Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,415 Year: 3,672/9,624 Month: 543/974 Week: 156/276 Day: 30/23 Hour: 3/3


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 651 of 4573 (803236)
03-27-2017 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 650 by Rrhain
03-27-2017 5:30 PM


Re: Trump Approval Rating
Rrhain writes:
quote:
People who can't afford $2500 for healthcare are being taxed an additional $1200 and receiving nothing in return. That's not right and should be fixed.
It already has been: It's called "premium assistance" and "Medicaid." When you sign up for health insurance through the ACA, you can request to have assistance in paying for the premiums based upon your income.
Yes there are subsidies, but if, say, a family of two makes $48,000/year (after deductions) and cannot afford the $2500 for the cheapest possible ACA insurance, the penalty will be $1200, for which they receive nothing in return. About 6.5 million people paid a penalty averaging $470 for the 2015 tax year (How Many Americans Paid the Obamacare Tax Penalty in 2016).
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 650 by Rrhain, posted 03-27-2017 5:30 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 652 by Rrhain, posted 03-27-2017 7:12 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 658 of 4573 (803272)
03-28-2017 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 652 by Rrhain
03-27-2017 7:12 PM


Re: Trump Approval Rating
Rrhain writes:
Is it an actual example that happens in real life?
Yes, my wife's hairdresser.
You need to read your own source or even better, the actual law. A two-person family earning $48,000 is eligible for subsidies.
The $2500 cost of insurance is after subsidies.
I already understand everything you said. People who can't afford healthcare simply forgo healthcare as much as possible. It isn't right that they should pay money and receive nothing in return. They should get at least something, some kind of rock-bottom coverage perhaps. You might recall that there was a lot of argument in Congress over the penalty, and its constitutionality was challenged in court. Somehow fixing the penalty would do a lot to reduce objections to the ACA.
If the ACA had better funding mechanisms, then the subsidies would be more and be available to more people. Of course, at that point, we'd have to wonder why we're half-assing it and switch to single-payer, universal coverage paid for with taxes.
It's worth noting that Trump has occasionally advocated a single-payer system, but it's hard to know how serious he is.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 652 by Rrhain, posted 03-27-2017 7:12 PM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 666 by NoNukes, posted 03-28-2017 3:25 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 667 of 4573 (803344)
03-29-2017 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 666 by NoNukes
03-28-2017 3:25 PM


Re: Trump Approval Rating
NoNukes writes:
That's right. However the purpose of the penalty is to modify behavior. It is the case that you don't get anything for the penalty, but that is how penalties work. And of course the really poor folks were supposed to be covered by Medicaid expansion which was intended to be mandatory. Unfortunately, a full 1/3 of the states opted out of coverage for poor folks.
I understand all that, but to my mind there shouldn't be a penalty at all, because it's taking away money from the people who can least afford it.
And again, there is no need to fix that before fixing the rest of the ACA. The penalty is not being enforced right now.
But the penalty is one of the major reasons there was so much push-back from Republicans. They need to find another way.
I think we know the answer to that. At this point, it is pretty obvious that any advocacy for single payer by Trump is an insignificantly low priority because he did not ask his party for any such thing.
Agreed. After all the campaign talk about having a better system that would be cheaper, fairer and cover more people, he had nothing. He just straight out lied, and continues to lie. I don't understand how the Trump constituency can't see this.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 666 by NoNukes, posted 03-28-2017 3:25 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


(5)
Message 676 of 4573 (803513)
04-01-2017 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 675 by marc9000
03-31-2017 11:01 PM


