As I said numerous times, Trump has been keeping the "prosecute Hillary" card in his back pocket this whole time. If he is signaling using it, he is feeling scared and cornered. Also , if he wants to tell Sessions something, he could just, idk, tell him so in person?? Trump's plan is so transparent: he wants Sessions to resign so he can appoint a new AG in the upcoming recess who will fire Mueller.
Meanwhile, John McCain is coming back for the healthcare vote. IF he votes to proceed, he loses all sympathy from me and can go screw himself. It's a whole other level of evil to be receiving treatment for brain cancer with your gold-plated health coverage and vote to take that peace of mind away from 24 million people. Maybe he'll do the right thing, but I highly doubt they are flying him into DC to cast a no vote. Shameful.
Describes some of the already known connections between Trump and Russian criminals to launder money.
For example, in 2015, the Trump Taj Mahal was fined $10 million—the highest penalty ever levied by the feds against a casino—and admitted to having “willfully violated” anti-money-laundering regulations for years.
There's more dirt out there but so far what is publicly known is that a whole lot of Russian criminals, money launderers and oligarchs have been in Trump's orbit since Reagan was President.
And this is probably why Trump doesn't want Mueller looking at his finances and also why Trump hasn't released tax returns that could be investigated and bs could be seen through.
“You can either adapt Trump into the presidency or you can adapt the presidency into Trump,” said Barry Bennett, a former Trump campaign adviser. “The latter is the only way it will ever work, and I think that’s what we’re seeing.”
On the one hand, the desire to want to run the government as if it were a business is fine, since government typically wastes more money than corporations and is subject to less oversight. Yes, the government watches over itself, but none of you are naive enough to think that makes the government more honest and transparent, are you? Anyway...on the other hand, even as President you cannot simply pick up the phone and start firing people who don't toe your line all the time (even if that line changes from morning to afternoon). In business, yes, employees are expected to display loyalty to the company but politicians and political appointees are expected to be loyal to the country and the Constitution, not the person of the President.
I concur--Trump doesn't want to fire Sessions so much as he wants Sessions to quit. If Sessions quits then Trump has plausible deniability with regards to any decision made by the person who assumes the office of Attorney General because he didn't tell them precisely what decision to make. That replacement person will not be Rod Rosenstein, either--he is damaged goods at that point, since it was Rosenstein's e-mail stream which has landed Junior in his current troubles.
Scaramucci has stated that he is willing to fire everyone in Communications except himself and Sarah Huckabee Sanders if "leaks" continue. Scorch the earth!
“You can either adapt Trump into the presidency or you can adapt the presidency into Trump,” said Barry Bennett, a former Trump campaign adviser. “The latter is the only way it will ever work, and I think that’s what we’re seeing.”
On the one hand, the desire to want to run the government as if it were a business is fine, since government typically wastes more money than corporations and is subject to less oversight. Yes, the government watches over itself, but none of you are naive enough to think that makes the government more honest and transparent, are you? Anyway...on the other hand, even as President you cannot simply pick up the phone and start firing people who don't toe your line all the time (even if that line changes from morning to afternoon). In business, yes, employees are expected to display loyalty to the company but politicians and political appointees are expected to be loyal to the country and the Constitution, not the person of the President.
I concur--Trump doesn't want to fire Sessions so much as he wants Sessions to quit. If Sessions quits then Trump has plausible deniability with regards to any decision made by the person who assumes the office of Attorney General because he didn't tell them precisely what decision to make. That replacement person will not be Rod Rosenstein, either--he is damaged goods at that point, since it was Rosenstein's e-mail stream which has landed Junior in his current troubles.
Scaramucci has stated that he is willing to fire everyone in Communications except himself and Sarah Huckabee Sanders if "leaks" continue. Scorch the earth!
That's what's so absurd when Trump complains about leaks to the media. Nearly all of them are coming from inside the White House. Since he is in charge, it's entirely his own fault. But furthermore, the idea that anyone is going to be able to stop leaks in Washington DC is absurd. Leaks are like breathing in that town.
