Florida State Seminoles

[sardis]

The fact that the Democratic Party is now piling on Hillary over this Donna Brasile expose, tells me that they have finally accepted the fact that there is nothing in the Russian scandal that will cause a reversal of the 2016 election. Not to be deterred, Hillary still keeps chugging along with her tale of woe eating away at the Democratic Party day by day. They can't get rid of the cancer.

I say, keep it up Hillary

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... ussia.html

[eCat]

"how has the republican party been severely compromised?"

Incumbents aren't seeking reelection b/c they don't want to be beholden to Trumpsters and they can't win without them. Plenty of notable longtime repubs are openly not merely lukewarm on Trump but openly hostile towards him. Maybe you see this as a good thing, but it's certainly not conducive to party cohesion. I see the republican party as being split b/w the old guard and this new iteration of the tea party. Yes, they are still in power, but it seems to be in name only. Doesn't seem like they can even get together to get something as ostensibly uncontroversial (to repubs) as Obama Care overturned. The only thing they seem to be able to agree on is tax cuts. So yeah, they're "in power", but if you're not getting anything accomplished, what good is it? Maybe you see this, too, as a good thing, but this sort of stagnation used to be b/c of gridlock b/w repubs and dems, not gridlock within one party. I think you're going to see a much more focused dem party in the next few years. We'll see...

in the case of Corker and Flake, its more of a realization that they going after Trump while being a RINO is a recipe to lose in the election.

Unless the Dem party changes their focus from identity politics to generating wealth for the working class, their focus is going to be wasted.

that isn't to say I'm happy with the republican party or condone what they do. I'd be a happy man if McCain, Ryan, McConnell and Graham were unemployed this time next year. I just don't want them replaced with some California nutjob who thinks our priorities should be gender neutral bathrooms and open borders

[bluetick]

Pop Quiz - who said the following phrase:

“Our new pro-growth tax policy will be like a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the economy. It will pave the way to the creation of massive amounts of new and higher paying jobs…”

A: Sam Brownback, Gov. of Kansas

B: Donald Trump, POTUS

C: Both, which is the correct answer and it should be noted that both tax plans are identical and Kansas is still seriously fucked because their's was actually implemented.

Everything that was ruinous in the Kansas trickle-down plan is evident in this 1.5trl GOP fandango, except for GOP extras like the repeal of the estate tax and the elimination of several popular tax credits.

[bluetick]

It’s not the most expensive piece of the new Republican tax plan, or the most economically consequential. But the single most galling aspect of the bill introduced today by Republicans in the House might be its repeal of the estate tax—a pointless sop to trust fund kids that will help ensure dynastic wealth continues stacking up in this country for years to come.

Republicans have long wanted to do away with the estate tax—they’ve successfully branded it as a “death tax” and perpetuated the myth that it threatens small family farms and mom-and-pop businesses. Today, thanks to their tireless efforts to narrow its reach, the government only touches the property of dead multi-millionaires; the first $5 million of an estate’s assets are exempt from the tax. Under the GOP’s new bill, that limit would rise to $10 million, indexed to inflation. Then the tax would disappear entirely in 2024. After that, Ivanka Trump won’t have to worry about paying the government when she inherits her father’s empire.
...............................................

I think this boondoggle bill for the rich is currently polling at 20something percent approval, about like their replace and repeal health plan last spring.

[eCat]

you shouldn't have to justify tax cuts, you should have to justify spending

if we're never going to have a balanced budget, what difference does it make?

[BigRedMan]

people just see the world thru different prisms I guess.

just last week I heard on the radio about how health insurance prices are going to jump dramatically for 2018, but not to worry, the government is going to increase the subsidies to the people that are eligible so they can still get it

and this is a good thing

except its a horrible thing because the people that are getting the subsidies are a very very small number of the people who are mandated to buy insurance - like 20m versus 180m.

So the 180m? well they have to live with the dramatic price increases brought on in large part because of our government. And yet the Jimmy Kimmels of the world are out there every day talking up how our government has an obligation to provide us with health care

the government isn't providing us with health care, the government is forcing us to participate in a pyramid scheme

we have some very stupid people given a very big pulpit on which to push their views.

Yeah it is hard to take a super rich celebrity seriously when they talk about how the common man should have health coverage. Ask them to take on a bigger tax burden and well then entirely different story.

Oh and the stuff in Hollywood right now is amazing. Just more ammo for the 2nd term of Trump. Dems will want ZERO endorsements from Hollywood for fear of toxic stuff like this and the middle class voter will just laugh them off the face of the planet.

[DooKSucks]

Well, you have to justify tax cuts when they fuck with budget and economy. That type of shit is a big deal.