Re: Reality
marc9000 writes:
"Not going to die" ?? I assume this must be a reference to the continuation of Obamacare. The U.S. got along well enough before the passing of Obamacare, and it will when it's over. People "died" in the U.S. in 1817, in 1917, and they still do in 2017. Not only from old age, but from society coming up short on coming to their rescue when they can't provide their own medical care. They do in every country all over the world.
Most first world countries already provide universal healthcare. The US is an outlier.
He's only been in office 10 weeks. It's a recurring problem throughout this thread - Trump is getting put down for not fulfilling in 2 months every promise he made during his campaign. No president in the past has done any better.
You misunderstand the criticism. The criticism is not that Trump failed to come up with a plan in less than two months. The criticism is that he lied during the campaign when he said he already had a better and cheaper health care plan. Turns out he had no plan and they had to cobble one together at the last minute.
One wonders when the Trump supporters will finally learn that braggadocio is just the way Trump talks. Everything he says is better and bigger and more wonderful. It's always a nice fairy tale, but it's rarely the truth.
The Republicans may have this silly rule that no bill will come before the House unless a majority of Republicans support it, but the Democrats don't.
They don't?
It's way too early to tell whether the Democrats have the same silly rule, since no significant legislation has actually come to a vote. We'll probably get our first indication with the Gorsuch vote - we'll see if any Democrats vote in favor. It would be nice if we could begin to see more reaching across the aisle.
Except it is. Let us not play dumb and pretend that the Constitution is a laundry list.
Enumerated powers is the actual term, one of us is playing dumb, and it's not me.
Hint: What do the words "general welfare" mean to you?
Since I have a middle school history education, they mean to me exactly what they meant to the most prominent of the U.S. founders. What do Federalist Papers 41 and 45 mean to you?
The last enumerated power is very inclusive:
quote:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Combined with the "General Welfare" clause this casts a fairly wide net. You go on to discuss the clause as originally interpreted, but its interpretation has grown increasingly expansive over time, most notably about 80 years ago with the advent of social security, and later Medicare.
No, I can't. I can't think of a thing that today's Democrats do that doesn't directly or indirectly increase the size and scope of government. You say you can, but you didn't name any. Maybe in your next post?
The significant example that comes to mind is Bill Clinton's reformulation of the welfare laws back in the 1990's.
It's only been 10 weeks for this president. Maybe a better bill, one that reduces government meddling in health care even better, will come along.
A better bill meaning one that doesn't take healthcare away from 24 million Americans over the next decade?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 675 by marc9000, posted 03-31-2017 11:01 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 679 by NoNukes, posted 04-01-2017 11:05 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 680 by marc9000, posted 04-01-2017 11:16 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 677 of 4573 (803517)
04-01-2017 8:28 AM


Trump Approval Rating
Trump's approval rating is the lowest in modern memory thus far in a presidency (according to the Gallup Poll, so these are apples-to-apples numbers):
What this doesn't show is that Trump has solid approval ratings from his base of supporters, which has barely weakened at all. One wishes for another polling category: I agree with the President politically, but he's a nut-case.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 678 by jar, posted 04-01-2017 8:35 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 681 by marc9000, posted 04-01-2017 11:23 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


(5)
Message 683 of 4573 (803580)
04-02-2017 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 680 by marc9000
04-01-2017 11:16 PM


Re: Reality
marc9000 writes:
I can't defend everything Trump has said,...
It isn't a matter of defending it but believing it. Most Trump claims are pure exaggeration and hyperbole. He doesn't know how to fix healthcare, he doesn't know how to make Mexico pay for the wall, he doesn't know he will reduce corporate taxes, he doesn't understand the legislative process and how to work with Congress, he doesn't know how to staff his administration, he doesn't know how to work with allies or trading partners, he doesn't know how he'll reduce the deficit while lowering taxes and increasing spending on infrastructure, he doesn't know how to make claims based on facts, it goes on and on.
One wonders when the Trump supporters will finally learn that braggadocio is just the way Trump talks.
I realized that before I voted for him.
The real question is since little he says can be trusted (it's mostly just non-specific boasting and "selling glitter") how would anyone know what they were getting when they voted for him. I mean, besides the boasting and preening.
I recall Obama having a similar problem back in 2008 and 2012. Maybe not quite as obvious, largely because is wasn't so shouted from the rooftops by the news media.
I'm not an Obama supporter, but the contrast between Obama and Trump is stark. One is a calm and deliberate statesman, the other almost a raving lunatic. Of course the press has taken notice - how could they ignore the elephant in the room. Each event of the disaster of Trump's first couple months actually happened and was duly reported.
It's one of many problems when government grows too unsustainably fast,...
Here's an interesting Obama factoid: per capita federal spending did not grow under Obama. The federal government spent $11,488 per capita in 2009, Obama's first year, and $11,927 per capita in 2016, Obama's last (source). Adjust for inflation and spending per capita declined. The increase in size of government that people are so worried about didn't happen - there was no call to put a madman in charge.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Delete spurious text.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 680 by marc9000, posted 04-01-2017 11:16 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 690 by Porosity, posted 04-02-2017 3:16 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 691 by marc9000, posted 04-02-2017 8:16 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 684 of 4573 (803582)
04-02-2017 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 681 by marc9000
04-01-2017 11:23 PM


