All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[TheDarman]

Mets is using more of his normal "factual lies". SS is funded from a trust and SS taxes, not the general fund. And it is mostly funded for 75 years (indexing the ceiling would so
The vast, vast majority of the tax cuts went to the wealthy.

A few cents for the middle class is part of the con job you conservative pull.

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/19/57175...e-middle-class

And of course we see that they did baloon the deficit with litlle impact to the economy.

But that is what yourParty wants. The true deficit creators.

That’s also a great point. The focus should be on discretionary spending (i.e. spending that is actually eligible for yearly review). Pointing to Medicare (the elimination of which hurts seniors who have no real, affordable private alternative and would never have one) is ridiculous and cruel. Guess what is the most we spend in discretionary spending? Military spending; where we spend more than the next twenty-five countries behind us combined. Fun fact! If we were to spend as much as the nearest country behind us, the low-point deficit under Obama would’ve approached $0 alone.

[numberthirty]

That’s also a great point. The focus should be on discretionary spending (i.e. spending that is actually eligible for yearly review). Pointing to Medicare (the elimination of which hurts seniors who have no real, affordable private alternative and would never have one) is ridiculous and cruel. Guess what is the most we spend in discretionary spending? Military spending; where we spend more than the next twenty-five countries behind us combined. Fun fact! If we were to spend as much as the nearest country behind us, the low-point deficit under Obama would’ve approached $0 alone.

Sorry...

While this is true, it's also laughable.

Neither one of the big two are even thinking about getting serious about keeping the spending that we are currently doing somewhere around "Accountable". Never mind getting serious about if we should even be spending that to start with. Never mind if the spending we are doing should have a bunch of penguins going over the books while they are tapping the ruler on the desk.

[TheDarman]

Sorry...

While this is true, it's also laughable.

Neither one of the big two are even thinking about getting serious about keeping the spending that we are currently doing somewhere around "Accountable". Never mind getting serious about if we should even be spending that to start with. Never mind if the spending we are doing should have a bunch of penguins going over the books while they are tapping the ruler on the desk.

Well, I think we actually need to look at the incentive structure though.

The truth is that the government has a double-A credit score. (It used to have a Triple-A but then Republicans irresponsibly threatened to default on the debt in order to kill Obama's programs and that brought our score down quite immediately.) Effectively, it can borrow and borrow and not worry about whether or not it becomes too much to pay back until investors worry that they can't pay it back. A third of the country's debt is owed back to the public. Another third is owed back to the Treasury itself. The last bit is owed to foreign entities. The truth is that the government doesn't owe anything that it doesn't have the capacity, and investors don't have the assurance, to pay back.

Let's think about it this way. Most people's net worth isn't that high. We all own assets but we have a ton of debt. Our debt to asset ratio is quite high on the latter and low on the former, all things considered. With house payments, car payments, leases for phones, we have very little in actual ownership that is competitive with that. The government is really just mimicking our reality here--except it can borrow from itself and we can't. It doesn't really matter we have to borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy a house when we merely make $100,000 a year. It's the same with the government.

So, it is a convenient scapegoat political issue, especially to hit politicians with that want to actually promote programs to help people (to Bernie Sanders: "How are you going to pay for that?"), but it isn't an issue until it becomes one because of political irresponsibility or market shifts that make investments in government less solid than investments in business. That would have to take a hell of a market shift and a hell of political one too for people to be less certain of the government delivering real yields than any average business. The risk is higher with business and, while the reward could be higher, so would the losses.

My main issue is that there is a hypocrisy, to be sure, by politicians in the Republican Party, preaching fiscal responsibility, but will cut revenue streams and complain about spending that is mandated. If they want to focus on cutting the budget, which would be the only way to maintain responsibility while you cut revenue, they need to focus on cutting discretionary spending. The issue is that there is very little in discretionary spending that will deliver them the gains that they need to finance what they lost in revenue. Other than military spending, which they are never going to cut.

As for the "big two", Barack Obama cut the deficit in half. Bill Clinton left office with a surplus. Trump exploded the deficit with these tax cuts. Bush did the same thing and presided over a period where, for the first time, the deficit spiked over a trillion dollars. Republicans aren't the party of "fiscal responsibility" (if we call accruing debt fiscally irresponsible--to which I say: I guess we all are then). Democrats seem to be more able to get their spending under control.

