Trump's 7 point Drain the Swamp Plan & 100 Day Agenda

[Landlord]

 

 

I'm only offended by some of the incompetent statements and comparisons being made on this board.

 

 

 

I have to admit. I laughed about this statement from someone who vehemently supports a President elect who constantly offends people.

 

So sorry you are offended.

 

 

 

If only he'd be offended by some of the incompetent statements and comparisons being made by our President elect

[TGHusker]

Summary of article: Vote to repeal Obamacare in 2017 but have a 3 year period to implement a new plan per the Senate Majority Whip.

Repubs recognize the need to get it correct and are also challenged by Trump stating he wants to keep feature of the ACA - thus the delay in

implementing the new plan.

 

It seems to me they had almost 8 years to figure out the plan 100 different ways - with all of the grandstanding they

were doing. They want a 3 year delay in the new plan so (1) those with insurance won't be left out in the cold while the repubs (2) look up their collective hind ends figuring out a plan.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/obamacare-republicans-repeal-replace-232025

[knapplc]

That sounds a lot better than any plan to repeal it on Day 1, or "soon" within Trump's presidency.

 

If they're going to dismantle it, they should do it slowly & carefully, with as little disruption to healthcare as possible.

 

And since it's something the Republicans are obviously dead-set on doing, and will do, I'm going to be furious if the Democrats don't suck up their pride and work with the Republicans to form a reasonable alternative. If they dig their heels in and obstruct this and we end up with something as bad or worse.... Ugh.

[VectorVictor]

I am emphatically against the school choice act. The devastation to public schools began with No Child Left Behind and continued with Common Core. School vouchers with be the final nail. So sad what we have allowed the government to do to our children

 

You do realize that an ignorant populous is exactly what the current regime in the GOP needs in order to remain relevant, yes?

[Whistlebritches]

A three year delay is pretty convenient timing. Repeal in 2017 and then in 2020 during the run-up to the next presidential election they're going to be working on this new plan. If the Dems don't go along with whatever is suggested and stops their plan from being implemented it could cause millions to lose their coverage. Either the congressional Dems cave and Trump gets a huge win or the Dems don't cave and Trump gets a huge win.

[TGHusker]

That sounds a lot better than any plan to repeal it on Day 1, or "soon" within Trump's presidency.

 

If they're going to dismantle it, they should do it slowly & carefully, with as little disruption to healthcare as possible.

 

And since it's something the Republicans are obviously dead-set on doing, and will do, I'm going to be furious if the Democrats don't suck up their pride and work with the Republicans to form a reasonable alternative. If they dig their heels in and obstruct this and we end up with something as bad or worse.... Ugh.

AGREE. Fortunately, Senate Minority Leader Schummer has said there are areas he can work wt Trump on and since Trump says there are parts of the plan he likes, then maybe the Dems will willing to work wt him and get a higher % of what they want vs if they didn't work wt him. They could in the end, look like the adults in the room if they play it right.

[TGHusker]

A three year delay is pretty convenient timing. Repeal in 2017 and then in 2020 during the run-up to the next presidential election they're going to be working on this new plan. If the Dems don't go along with whatever is suggested and stops their plan from being implemented it could cause millions to lose their coverage. Either the congressional Dems cave and Trump gets a huge win or the Dems don't cave and Trump gets a huge win.

I see your point on that. Throughout the decades we've seen that game played. Time things around the elections.

[knapplc]

 

That sounds a lot better than any plan to repeal it on Day 1, or "soon" within Trump's presidency.

 

If they're going to dismantle it, they should do it slowly & carefully, with as little disruption to healthcare as possible.

 

And since it's something the Republicans are obviously dead-set on doing, and will do, I'm going to be furious if the Democrats don't suck up their pride and work with the Republicans to form a reasonable alternative. If they dig their heels in and obstruct this and we end up with something as bad or worse.... Ugh.

AGREE. Fortunately, Senate Minority Leader Schummer has said there are areas he can work wt Trump on and since Trump says there are parts of the plan he likes, then maybe the Dems will willing to work wt him and get a higher % of what they want vs if they didn't work wt him. They could in the end, look like the adults in the room if they play it right.

 

 

I really like Obama's "Elections have consequences" line. He's 100% right, but his political opponents aren't the only ones who need reminding of that.

[Whistlebritches]

Also, at what point does healthcare stop being a political football that's up for change every time we have a shift in leadership? As long as there are millions of non or under insured people in this country I'd guess it will keep happening.

[zoogs]

Did anyone mention that Carrier was slated to save $65M/yr by making this move to Mexico? $65M - $700k = $64.3M/yr

 

While Carrier will forfeit some $65 million a year in savings the move was supposed to generate, thats a small price to pay to avoid the public relations damage from moving the jobs as well as a possible threat to United Technologies far-larger military contracting business."