Re: Trump Approval Rating
marc9000 writes:
Not a surprise, considering all the negative press he gets.
All of it true and caused by his own incompetence. The press didn't force Trump to make absurd claims about inauguration crowd sizes or voting by illegals or wiretapping by the Obama administration. The press didn't force Trump to insult allies and trading partners. The press didn't force Trump to fail to develop a healthcare plan before claiming he had a healthcare plan. Etc., etc. Trump was the force behind all the negative press.
The poll numbers seem an accurate reflection of Trump's performance thus far. Only if and when Trump begins having some successes will his poll numbers rise.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 681 by marc9000, posted 04-01-2017 11:23 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 692 by marc9000, posted 04-02-2017 8:29 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


(2)
Message 698 of 4573 (803659)
04-03-2017 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 691 by marc9000
04-02-2017 8:16 PM


Re: Reality
marc9000 writes:
I knew a lot about what we would be getting - competent people appointed to his cabinet,...
You mean like Rick Perry for Energy, Betsy DeVos for Education and Scott Pruitt for the EPA?
...the removal and lessening of job killing regulations,...
With unemployment at 4.9% we're already at full employment. Increased employment from here would cause inflation.
...less business destroying regulations from the EPA,...
We're going to live with the consequences of reduced attention to the environment for a long, long time.
Are you not satisfied that all of it isn't perfectly in place yet?
The longer it takes to get in place the better. What is strange is how Trump supporters seem blissfully unaware of the Trump lying and incompetence factor. He has policies he'd like to put in place that I'm in favor of too, such as a reduction of the corporate income tax, removal of tax loopholes (the big one is a tax break for fat cats that allows them to have interest taxed at long term capital gains rates), and tax reform. The border tax seems like a good idea, too, though I need to understand it better.
But the fact that Trump supports some policies I favor doesn't blind me to the glaring lying and incompetence displayed in his first hundred days, and I don't understand why Trump supporters don't see it.
That's why you're so angry.
Not angry - aghast, disturbed, concerned.
The national debt increased by $9 trillion during Obama's administration. That's what I call madness.
But it wasn't because of spending. It was because of the most severe recession since the Great Depression. As a percent of GDP, the national debt rose rapidly during the recession, then leveled off.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 691 by marc9000, posted 04-02-2017 8:16 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 702 by marc9000, posted 04-03-2017 8:34 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 699 of 4573 (803660)
04-03-2017 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 692 by marc9000
04-02-2017 8:29 PM


Re: Trump Approval Rating
marc9000 writes:
When the press reported on the Trump / Republican health plan, how did the opening headline almost always read - "24 MILLION AMERICANS SET TO LOSE HEALTH COVERAGE UNDER THE TRUMP PLAN". Yet in the mid 1990's, did the reports on Clinton's welfare reform read - MILLIONS OF AMERICANS SET TO LOSE THEIR SAFETY NET UNDER CLINTON'S WELFARE REFORM". It wasn't reported that way for a Democrat, was it?
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 was a bipartisan effort. It was part of the Republican Contract with America and one of Clinton's campaign promises. Welfare and poverty rates both declined in the latter half of the 1990's, and the bill was deemed a success. Headlines like you suggest wouldn't reflect reality and hence never happened.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 692 by marc9000, posted 04-02-2017 8:29 PM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


(4)
Message 705 of 4573 (803736)
04-04-2017 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 701 by marc9000
04-03-2017 7:59 PM


Re: Trump Approval Rating
marc9000 writes:
He has, but most all of it is because of his more traditional views of how the U.S. should be governed. His views of it from a business perspective, not a self-serving politicians perspective.
Trump is running government from a self-serving business perspective. He has failed to disclose his tax returns, refused to divest himself of his businesses, and filled his administration with like-minded cronies.
You know, the things he was elected to do.
But he's not doing the things he was elected to do - he's doing the opposite. He ran as a populist, and now he's pursuing policies that run counter to the interests of the people who elected him by paring back programs for those in need (see, for example, In Ohio County That Backed Trump, Word of Housing Cuts Stirs Fear). Trump is a typical trickle-down Republican: help the rich and it will trickle down to the poor.
In either case, my providing any evidence is going to be an exercise in futility.
Your dilemma is that it isn't possible to provide evidence for things that never happened.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 701 by marc9000, posted 04-03-2017 7:59 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


(4)
Message 706 of 4573 (803739)
04-04-2017 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 702 by marc9000
04-03-2017 8:34 PM


