership squashed it.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-buries-evidence-of-125-billion-in-bureaucratic-waste/2016/12/05/e0668c76-9af6-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.3ef4cb1edea3
    You had me at DLA. Slash em.
  • sleeper
    Count me in the group that thinks DoD is full of fat.

    You could trim $100B off the DoD budget with no impact to national defense tomorrow.
  • sleeper
    QuakerOats;1833279 wrote:Hyundai increasing US investment by 50% to $3.1 billion.
    A beautiful way to end Obama's legacy; business dollars are pouring in before Trump can ruin everything.

    We have elected the enemy.
  • Con_Alma
    ptown_trojans_1;1833281 wrote:Fair from a defense hawk.



    I want world peace, which is just as likely as what you outlined.

    I will say I agree that there needs to be accountability in the Budget, especially in the big 3 programs. The DOD has a lot of redundancy that could easily be sliced. Same I'm sure goes to SS and Medicare/ caid. If we cannot give a massive balance, let's hope the new admin and Congress can put forth good budget measures that at least tackle these issues.
    But, I'm not holding my breath.
    I have no issues with anything you've posted here including labeling me as a defense hawk which I willingly admit to.

    In addition I support accountability and scrutiny on budgeting issues. I long for the day of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. I think that would force the issue.
  • QuakerOats
    sleeper;1833291 wrote:A beautiful way to end Obama's legacy; business dollars are pouring in before Trump can ruin everything.

    We have elected the enemy.
    Actually their decision is based on market conditions improving as the Trump administration lifts the shackles off of businesses and consumers.
  • sleeper
    QuakerOats;1833322 wrote:Actually their decision is based on market conditions improving as the Trump administration lifts the shackles off of businesses and consumers.
    GM laying off 2,000 workers on Friday.

    http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/18/news/economy/donald-trump-gm-lordstown-job-cuts-ohio/index.html
  • sleeper
    The greatest irony is the alleged "Greatest Jobs creator ever' will have -2,000 on Day 1.
  • like_that
    Don't worry, Trump will bully GM into adding more jobs and then republicans who used to be about the free market will applaud him.
  • QuakerOats
    sleeper;1833333 wrote:The greatest irony is the alleged "Greatest Jobs creator ever' will have -2,000 on Day 1.
    Hell he saved 5 times that many before he ever took office. Looking forward to the executive actions starting tomorrow that will nullify the actions of obama; the repeal of the largest legislative disaster in history, and the roll back of thousands of regulations in week 1. The spikes in business and consumer confidence since the election bode well.

    Change we can really believe in ...