Corporations aren't equiped to govern by definition, as they are designed exclusively to garner profits for a small sub-set of the population, and thats exactly the kind of thinking you want a government to avoid. I do acknowledge the individual electee is expected to further the interests of their electorate, but business models are often very exploitive of anyone not a shareholder. Heck, Enron et al weren't all that long ago. Business-like government sounds epicly terrible.
I think government accountability isn't as bad as many think, but that the people often want unrealistic/stupid expenditures, especially with low taxes. Eh, maybe I think there's more corruption than that, but the expectations of a dumbed down public imho is more damaging than the present level of corruption.
Republicans voting to proceed on healthcare once again reveal themselves to be goddamn monsters of the highest order. Including John McCain, who voted to proceed and THEN critcized the process, before flying back so he can get cancer treatment he would deny others. Peak McCain. Peak Republican Party, a group of people utterly devoid of empathy.
Currently the vote only establishes that discussions will begin and that the new GOP health plan will be considered. It remains to be seen whether the Senate will actually pass the finished bill.
So far, McCain and the other GOP senators (save for two) have only proven that they're willing to consider the new plan.
The measure would not have passed had Pence not cast the tie-breaking vote.
That awkward moment in West Virginia when you are the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the stage at an event with your boss and your boss jokes about firing you if you don't drum up the votes in support of the direction he wants health insurance legislation to go.
Currently the vote only establishes that discussions will begin and that the new GOP health plan will be considered. It remains to be seen whether the Senate will actually pass the finished bill.
So far, McCain and the other GOP senators (save for two) have only proven that they're willing to consider the new plan.
I'm well aware of what it is. And it's a step closer to the state-sanctioned murder of thousands of people a year. There is NOTHING that encapsulates the modern GOP better than a man just diagnosed with brain cancer flying in to move a step closer to denying the right to treatment for it from millions. His face-saving speech afterwards was meaningless, sound and fury signifying nothing. Good riddance.
Just out of curiosity, if all current health insurance plans were canceled, putting that money back into the pocket of everyone paying for it each month, at what rate could we set the Medicare tax rate that would allow everyone to be covered by it? Go from 1.45% to 4%? 5%? 7.5%? How about if we also remove the wage cap on it so that it comes off the top of everyone's paychecks, from those making minimum wage all the way to those making tens of millions of dollars each year?
You can not criticize McCain for doing his job. If he didn't make it the vote, he should have resigned as those who voted him in wouldn't get proper representation in the senate.
Most Republicans ran on a repeal/replace platform in the previous election. They promised that they would repeal Obama care and replace it with something better. Them taking the steps to do so is their job, including McCain.
If the people of Arizona or other states do not want to lose the ACA, they should contact their representatives to say so, or vote them out of office in the next election.
Just out of curiosity, if all current health insurance plans were canceled, putting that money back into the pocket of everyone paying for it each month, at what rate could we set the Medicare tax rate that would allow everyone to be covered by it? Go from 1.45% to 4%? 5%? 7.5%? How about if we also remove the wage cap on it so that it comes off the top of everyone's paychecks, from those making minimum wage all the way to those making tens of millions of dollars each year?
I don't know, why don't we ask literally ANY other country in the world how they do it?? This isn't some great mystery befuddling the human race, just us.
Just out of curiosity, if all current health insurance plans were canceled, putting that money back into the pocket of everyone paying for it each month, at what rate could we set the Medicare tax rate that would allow everyone to be covered by it? Go from 1.45% to 4%? 5%? 7.5%? How about if we also remove the wage cap on it so that it comes off the top of everyone's paychecks, from those making minimum wage all the way to those making tens of millions of dollars each year?
I don't know, why don't we ask literally ANY other country in the world how they do it?? This isn't some great mystery befuddling the human race, just us.
Thats a good point; the world has many alternative models to look at and learn from, yet their seems to not be much interest in what has a proven track record. I'm certain some healthcare plans have been found to be economic stimulants, something the US economy could benefit from.
Universal healthcare has lots of forms and degrees of coverage, its not sane for the Republicans to ultimately not even have a viable rough draft that satisfies both parties. I mean, the Democrats will probably win some elections in the future (ha...), and they could then rework healthcare again, so this should be bipartisan.