Re: Reality
Just think, now all the millions of people in the U.S. (myself included) who depend on older trucks to make a living don't have to worry about losing their livelihoods to a brand new, knee jerk global warming regulation that would require expensive retro-fits for their trucks, or a complete replacement of them.
There are two problems with this. First, it isn't true. The emission standards in effect for a truck's model year are the ones that apply. Second, there are assistance programs for those interested in an engine retrofit or replacement, especially for diesels.
With unemployment at 4.9% we're already at full employment. Increased employment from here would cause inflation.
There's always room for new business start ups,...
Irrelevant and likely untrue. The lower the unemployment rate the greater the inflationary pressures.
What I see in your posts, and all around the mainstream media, is an increasing animosity towards Trump, and I don't remember ever seeing it before.
That's because you haven't seen it before. I've already said several times that it's unprecedented, but Trump has brought it all on himself. It's not like a constant barrage of lying attacks doesn't have consequences.
But really, Trump hasn't changed since his campaign.
That's right, he hasn't, but the country very much needs him to change from campaign mode to governing mode.
Also, you seem to have become caught up in the Trump misdirection concerning his false wiretapping claim. If you phone a Russian who is under surveillance, then you'll become surveilled yourself during that phone call.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 702 by marc9000, posted 04-03-2017 8:34 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 708 by NoNukes, posted 04-04-2017 9:18 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 717 by marc9000, posted 04-05-2017 8:32 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


(3)
Message 720 of 4573 (803986)
04-06-2017 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 717 by marc9000
04-05-2017 8:32 PM


Re: Reality
Hi Mark,
You sound like a one-man environmental wrecking crew. Insulate your house, get an efficient furnace, get a newer truck, save money on fuel, and reduce your pollution of the air we all breath. A few years ago I switched our home heating system from oil to high efficiency propane and am spending about half as much to heat the house now. The new system will pay for itself in a few more years, and after that it's gravy.
We can't really talk about TV news because I don't watch any. I get nearly all my news from the print media. I rarely watch videos. TV news is obnoxious in the way it blares for attention both in style and the types of stories it chooses.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 717 by marc9000, posted 04-05-2017 8:32 PM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 721 by NoNukes, posted 04-06-2017 6:03 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


(2)
Message 816 of 4573 (809074)
05-16-2017 8:05 AM


When does all the winning begin?
Inquiring minds want to know.
I thought I'd be posting more often to this thread, but the disappointments piled one upon another so rapidly that I couldn't keep up. It's a new screw up every day. The latest is that Trump Shared Classified Data With Russians. It just doesn't end. What we have is an incompetent and autocratic White House unfamiliar with handling the reins of government.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 819 by ringo, posted 05-16-2017 11:59 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 820 by Taq, posted 05-16-2017 3:56 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 821 by NoNukes, posted 05-16-2017 4:17 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 886 of 4573 (810936)
06-03-2017 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 881 by NoNukes
06-02-2017 1:27 PM


Re: Trump pulls the US out of Paris Climate agreement
NoNukes writes:
Also I see where Trump created 70 coal jobs and is claiming to have created 1 million other jobs so far.
The jobs report that came out a couple days ago said that job growth in May slowed to 138,000. A number around 185,000 had been expected. In addition, the job numbers for March and April were revised sharply downward.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 881 by NoNukes, posted 06-02-2017 1:27 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 887 by NoNukes, posted 06-03-2017 5:16 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


(6)
Message 1098 of 4573 (817330)
08-16-2017 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1094 by New Cat's Eye
08-15-2017 5:39 PM


Re: very fine people on both sides!?
New Cat's Eye writes:
if there were any non-nazis I sure hope they left when they realized they were siding with FUCKING NAZIS.
...If neo-nazis love maple syrup does Canada need to stop eating it? 'Cause according to you, you'd be siding with FUCKING NAZIS...
I think probably most people share my own reaction to this of, "The maple syrup comment makes no sense, and DrJones* wasn't implying anything like that anyway."
Or the neo-nazis were siding with them...
According to Wikipedia, the Unite the Right rally protesters were a mix of "white supremacists, white nationalists, neo-Confederates, neo-Nazis and militias." While marching or protesting they were chanting phrases like "Jews will not replace us" and "Blood and soil," waving Confederate and Nazi flags, and holding placards saying things like "the Goyim know" and "the Jewish media is going down." It wasn't like it would have been easy to unknowingly get mixed in with these protesters.
We should all condemn violence, but the violence in Charlottesville shouldn't serve to distract us from the primary message. The Unite the Right protesters are wrong independent of any violence their members may or may not have committed. They're wrong because their message of hate is wrong, and it is important that we make clear how strongly we object to this message.
In this our leader failed us. Miserably and spectacularly.
Too, Leftists are literally calling for communism...
No.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1094 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-15-2017 5:39 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1103 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-17-2017 10:56 AM Percy has replied
 Message 1106 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-17-2017 10:40 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024