Jump to content
retrofade

Trump is going after the Freedom Caucus now

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

You and I have no motivation to agree.  The republicans have no choice but to replace Obamacare, it isn't whether it will happen or not, it is just a matter of when.  If this bill comes up next march it would pass with no problem because of the immediacy of the election cycle.

Plus republican generally don't include communists, so they are not as far apart in their disagreements as you and I.

If obamacare lite had passed today I think republicans would suffer for it in the election.  Democrats could tout success in that their plan was still in place just fixed a little.  Now republicans are going to struggle and squirm for a few months and everyone will see them work hard and when they do pass a bill it will at least obviously have required some work and thought.   

They will pass a bill they have no choice.

We shall see.   The problem is the people in the freedom caucus claim (and believe) moderates are communists just like you.  You are a perfect model why the Republicans will struggle to pass anything substantial.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

We shall see.   The problem is the people in the freedom caucus claim (and believe) moderates are communists just like you.  You are a perfect model why the Republicans will struggle to pass anything substantial.  

Actually there were quite a few moderates that kept the bill from passing too.

Communists like you and Bernie are all in the democratic party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

Actually there were quite a few moderates that kept the bill from passing too.

Communists like you and Bernie are all in the democratic party.

Sure because moderates like me or loathe to cede the agenda to extremists like you who consider workers leeches.  The same dynamic exists in the Republican Party.   We shall see if they can pass anything other than tax cuts to their Corporate masters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

Actually there were quite a few moderates that kept the bill from passing too.

Communists like you and Bernie are all in the democratic party.

If I were truely the communist you claim, I would be for single payer but I'm not.   Once again you're a perfect example of the my way or highway far right wing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sactowndog said:

We shall see.   The problem is the people in the freedom caucus claim (and believe) moderates are communists just like you.  You are a perfect model why the Republicans will struggle to pass anything substantial.  

Tea baggers have never been for anything. Only against. The voted unanimously to repeal Obamacare 60 times. Now when their vote actually counts and they have to be for something. They bail. They have no ideas other than to burn everything to the ground. Social Darwinism.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

The tea party candidates swore up and down for years they would repeal Obamacare. When push came to shove they didn't do it. 

Why repeal something if it's going to be replaced with something just as bad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, retrofade said:

Why repeal something if it's going to be replaced with something just as bad?

Because they said they would. Repeatedly. It's all they've said on the matter. Doing so cuts spending.  Not doing so increases spending, which is what the crystallizing tea party issue was from the start. They could have gotten rid of the old law and still denounced the new law, calling for either the senate to come up with a better one or to repeal.

  • Like 2

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Because they said they would. Repeatedly. It's all they've said on the matter. Doing so cuts spending.  Not doing so increases spending, which is what the crystallizing tea party issue was from the start. They could have gotten rid of the old law and still denounced the new law, calling for either the senate to come up with a better one or to repeal.

Repealing something for the sake of repealing it is insanity. If you're going to repeal it, then repeal it with something that will actually significantly change it. The GOP replacement plan wasn't going to save a significant amount of money, it was simply as I've called it before, ObamaCare II: Electric Boogaloo. They chose to exercise common sense, instead of simply voting to get rid of it in order to replace it with something that was damn near close to the same exact thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sactowndog said:

If I were truely the communist you claim, I would be for single payer but I'm not.   Once again you're a perfect example of the my way or highway far right wing.

You are for something worse, price controls and authoritarian top down economic control of services.   You are for government deciding what treatments people may have and what may be charged.  Single Payer is a better and less onerous system then the one you propose.

Again though you have no understanding of economics so it is not surprising you don't understand your own proposals.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Because they said they would. Repeatedly. It's all they've said on the matter. Doing so cuts spending.  Not doing so increases spending, which is what the crystallizing tea party issue was from the start. They could have gotten rid of the old law and still denounced the new law, calling for either the senate to come up with a better one or to repeal.

Where did the republicans ever promise to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something just as bad?

Why don't you provide us that link?

 

They still have almost 18 months before the next election to keep any of their promises.   At least unlike Obama they actually tried a bill right away.   Obama served 8 years and never closed Guantanamo or seriously tried to do immigration reform just to mention a couple obvious examples.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, retrofade said:

Repealing something for the sake of repealing it is insanity. If you're going to repeal it, then repeal it with something that will actually significantly change it. The GOP replacement plan wasn't going to save a significant amount of money, it was simply as I've called it before, ObamaCare II: Electric Boogaloo. They chose to exercise common sense, instead of simply voting to get rid of it in order to replace it with something that was damn near close to the same exact thing. 

That's fine if you're a moderate republican who feels the government is supposed to have a big hand in this industry. But the freedom caucus doesn't believe it's the government's role to be providing health insurance at all. So their options boiled down to choosing an old system that they know to be complete crap, they've told us for years; or a new slightly less crappy system that cuts taxes, slashes spending, and reduces the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars. For limited government types the difference between Obamacare and Trumpcare should be clear. 

These guys want to keep their jobs so they spew red meat, freedom and small government crap, but they don't actually want to do any of the work it takes to achieve it. 

  • Like 3

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

That's fine if you're a moderate republican who feels the government is supposed to have a big hand in this industry. But the freedom caucus doesn't believe it's the government's role to be providing health insurance at all. So their options boiled down to choosing an old system that they know to be complete crap, they've told us for years; or a new slightly less crappy system that cuts taxes, slashes spending, and reduces the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars. For limited government types the difference between Obamacare and Trumpcare should be clear. 