Systems which work for those countries might not work here. It can't hurt to ask, of course, but that doesn't mean that their solutions will fit if applied here. We are going to have to raise those rates, though, because the elephant in the room is the year 2020, the mid-point of when Baby Boomers turn 65, so by the end of that year more of them will be collecting those benefits than not and I suspect that under the current system of financing for those programs the strain will cause them to collapse. Many Baby Boomers have one or more chronic medical conditions and those conditions have considerable long-term costs associated with them. Unlike their parents and grandparents, many of those same Baby Boomers are going to live well into their 80s or 90s. No, the system cannot go bankrupt--the government just prints the money it needs to pay for those programs then controls inflation via taxes to reduce the money supply--but that isn't going to be an ideal long-term solution, either, even if it may be the only solution available.
@DreadKhan I don't think anyone in Washington, D. C. is interested in being "bipartisan" any more. The hatred--we should call it what it is--between the two major political parties is too entrenched. It isn't politics any more; it's personal.
A great day to be one of the four richest families in the US. Soon you'll get a small tax cut of $940,000. No big deal for you, chump change, but it's something for your investment in Republican politicans that has paid off. So it's more the feeling of power that you get, even more power over people's lives and deaths and that's priceless.
A great day to be one of the four richest families in the US. Soon you'll get a small tax cut of $940,000. No big deal for you, chump change, but it's something for your investment in Republican politicans that has paid off. So it's more the feeling of power that you get, even more power over people's lives and deaths and that's priceless.
Because rich people NEVER spend money on the Democratic Party...
A great day to be one of the four richest families in the US. Soon you'll get a small tax cut of $940,000. No big deal for you, chump change, but it's something for your investment in Republican politicans that has paid off. So it's more the feeling of power that you get, even more power over people's lives and deaths and that's priceless.
Because rich people NEVER spend money on the Democratic Party...
The Democratic Party isn't attempting to gut Medicaid and throw about 25 million people off their health insurance. In fact, they have never advocated for any such thing in the last half-century. They've never tried to destroy Social Security.
There is a certain part of me that almost is resigned to letting this happen just so people can actually see what the consequences are, but that would be utterly irresponsible. To start with, 60% of nursing home care in this country is funded by Medicaid. Gut it at the numbers Republicans are suggesting, and you are simply going to see nursing homes straight up close down. Funding for education and therapy for people with disabilities?? Cut, cut, cut. Just the TIP of the iceberg, and it'll hit Trump voters just as hard. And then what?? They'll either blame Democrats, or they'll be befuddled as to how Trump could cut Medicaid after he swore he wouldn't. Well, these people were told. Over and over. Loudly. And I'm honestly not sure how I can possibly respond if and when that happens. Probably just better to keep my mouth shut.
A great day to be one of the four richest families in the US. Soon you'll get a small tax cut of $940,000. No big deal for you, chump change, but it's something for your investment in Republican politicans that has paid off. So it's more the feeling of power that you get, even more power over people's lives and deaths and that's priceless.
Because rich people NEVER spend money on the Democratic Party...
The Democratic party gets more money in donations, but most of that money comes from small individual donations; not large corporate contributions.
My dad is a doctor and he has noted many times that all of his co-workers are Republicans. Not because they agree with the Republican party about social issues or foreign policy or the wall or Trump or anything like that, but simply, and solely, because they are rich men who stand to profit from the lower taxes on the wealthy that the GOP always advocates.
There do exist rich Democrats. But rich people overwhelmingly skew Republican for the simple reason that they want lower taxes. Such people believe that (1) they are the only ones who are responsible for their success, (2) that they deserve to be richer than other people because they're smarter and work harder, and (3) they have no fiscal obligation whatsoever to the nation that made their success possible. That's what my father's coworkers have said, over and over.
That's not the voice of carping anti-money Democrats accusing random people of being evil. That's the direct voice of wealthy Republicans themselves, saying why they vote Republican.
The notion that big businesses and the wealthy love the Democratic party is absolutely false. A lot of things have changed about the GOP and the Democratic party, but the one thing that has not changed over the course of 150 years (yes, since the Civil War) is that the wealthy skew Republican and the poor skew Democrat.
A great day to be one of the four richest families in the US. Soon you'll get a small tax cut of $940,000. No big deal for you, chump change, but it's something for your investment in Republican politicans that has paid off. So it's more the feeling of power that you get, even more power over people's lives and deaths and that's priceless.