Especially since Republicans seem willing to gut Social Security but seem to misunderstand the fact that a large source of government revenue is Social Security. The math works out to be a system where millions of people are paying into it while a much smaller proportion are taking out of it. You can't balance a budget with the current revenue if you want to gut the "spending" of Social Security. Because then you lose the massive revenue stream you get from Social Security. The revenue the government takes in at any one time for Social Security far outweighs, by orders of magnitude, the amount that is spent handing out checks to people who are collecting it. Not even their "plans" to reign in spending make any actual sense.

[PaulBullion]

Some good news:

FBI arrests member of rightwing militia accused of detaining migrants

“The New Mexico attorney general’s office described Hopkins as a “dangerous felon who should not have weapons around children and families”

[PaulBullion]

Looks like a series of terrorist bombings in luxury hotels and Christian churches in Sri Lanka today, on Easter Sunday when churches are likely to be packed. Many fatalities feared.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-48001720

[numberthirty]

Some good news:

FBI arrests member of rightwing militia accused of detaining migrants

“The New Mexico attorney general’s office described Hopkins as a “dangerous felon who should not have weapons around children and families”

Post #452(it's actually on the same page)...

FBI Arrests New Mexico Border Militia Leader Larry Mitchell Hopkins

The FBI arrested a 69-year-old New Mexico man who allegedly illegally detained immigrants crossing the border under the guise of working for the United States Border Patrol.

Larry Mitchell Hopkins, who runs The United Constitutional Patriots (UCP), an armed border militia group that spreads far-right conspiracies and rounds up asylum seekers on the border, was arrested by FBI in New Mexico Saturday on charges of possessing firearms and ammunition as a convicted felon.

[PaulBullion]

Post #452(it's actually on the same page)...

News so good it has to be posted twice.
But I guess it makes you uncomfortable for some reason.

[numberthirty]

News so good it has to be posted twice.
But I guess it makes you uncomfortable for some reason.

Well, that's one person's reading.

Just didn't want it looking like folks had snoozed on that piece of news(and Tami puts some work into that sort of thing).

From the little bit that I caught, said goofball group are saying that the whole "Felon Who Should Never Have Had A Weapon..." aspect is some sort of a mix up. I'll buy that when I see it.

[PaulBullion]

Well, that's one person's reading.

Just didn't want it looking like folks had snoozed on that piece of news(and Tami puts some work into that sort of thing).

From the little bit that I caught, said goofball group are saying that the whole "Felon Who Should Never Have Had A Weapon..." aspect is some sort of a mix up. I'll buy that when I see it.

An armed fascist militia rounding up people. Not goofballs. I am sure that was just a slip of the tongue on your part.

[numberthirty]

An armed fascist militia rounding up people. Not goofballs. I am sure that was just a slip of the tongue on your part.

Which was repeated four times over three posts.

Probably didn't need a fifth mention to cement it. Felt like it had been pretty clearly established, to me.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Trump Sours On Mueller Report After Initial Upbeat View

The President insisted the deeply unflattering picture painted of him in the report is “total bullshit.” It's hilarious that Diaper Don couldn't unbunch his panties and bring himself to enjoy his victory lap. Meanwhile....

Trump Retweets Message About How Happy He Is. Twitter Critics Wonder What He’s Smoking.

**********

GOP Groups And Campaigns Have Spent At Least $4.7 Million On Trump Properties

That doesn’t include millions taxpayers spend every time Trump travels to one of his own properties, such as Mar-a-Lago. And guess into who's pockets all that money went into? If your answer isn't Trump, then you haven't been paying attention.

**********

Don’t Call House Democrats’ Trump Probe An Impeachment Inquiry — Yet

The Judiciary Committee plans to investigate charges of obstruction of justice against the president that were laid out in the redacted Mueller report. How about we don't call this an impeachment inquiry at all, okay? Meanwhile....

**********

NOW He Tells Us: Ken Starr Says Impeachment Is ‘So Bad For The Country’

That’s not what he said about Bill Clinton. I know, right?

**********

This Is The Part Of ‘Medicare For All’ That You Never Hear About

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and his allies talk a lot about how “Medicare for All” would take back money from insurers and drug companies, and use those savings to help make sure every American has generous health insurance. That is accurate.

But Sanders and his allies rarely mention that Medicare for All would also restrict the flow of money into the rest of the health care industry, including the parts that aren’t as easy to demonize in speeches.