If tax cuts were so goddamned wonderful (don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of high taxes), why the fuck don't you see every one of these conservative wet dreams bearing fruit? They're not

[Cletus]

The tax bill will tax tuition waivers for grad students. That should decimate American PhD programs. Who needs cutting edge R&D in science and tech anyway?

[hedge]

"But the single most galling aspect of the bill introduced today by Republicans in the House might be its repeal of the estate tax—a pointless sop to trust fund kids that will help ensure dynastic wealth continues stacking up in this country for years to come. "

I actually prefer dynastic wealth in the hands of private citizens to letting the government have it to waste on bullshit. I don't have to worry about estate tax affecting me, but it seems like whoever made enough money for the estate tax to apply to them, they already paid taxes their whole life, why should the government get to double dip just b/c they died? Why should a wealthy person's death be an excuse for the government to cash in?

[hedge]

"Yeah it is hard to take a super rich celebrity seriously"

Well, at least you can say you have one thing in common with a super rich celebrity...

[Professor Tiger]

I agree with you that the Republican Party is really two parties right now: the Gordon Gecko/Never Trump/Establishment/Swamp wing and the Pro-Trump/Tea Party 2.0 wing. The former has all the money, and the latter has all the voters.

For all intents and purposes, the the Gordon Gecko/Never Trump/Establishment/Swamp wing and the Democrats are on the same team. Trump is taking on one and a half of the two political parties, including the entire pop culture media, all of the news media except for talk radio and half of Fox, academia, the public sector unions, Silicon Valley, most of Wall Street, the FBI and the DOJ. On his side, he's got half of Fox news, talk radio, the evangelicals, and about half the overall voters. That's it.

[sardis]

The tax bill will tax tuition waivers for grad students. That should decimate American PhD programs. Who needs cutting edge R&D in science and tech anyway?

Here’s an idea, how about the colleges pay them a decent wage out of their coffers instead of the public subsidizing their slave labor?

[hedge]

Not shocking that you seem to think highly educated people shouldn't be considered a public benefit. Of course, I'm not sure I think a PhD from Bob Jones U. is particularly beneficial to the public, either, but neither would I consider it to connote its owner as highly educated...

[eCat]

Not shocking that you seem to think highly educated people shouldn't be considered a public benefit. Of course, I'm not sure I think a PhD from Bob Jones U. is particularly beneficial to the public, either, but neither would I consider it to connote its owner as highly educated...

funny because people keep telling me a bunch of damn uneducated mexicans are a public benefit too

[eCat]

Well, you have to justify tax cuts when they fuck with budget and economy. That type of shit is a big deal.

If tax cuts were so goddamned wonderful (don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of high taxes), why the fuck don't you see every one of these conservative wet dreams bearing fruit? They're not

I don't really care if they bear fruit. If the solution for wealth accumulation is government spending, then its not wealth, its fiat money and its a house of cards.

Tax cuts don't fuck with our budget or the economy. They'd fuck with a balanced budget. The budget isn't balanced. Everyone who posts here owes the federal government as it stands today $154,000. By 2021, it will be over $165K. Debt to GDP is now 102%. The debt our government is putting on us is actually rising faster than our ability to earn wages. Do you really care if you owe $225,000 per person instead of owing $154,000 person? Or do you think the tax money saved today and put in your pocket would be better served for you.

who here wants to pay their fair share and give the government money to pay on that $154K? Anyone? Everyone just buy a house and give it to Uncle Sam to help balance the budget? Anyone who believes government spending is the answer to our stability and security by taking more money from us isn't thinking the long game.

[eCat]

so I have $5m in cash in the bank..that I've already paid taxes on.

If I give that money to my children to spend, it should not be counted as income for them To re-classify that as income is double dipping.

[Tree]

the government isn't providing us with health care, the government is forcing us to participate in a pyramid scheme

Not as if insurance in general isn't a scam and just a way for billionaires to take your money without providing any actual goods or services. Twice the per capita spending on average as other developed countries yet substantially worse care provided to Joe Blow. Do you think maybe this is a scandalous indication of how some things shouldn't be privatized, particularly our ability to stay healthy and alive?

[Professor Tiger]

It’s not the most expensive piece of the new Republican tax plan, or the most economically consequential. But the single most galling aspect of the bill introduced today by Republicans in the House might be its repeal of the estate tax—a pointless sop to trust fund kids that will help ensure dynastic wealth continues stacking up in this country for years to come.