Because rich people NEVER spend money on the Democratic Party...
The rich got a win today from Republicans, no denying that. "Whatabout democrats getting money" doesn't matter.
Republicans did the 1%s bidding here, clearly. If Democrats do something later, then call them out then.
Today, it was all Republicans determined to get that 1%'s tax cut and throw 16-32 million people off of health insurance.
A great day to be one of the four richest families in the US. Soon you'll get a small tax cut of $940,000. No big deal for you, chump change, but it's something for your investment in Republican politicans that has paid off. So it's more the feeling of power that you get, even more power over people's lives and deaths and that's priceless.
Because rich people NEVER spend money on the Democratic Party...
The rich got a win today from Republicans, no denying that. "Whatabout democrats getting money" doesn't matter.
Republicans did the 1%s bidding here, clearly. If Democrats do something later, then call them out then.
Today, it was all Republicans determined to get that 1%'s tax cut and throw 16-32 million people off of health insurance.
I'm sure they'll all be dying in the streets soon. I call BS on this notion that all of these 'helpless' people will just be sitting around waiting to die with no recourse other than to wait for for our fair government to 'save' them. If there really are that many completely helpless people in this country that's pretty pathetic. How did they survive before Obamacare? I'm curious. I don't recall reading about millions of people dying in the streets before 2009. Am I missing something?
Oh and by the way, this is the same benevolent government that performed all kinds of human experimentation back in the 50's and 60's under both Republican and Democrat administrations. MKUltra anybody? I'm sure they're much more enlightened now though. I totally trust them to run my health plan...
A great day to be one of the four richest families in the US. Soon you'll get a small tax cut of $940,000. No big deal for you, chump change, but it's something for your investment in Republican politicans that has paid off. So it's more the feeling of power that you get, even more power over people's lives and deaths and that's priceless.
Because rich people NEVER spend money on the Democratic Party...
The rich got a win today from Republicans, no denying that. "Whatabout democrats getting money" doesn't matter.
Republicans did the 1%s bidding here, clearly. If Democrats do something later, then call them out then.
Today, it was all Republicans determined to get that 1%'s tax cut and throw 16-32 million people off of health insurance.
I'm sure they'll all be dying in the streets soon. I call BS on this notion that all of these 'helpless' people will just be sitting around waiting to die with no recourse other than to wait for for our fair government to 'save' them. If there really are that many completely helpless people in this country that's pretty pathetic. How did they survive before Obamacare? I'm curious. I don't recall reading about millions of people dying in the streets before 2009. Am I missing something?
Those crippled people, children, and people with mental health issues better get to work right. cool. Even the elderly folks in nursing homes? Especially the elderly folks in nursing homes right.
But anyway, the wealthcare bill is a tax cut for people that don't need it that completely own the republican party. Kochs, Mercers, Devoses etc.
Because those folks don't already get Medicaid? Again, am I missing something???
This GOP plans cut Medicaid by almost a trillion dollars. There are helpless people in this country, but the main point is this: if 25 million people lose their insurance, every single one of them is less likely to visit a doctor when they get sick or feel like something is wrong. And they'll wait, thinking it's nothing. And in many cases, it will pass. Certainly in most cases it will pass. But there will be THOUSANDS of people who decide not to go to the doctor because they don't think they can afford it because they have no insurance, and it will be something very serious, and many of them will die because of it. That is the reality. People who don't want to go broke will put off doctor visits, and many of those will be doctor visits that could have saved lives. Simple as that.