At the top of that list are hospitals, which alone account for roughly one-third of the nation’s health care spending. No other sector, not even pharmaceuticals, rivals it. Under the Medicare for All proposals from Sanders as well as some other potential reforms getting attention these days, the federal government would limit payments to hospitals, quite possibly reducing their incomes significantly.

The case for squeezing hospitals is strong, given the available research on what they charge and why. Even some experts historically wary of government regulation are warming to the concept.

But actually crafting a policy that would cut hospital payments enough to free up big sums of money without adverse effects wouldn’t be easy and getting such a policy through Congress could be even tougher. The hospital industry is already pushing back and, as this debate moves forward, it’s only going to push harder.

[PaulBullion]

Which was repeated four times over three posts.

Probably didn't need a fifth mention to cement it. Felt like it had been pretty clearly established, to me.

I will try to celebrate justice coming for Nazis a little less often if it triggers you so much, sweetie.

But I can't promise.

[Tami]

Trump Sours On Mueller Report After Initial Upbeat View

The President insisted the deeply unflattering picture painted of him in the report is “total bullshit.” It's hilarious that Diaper Don couldn't unbunch his panties and bring himself to enjoy his victory lap. Meanwhile....

Trump Retweets Message About How Happy He Is. Twitter Critics Wonder What He’s Smoking.

**********

GOP Groups And Campaigns Have Spent At Least $4.7 Million On Trump Properties

That doesn’t include millions taxpayers spend every time Trump travels to one of his own properties, such as Mar-a-Lago. And guess into who's pockets all that money went into? If your answer isn't Trump, then you haven't been paying attention.

**********

Don’t Call House Democrats’ Trump Probe An Impeachment Inquiry — Yet

The Judiciary Committee plans to investigate charges of obstruction of justice against the president that were laid out in the redacted Mueller report. How about we don't call this an impeachment inquiry at all, okay? Meanwhile....

**********

NOW He Tells Us: Ken Starr Says Impeachment Is ‘So Bad For The Country’

That’s not what he said about Bill Clinton. I know, right?

**********

This Is The Part Of ‘Medicare For All’ That You Never Hear About

This points to my biggest concern with ideas like Medicare for All. While I agree that there may be ways to make the medical, medical insurance, and pharmaceutical industries more fiscally responsible and less wasteful financially, the downside maybe that going after hospitals and the rest could risk making the health care available less care driven. Medicare for All might risk turning medical treatment into a factory, with patients being treated like car parts on an assembly line.

Doctors and hospitals that lose money are going to be forced to cut costs. For Doctors, this means seeing a higher number of patients in a shorter amount of time. For hospitals this could mean cutting back on staff, hiring fewer doctors and nurses, and forgoing investments in newer technology that could potentially save more lives.

Even for the Pharmaceutical Industry, which I agree needs oversight big time, there is a risk. The industry might decide to stop research into drugs for less common (though potentially more life threatening) medical conditions in favor of promoting the more commonly used medications.

My point being that, while improving the health care system overall and proving affordable medical coverage to everyone is important, it needs to be done with great care and thought.

[wjowski]

This points to my biggest concern with ideas like Medicare for All. While I agree that there may be ways to make the medical, medical insurance, and pharmaceutical industries more fiscally responsible and less wasteful financially, the downside maybe that going after hospitals and the rest could risk making the health care available less care driven. Medicare for All might risk turning medical treatment into a factory, with patients being treated like car parts on an assembly line.

Doctors and hospitals that lose money are going to be forced to cut costs. For Doctors, this means seeing a higher number of patients in a shorter amount of time. For hospitals this could mean cutting back on staff, hiring fewer doctors and nurses, and forgoing investments in newer technology that could potentially save more lives.

Even for the Pharmaceutical Industry, which I agree needs oversight big time, there is a risk. The industry might decide to stop research into drugs for less common (though potentially more life threatening) medical conditions in favor of promoting the more commonly used medications.

My point being that, while improving the health care system overall and proving affordable medical coverage to everyone is important, it needs to be done with great care and thought.

You make it sound like none of that's happened already. Profit-driven healthcare has been a horror movie for the U.S.

[PaulBullion]

And the French, the Germans, every Scandinavian country etc has a system similar to "medicare for all" and much lower rates of maternal mortality than the US.