Republicans have long wanted to do away with the estate tax—they’ve successfully branded it as a “death tax” and perpetuated the myth that it threatens small family farms and mom-and-pop businesses. Today, thanks to their tireless efforts to narrow its reach, the government only touches the property of dead multi-millionaires; the first $5 million of an estate’s assets are exempt from the tax. Under the GOP’s new bill, that limit would rise to $10 million, indexed to inflation. Then the tax would disappear entirely in 2024. After that, Ivanka Trump won’t have to worry about paying the government when she inherits her father’s empire.
...............................................

I think this boondoggle bill for the rich is currently polling at 20something percent approval, about like their replace and repeal health plan last spring.

I wouldn’t shed too many tears if the death tax stayed where it is, especially since it will never affect me one way or another. But from a purely philosophical (and especially Libertarian) standpoint, the death tax does raise a legitimate moral question: what exactly is it about the act of dying that entitles the government to take for itself the fruit of a lifetime’s worth of someone’s labor? Why does the government get to jump in line ahead of the deceased’s spouse or children for their inheritance? To me, the spouse and children deserve that money WAY more than some distant anonymous bureaucrats.

Let’s be honest: There is no high moral “for the good of society” principle involved in the death tax. It’s just a convenient opportunity for the avaricious government to grab somebody else’s cash. It’s just legalized purse snatching on a grand scale.

[eCat]

the government isn't providing us with health care, the government is forcing us to participate in a pyramid scheme

Not as if insurance in general isn't a scam and just a way for billionaires to take your money without providing any actual goods or services. Twice the per capita spending on average as other developed countries yet substantially worse care provided to Joe Blow. Do you think maybe this is a scandalous indication of how some things shouldn't be privatized, particularly our ability to stay healthy and alive?

completely opposite.

a big reason health care costs are exorbitant is because the government keeps writing blank checks and mandating coverage. When you say our ability to stay healthy and alive you have to decide if you want free market forces at work in the marketplace to keep costs down which means there will be some people that will not participate just as in every other free market activity or do you want the government throwing money at everyone and mandating coverage escalating costs. Health care by definition is inelastic. If you are in pain or face a life threatening situation, you aren't going to negotiate or shop around, and then add that the government is mandating everyone have it and pay for those who can't afford it and its the worst possible situation to support free market principles.

The only elasticity in the marketplace at the moment it to decide that you don't want insurance and are willing to take the penalty, However since the penalty isn't real and it doesn't offset costs into the larger pool of participants, then that also results in higher health care costs.

The problem with your approach is you attempt to have a compassionate response to a market condition. And not to put too fine a spin on it but another part of insurance cost increases before Obamacare was the mandate that hospitals couldn't turn away the uninsured. Now do I want a hurting child turned away from a hospital because his family can't pay? Of course not, but there is no free ride and we all pay for it.

If I'm a baker and for whatever reason the town determines that everyone must buy bread every day then supply and demand would dictate that prices go up. I'm going to price my bread at what the market will bear, and in this case, the market has been told they have to buy bread no matter what. And not only has the market said they have to buy my bread, but they have to buy my most expensive bread - the 9 grain with sesame seeds as opposed to the basic white loaf.

Now..the market place says for the people that can't afford the increased price of bread, we'll pay for it. What am I going to do as a baker? I'm going to raise prices even more because no matter what I charge, people are going to be coming thru that door to buy bread. Now I realize there is a host of rules with health insurance, ratios and the like but the point remains the same. In this analogy, the baker can't provide the cheapest bread even if he wanted to, and the consumer can't choose to forego having bread. The baker has no incentive to lower prices, nor do the people who supply the baker with flour and the like (hospitals and drug companies). Its a cash bonanza for everyone who is involved in the bread business.


Privatization in the health insurance marketplace isn't going to help everyone, it isn't going to include everyone. But just as we understand the government can't go into the marketplace and decide everyone must own a car and the car will be all electric with a range of 400 miles and a 5 star safety rating, and for those of you that can't afford it we'll pay for it, it can't do it for health care either. Its easy to understand why that car wouldn't be right for everyone, nor would be an effective way to sell cars in the marketplace, the same rules apply to health care.

Its unfortunate but the market without government involvement would address it - such as the wealth of urgent care clinics that provide lower cost alternatives to emergency room visits and "mini"-clinics that are add-on to a CVS or Krogers that can address head colds, flu-shots, ear aches, etc.,

[Professor Tiger]

Obamacare Premiums Have Quadrupled in Nevada Over the Past Four Years

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/news ... n-4-years/

This is further evidence that there is no such thing as “affordable” in the “Affordable Care Act.”

It is also further evidence that there is no campassion in Obamacare. At all.

And this is the grotesque THING that a Republican controlled Senate can’t seem to find a way to euthanize.

(Hedge: I wish someone would find a way to euthanize you)