This doesn't even get into people with preexisting conditions who NEED medical insurance more than anyone. Especially if you've ever had cancer, and live with the thought of it coming back every day of your life. You don't even want to know the costs of a year of cancer treatment, but suffice to say, it's more than almost anyone here will make in 50 years. This is just one example. The GOP plan doesn't just take things back to the way they were 8 years ago. It also takes a hatchet to Medicaid, which is the only reason poor children and their parents can even see a doctor. Without this level of Medicaid funding, many rural hospitals (Trump Country) will close down because that is their main source of income. Every single patient rights group in the country is against these bills. Every Medical organization is against them. It will devastate nursing homes, hospitals, the professions involved with medical care itself. The amount of total stress in the country will skyrocket. Children who are sick will get sent to school to be with YOUR children, where they can then get sick. In a country this big, the effects will trickle and flow out very quickly. Many middle-aged married couples are going to wonder how they are going to take care of mom when her nursing home funding gets slashed. There is no END to the examples I could sight of why it is an insanely bad idea to kick 25 million people off health insurance and cut Medicaid by a trillion dollars. It will be an utter disaster. And millions of people will never forget the emotional terrorism the Republican Party is engaging in right now in regards to the very health and lives of the poorest among us.
And that brings me again to my final point: Donald Trump, explicitly and on endless occasions, said he wasn't going to TOUCH Medicare and Medicaid. Said it over and over and over again on the campaign trail. Either of the GOP bills is a step towards destroying Medicaid outright. The fact is, many Trump voters saw him as apart from the Republican Party, and believed him when he said this. Even a modicum of knowledge about these two entities (Trump and the Republican Party) would have told anyone who wanted to know what they would try to do. 1.) That Donald Trump is a con-man who has no policy of his own, and was ALWAYS going to defer to McConnell and Ryan on major policy issues and 2.) That the Republican Party represented by McConnell and Ryan has been trying to dismantle the New Deal for the last half century. This was inevitable the moment Trump was elected.
And @semiticgod is wholly correct. All of this boils down to endless tax cuts for the wealthy. Always. All the social issues, the culture war, the stripping of the social safety net. ALL of it boils down to the fact that the very wealthiest people in the country need more and more money. It's ALWAYS about tax cuts. Every other part of their agenda is in service of this one goal.
Republicans voting to proceed on healthcare once again reveal themselves to be goddamn monsters of the highest order. Including John McCain, who voted to proceed and THEN critcized the process, before flying back so he can get cancer treatment he would deny others. Peak McCain. Peak Republican Party, a group of people utterly devoid of empathy.
@jjstraka34 this feels unfair to me. Personally I believe very strongly that the Republican plans are bad for the US, but that doesn't mean that they do. If 2 groups of people have opposed views about the best way forward on something they could: 1) Discuss their differences and seek common ground. 2) Demonise their opponents and seek solutions specifically aimed at pissing them off. Which route is likely to be better for the country in the long term?
The growth of instant communications and the ability to transmit only one side of the argument have accelerated the polarisation of political positions in recent years. Looking on from the outside, behavior now makes it appear more like a religious argument than a political one, so I'm not suggesting that reasoned discussion is an easy option. However, if the current polarisation is not reversed then I suspect that arguments in the country would get worse not better when Democrats do get back into power.
Republicans voting to proceed on healthcare once again reveal themselves to be goddamn monsters of the highest order. Including John McCain, who voted to proceed and THEN critcized the process, before flying back so he can get cancer treatment he would deny others. Peak McCain. Peak Republican Party, a group of people utterly devoid of empathy.
@jjstraka34 this feels unfair to me. Personally I believe very strongly that the Republican plans are bad for the US, but that doesn't mean that they do. If 2 groups of people have opposed views about the best way forward on something they could: 1) Discuss their differences and seek common ground. 2) Demonise their opponents and seek solutions specifically aimed at pissing them off. Which route is likely to be better for the country in the long term?
The growth of instant communications and the ability to transmit only one side of the argument have accelerated the polarisation of political positions in recent years. Looking on from the outside, behavior now makes it appear more like a religious argument than a political one, so I'm not suggesting that reasoned discussion is an easy option. However, if the current polarisation is not reversed then I suspect that arguments in the country would get worse not better when Democrats do get back into power.