These guys want to keep their jobs so they spew red meat, freedom and small government crap, but they don't actually want to do any of the work it takes to achieve it. 

The choice is clear... deal with the short term bad in order to get something better long-term. Replacing Obamacare with Obamacare II is like trading Natty Ice for Bud Light instead of waiting for a while and getting some Stone Imperial Russian Stout instead. It would be irresponsible of them to replace a steaming shit with shit that isn't quite as steaming. Doing that wouldn't be doing the work to achieve their goals, it would be settling for shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

Where did the republicans ever promise to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something just as bad?

Why don't you provide us that link?

 

They still have almost 18 months before the next election to keep any of their promises.   At least unlike Obama they actually tried a bill right away.   Obama served 8 years and never closed Guantanamo or seriously tried to do immigration reform just to mention a couple obvious examples.

Why do you think this bill is as bad as Obamacare? It taxes less, it spends less, it reduces the deficit. The main point against it is it didn't let the government cover 24 million people at the per capita healthcare cost of 72 million people like the old one.

Now I would prefer a healthcare system that is more in line with what the freedom caucus wants. But just because I don't get it, I'm not gonna pretend like the dumpster tuna that is Trumpcare is exactly the same as eating the diarrhea soup that is obamacare, it's not. Just because Obama did something doesn't mean it's cool for the freedom caucus to do it too.

  • Like 2

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, retrofade said:

The choice is clear... deal with the short term bad in order to get something better long-term. Replacing Obamacare with Obamacare II is like trading Natty Ice for Bud Light instead of waiting for a while and getting some Stone Imperial Russian Stout instead. It would be irresponsible of them to replace a steaming shit with shit that isn't quite as steaming. Doing that wouldn't be doing the work to achieve their goals, it would be settling for shit.

$900 billion in reduced spending. $600 billion in fewer taxes. You are out of your mind if you think that is a steaming difference. These chumps sure talk a good game about the debt and deficit, but here they didn't care about either here.

  • Like 1

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

$900 billion in reduced spending. $600 billion in fewer taxes. You are out of your mind if you think that is a steaming difference. These chumps sure talk a good game about the debt and deficit, but here they didn't care about either here.

The CBO disagrees with you. They show it as a $150B savings between 2017-2026. The $600B number was nothing but smoke and mirrors created by exchanging subsidies for tax breaks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, retrofade said:

The CBO disagrees with you. They show it as a $150B savings between 2017-2026. The $600B number was nothing but smoke and mirrors created by exchanging subsidies for tax breaks. 

It's still $1,150,000,000,000 less in spending and $1,000,000,000,000 fewer in taxes over a decade! Much of the freedom caucus just said they would vote for all that spending and taxes had a vote been held today! And you think this is a good thing?

  • Like 1

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

It's still $1,150,000,000,000 less in spending and $1,000,000,000,000 fewer in taxes over a decade! Much of the freedom caucus just said they would vote for all that spending and taxes had a vote been held today! And you think this is a good thing?

No, they didn't say they would vote for that spending. They said that the cuts weren't enough to justify voting for a bad bill. Like I said, it would have been like voting for shit instead of steaming shit. I'd prefer that they not vote for shit at all, and wait for something that's an actually legitimately reformative bill. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, retrofade said:

No, they didn't say they would vote for that spending. They said that the cuts weren't enough to justify voting for a bad bill. Like I said, it would have been like voting for shit instead of steaming shit. I'd prefer that they not vote for shit at all, and wait for something that's an actually legitimately reformative bill. 

Whatever their justification, the result is the same. And they sided on team let's spend and tax a trillion when the alternative was not doing that.

  • Like 1

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Whatever their justification, the result is the same. And they sided on team let's spend and tax a trillion when the alternative was not doing that.

Wait, when did $600B become $150M become $1T? That $150B number isn't cumulative between 2017 and 2026, that's the total cost savings. You're making facts up as you go along. The original bill had it as $1.2T in reduced spending, but $883B in reduced revenues, and a total savings of $337B. Then the revision of the plan reduced the savings from $337B to $150B. That's a total savings of 3.8% of the federal budget. Why would you be willing to settle for a 3.8% reduction when you could devise a plan that saves a significantly larger amount? This shouldn't be about just replacing Obamacare with the first alternative that the GOP can come up with, this should be about replacing it with something that works, saves a significant amount of money, and results in meaningful reform. RyanTrumpGOPCare did none of those things except to save a very nominal amount of money. 

Just so we're clear, that isn't a 3.8% every year, that's a 3.8% reduction of our estimated 2017 budget, spread over a decade. Yep, that's some real savings right there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bluerules009 said:

You are for something worse, price controls and authoritarian top down economic control of services.   You are for government deciding what treatments people may have and what may be charged.  Single Payer is a better and less onerous system then the one you propose.

Again though you have no understanding of economics so it is not surprising you don't understand your own proposals.

 

Let's be clear.  I have said Government can't afford to do it all and they can't.  The government should provide a baseline national plan.   Providers are free to provide above that.   

A similiar analogy would be the postal service versus UPS and FedEx.   

As for drug pricing I see no reason to discuss further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...