It was worse not better when Obama was in office. They did nothing but obstruct his entire agenda for 6 years from 2010 onward, up to and including one of the most brazen acts in the history of the governance of this country, which was denying a duly elected President of the United States his constitutional authority to seat a Justice to a vacancy on the Supreme Court, effectively stealing it and handing it off to themselves. Anything but total opposition to Donald Trump and the Republicans in response would be political malpractice. I'm also not going to sit back and pretend there is a shred of anything good in the Republican health care bill. It isn't even a health care bill. It is a draconian cut to the funding of the medical care of the poor to fund tax cuts. It's cruel and dangerous. Obamacare WAS the middle ground. It was a conservative plan in the first place, nearly straight from the Heritage Foundation. That's how much Democrats wanted to get people covered. They were willing to pass the most conservative plan that had been concocted to make it happen, to the disappointment of most on the far left. And they still got not an ounce of support. I'm not interested in a middle ground with Republican lawmakers that doesn't exist. It's a fantasy, like unicorns and Bigfoot.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, the Democratic Party has been moving ever more to the center up until just the last few years. The Republicans have moved so far to the right they aren't even on the map anymore. Their plan for social programs in this country would be a non-starter even among far-right parties in most European countries. If you want to see what the Republican policies would do to this country if enacted, you can just look and read up on what has happened to Kansas under Sam Brownback. That is their wet dream.
@jjstraka34 this feels unfair to me. Personally I believe very strongly that the Republican plans are bad for the US, but that doesn't mean that they do. If 2 groups of people have opposed views about the best way forward on something they could: 1) Discuss their differences and seek common ground. 2) Demonise their opponents and seek solutions specifically aimed at pissing them off. Which route is likely to be better for the country in the long term?
The growth of instant communications and the ability to transmit only one side of the argument have accelerated the polarisation of political positions in recent years. Looking on from the outside, behavior now makes it appear more like a religious argument than a political one, so I'm not suggesting that reasoned discussion is an easy option. However, if the current polarisation is not reversed then I suspect that arguments in the country would get worse not better when Democrats do get back into power.
What would you have reasonable people, do? Keep giving them more? No. We've compromised, we've engaged in give and take in good faith. They have absolutely not.
When Democrats wanted to pass a healthcare bill the ACA was debated in three House committees and two Senate committees, and subject to hundreds of hours of bipartisan debate that allowed for the introduction of amendments from both parties. The Republicans wrote a bill in secret with 0 input and ramrodded the damn thing though completely so far.
A supreme court justice died while Obama was President and Mitch McConnel refused to even entertain anybody Obama might appoint. And we're supposed to be nice to these guys? They complain of voter fraud as an excuse to rig elections - they drop democratic voters from the polls and close voting stations and are engaged in other shenanigans with polling hours, voting machines and the works. They can't win elections fair and square because most people don't want them, they've stolen disproportionate power by rigging elections with the electoral college and gerrymandered districts.
They gotta give, we've compromised and given them too much.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/20/swedish-rail-firm-approves-trainy-mctrainface-as-newest-member-of-its-fleet
As I said numerous times, Trump has been keeping the "prosecute Hillary" card in his back pocket this whole time. If he is signaling using it, he is feeling scared and cornered. Also , if he wants to tell Sessions something, he could just, idk, tell him so in person?? Trump's plan is so transparent: he wants Sessions to resign so he can appoint a new AG in the upcoming recess who will fire Mueller.
Meanwhile, John McCain is coming back for the healthcare vote. IF he votes to proceed, he loses all sympathy from me and can go screw himself. It's a whole other level of evil to be receiving treatment for brain cancer with your gold-plated health coverage and vote to take that peace of mind away from 24 million people. Maybe he'll do the right thing, but I highly doubt they are flying him into DC to cast a no vote. Shameful.
Describes some of the already known connections between Trump and Russian criminals to launder money.
For example, in 2015, the Trump Taj Mahal was fined $10 million—the highest penalty ever levied by the feds against a casino—and admitted to having “willfully violated” anti-money-laundering regulations for years.
There's more dirt out there but so far what is publicly known is that a whole lot of Russian criminals, money launderers and oligarchs have been in Trump's orbit since Reagan was President.
And this is probably why Trump doesn't want Mueller looking at his finances and also why Trump hasn't released tax returns that could be investigated and bs could be seen through.
https://newrepublic.com/article/143586/trumps-russian-laundromat-trump-tower-luxury-high-rises-dirty-money-international-crime-syndicate
“You can either adapt Trump into the presidency or you can adapt the presidency into Trump,” said Barry Bennett, a former Trump campaign adviser. “The latter is the only way it will ever work, and I think that’s what we’re seeing.”
On the one hand, the desire to want to run the government as if it were a business is fine, since government typically wastes more money than corporations and is subject to less oversight. Yes, the government watches over itself, but none of you are naive enough to think that makes the government more honest and transparent, are you? Anyway...on the other hand, even as President you cannot simply pick up the phone and start firing people who don't toe your line all the time (even if that line changes from morning to afternoon). In business, yes, employees are expected to display loyalty to the company but politicians and political appointees are expected to be loyal to the country and the Constitution, not the person of the President.
I concur--Trump doesn't want to fire Sessions so much as he wants Sessions to quit. If Sessions quits then Trump has plausible deniability with regards to any decision made by the person who assumes the office of Attorney General because he didn't tell them precisely what decision to make. That replacement person will not be Rod Rosenstein, either--he is damaged goods at that point, since it was Rosenstein's e-mail stream which has landed Junior in his current troubles.
Scaramucci has stated that he is willing to fire everyone in Communications except himself and Sarah Huckabee Sanders if "leaks" continue. Scorch the earth!
I think government accountability isn't as bad as many think, but that the people often want unrealistic/stupid expenditures, especially with low taxes. Eh, maybe I think there's more corruption than that, but the expectations of a dumbed down public imho is more damaging than the present level of corruption.
So far, McCain and the other GOP senators (save for two) have only proven that they're willing to consider the new plan.
That awkward moment in West Virginia when you are the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the stage at an event with your boss and your boss jokes about firing you if you don't drum up the votes in support of the direction he wants health insurance legislation to go.
By the way:
Where are the fawning tributes to this Democratic woman in a currently worse situation than the fraud McCain?? Nowhere to be found.
Most Republicans ran on a repeal/replace platform in the previous election. They promised that they would repeal Obama care and replace it with something better. Them taking the steps to do so is their job, including McCain.
If the people of Arizona or other states do not want to lose the ACA, they should contact their representatives to say so, or vote them out of office in the next election.
Universal healthcare has lots of forms and degrees of coverage, its not sane for the Republicans to ultimately not even have a viable rough draft that satisfies both parties. I mean, the Democrats will probably win some elections in the future (ha...), and they could then rework healthcare again, so this should be bipartisan.
@DreadKhan I don't think anyone in Washington, D. C. is interested in being "bipartisan" any more. The hatred--we should call it what it is--between the two major political parties is too entrenched. It isn't politics any more; it's personal.
There is a certain part of me that almost is resigned to letting this happen just so people can actually see what the consequences are, but that would be utterly irresponsible. To start with, 60% of nursing home care in this country is funded by Medicaid. Gut it at the numbers Republicans are suggesting, and you are simply going to see nursing homes straight up close down. Funding for education and therapy for people with disabilities?? Cut, cut, cut. Just the TIP of the iceberg, and it'll hit Trump voters just as hard. And then what?? They'll either blame Democrats, or they'll be befuddled as to how Trump could cut Medicaid after he swore he wouldn't. Well, these people were told. Over and over. Loudly. And I'm honestly not sure how I can possibly respond if and when that happens. Probably just better to keep my mouth shut.
My dad is a doctor and he has noted many times that all of his co-workers are Republicans. Not because they agree with the Republican party about social issues or foreign policy or the wall or Trump or anything like that, but simply, and solely, because they are rich men who stand to profit from the lower taxes on the wealthy that the GOP always advocates.
There do exist rich Democrats. But rich people overwhelmingly skew Republican for the simple reason that they want lower taxes. Such people believe that (1) they are the only ones who are responsible for their success, (2) that they deserve to be richer than other people because they're smarter and work harder, and (3) they have no fiscal obligation whatsoever to the nation that made their success possible. That's what my father's coworkers have said, over and over.
That's not the voice of carping anti-money Democrats accusing random people of being evil. That's the direct voice of wealthy Republicans themselves, saying why they vote Republican.
The notion that big businesses and the wealthy love the Democratic party is absolutely false. A lot of things have changed about the GOP and the Democratic party, but the one thing that has not changed over the course of 150 years (yes, since the Civil War) is that the wealthy skew Republican and the poor skew Democrat.
Republicans did the 1%s bidding here, clearly. If Democrats do something later, then call them out then.
Today, it was all Republicans determined to get that 1%'s tax cut and throw 16-32 million people off of health insurance.
But anyway, the wealthcare bill is a tax cut for people that don't need it that completely own the republican party. Kochs, Mercers, Devoses etc.
This doesn't even get into people with preexisting conditions who NEED medical insurance more than anyone. Especially if you've ever had cancer, and live with the thought of it coming back every day of your life. You don't even want to know the costs of a year of cancer treatment, but suffice to say, it's more than almost anyone here will make in 50 years. This is just one example. The GOP plan doesn't just take things back to the way they were 8 years ago. It also takes a hatchet to Medicaid, which is the only reason poor children and their parents can even see a doctor. Without this level of Medicaid funding, many rural hospitals (Trump Country) will close down because that is their main source of income. Every single patient rights group in the country is against these bills. Every Medical organization is against them. It will devastate nursing homes, hospitals, the professions involved with medical care itself. The amount of total stress in the country will skyrocket. Children who are sick will get sent to school to be with YOUR children, where they can then get sick. In a country this big, the effects will trickle and flow out very quickly. Many middle-aged married couples are going to wonder how they are going to take care of mom when her nursing home funding gets slashed. There is no END to the examples I could sight of why it is an insanely bad idea to kick 25 million people off health insurance and cut Medicaid by a trillion dollars. It will be an utter disaster. And millions of people will never forget the emotional terrorism the Republican Party is engaging in right now in regards to the very health and lives of the poorest among us.
And that brings me again to my final point: Donald Trump, explicitly and on endless occasions, said he wasn't going to TOUCH Medicare and Medicaid. Said it over and over and over again on the campaign trail. Either of the GOP bills is a step towards destroying Medicaid outright. The fact is, many Trump voters saw him as apart from the Republican Party, and believed him when he said this. Even a modicum of knowledge about these two entities (Trump and the Republican Party) would have told anyone who wanted to know what they would try to do. 1.) That Donald Trump is a con-man who has no policy of his own, and was ALWAYS going to defer to McConnell and Ryan on major policy issues and 2.) That the Republican Party represented by McConnell and Ryan has been trying to dismantle the New Deal for the last half century. This was inevitable the moment Trump was elected.
And @semiticgod is wholly correct. All of this boils down to endless tax cuts for the wealthy. Always. All the social issues, the culture war, the stripping of the social safety net. ALL of it boils down to the fact that the very wealthiest people in the country need more and more money. It's ALWAYS about tax cuts. Every other part of their agenda is in service of this one goal.
1) Discuss their differences and seek common ground.
2) Demonise their opponents and seek solutions specifically aimed at pissing them off.
Which route is likely to be better for the country in the long term?
The growth of instant communications and the ability to transmit only one side of the argument have accelerated the polarisation of political positions in recent years. Looking on from the outside, behavior now makes it appear more like a religious argument than a political one, so I'm not suggesting that reasoned discussion is an easy option. However, if the current polarisation is not reversed then I suspect that arguments in the country would get worse not better when Democrats do get back into power.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, the Democratic Party has been moving ever more to the center up until just the last few years. The Republicans have moved so far to the right they aren't even on the map anymore. Their plan for social programs in this country would be a non-starter even among far-right parties in most European countries. If you want to see what the Republican policies would do to this country if enacted, you can just look and read up on what has happened to Kansas under Sam Brownback. That is their wet dream.
When Democrats wanted to pass a healthcare bill the ACA was debated in three House committees and two Senate committees, and subject to hundreds of hours of bipartisan debate that allowed for the introduction of amendments from both parties. The Republicans wrote a bill in secret with 0 input and ramrodded the damn thing though completely so far.
A supreme court justice died while Obama was President and Mitch McConnel refused to even entertain anybody Obama might appoint. And we're supposed to be nice to these guys? They complain of voter fraud as an excuse to rig elections - they drop democratic voters from the polls and close voting stations and are engaged in other shenanigans with polling hours, voting machines and the works. They can't win elections fair and square because most people don't want them, they've stolen disproportionate power by rigging elections with the electoral college and gerrymandered districts.
They gotta give, we've compromised and given them too much.