 

Two things. First, I think this undersells the extent of the benefits the company is expecting to receive. All of those benefits, including reduced regulations, come at potential public cost.

 

Second, if we suppose Carrier made this call against significant pocketbook interests, then they did so under threat of an incoming administration to hurt them individually at their discretion. That's a worrying thing for the government to be doing on a number of levels.

 

These 850 out of the 2000 jobs being saved, it doesn't seem like something that will scale. And if they try, it will be a significantly increased public burden.

[zoogs]

From that Politico article, the three year delay is a parallel to the fiscal cliff tactic, in that they hope the existence of a deadline will cause things to happen in time.

 

Politicians: have you met other politicians? I mean, how did the fiscal cliff stuff go?

 

"Repeal now, figure it out later" is a dubious tactic. I tend to think the onus for an ensuing mess should be on the part of those who pursued such a stratagem, but I'm not sure it will work out that way.

[FrankWheeler]

 

Did anyone mention that Carrier was slated to save $65M/yr by making this move to Mexico? $65M - $700k = $64.3M/yr

 

While Carrier will forfeit some $65 million a year in savings the move was supposed to generate, thats a small price to pay to avoid the public relations damage from moving the jobs as well as a possible threat to United Technologies far-larger military contracting business."

 

Two things. First, I think this undersells the extent of the benefits the company is expecting to receive. All of those benefits, including reduced regulations, come at potential public cost.

 

Second, if we suppose Carrier made this call against significant pocketbook interests, then they did so under threat of an incoming administration to hurt them individually at their discretion. That's a worrying thing for the government to be doing on a number of levels.

 

These 850 out of the 2000 jobs being saved, it doesn't seem like something that will scale. And if they try, it will be a significantly increased public burden.

 

 

Let's not forget that these types of tax breaks helped Trump out a great deal in building his wealth. I'm sure this won't be the last time we see this type of economic development tool from his administration.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/nyregion/donald-trump-tax-breaks-real-estate.html

[BigRedBuster]

Also, at what point does healthcare stop being a political football that's up for change every time we have a shift in leadership? As long as there are millions of non or under insured people in this country I'd guess it will keep happening.

As long as we have millions of uninsured people or a bill that needs drastic improvement, it will be an issue....and it should be an issue.

[TGHusker]

 

 

Did anyone mention that Carrier was slated to save $65M/yr by making this move to Mexico? $65M - $700k = $64.3M/yr

 

While Carrier will forfeit some $65 million a year in savings the move was supposed to generate, thats a small price to pay to avoid the public relations damage from moving the jobs as well as a possible threat to United Technologies far-larger military contracting business."

 

Two things. First, I think this undersells the extent of the benefits the company is expecting to receive. All of those benefits, including reduced regulations, come at potential public cost.

 

Second, if we suppose Carrier made this call against significant pocketbook interests, then they did so under threat of an incoming administration to hurt them individually at their discretion. That's a worrying thing for the government to be doing on a number of levels.

 

These 850 out of the 2000 jobs being saved, it doesn't seem like something that will scale. And if they try, it will be a significantly increased public burden.

 

 

Let's not forget that these types of tax breaks helped Trump out a great deal in building his wealth. I'm sure this won't be the last time we see this type of economic development tool from his administration.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/nyregion/donald-trump-tax-breaks-real-estate.html

 

Corporations both businesses and sports teams (think huge new stadiums) have learned to feast at the public troth. Corporate welfare is a problem on all levels of governance - Federal bank and auto bailouts, States compete wt other States for a business, Cities within those states give benefits to draw them to their city. If Trump wants to 'fix Washington' he needs to deal wt this type of welfare as well as individual welfare programs. Unfortunately, as you note, Trump's own businesses grew by taking advantage of these benefits. So at what level does govt determine corp winners and losers? - how many employees, dollar value of sales or assets, or amount donated to politicians/parties??

 

I do believe govt has a role in fostering business. Helping emerging industries, incubation process, tax incentives for bring jobs back to the USA. When the govt has a 'Big Idea' like NASA was in the 1960s it spurs all kinds of development for businesses directly and indirectly. Energy can do the same during our current time frame. Yes, drill baby drill, but a NASA type program for future energy development would go a long way in securing energy independence not only for us but for nations around the world. It would also end the need for Mideast wars and lesson our involvement in the MD- let the terrorist just fight amongst themselves - we have no need of them or their land's resources. Trump is talking about infrastructure - if we are going to spend billions then think futuristic -now. Highways that manage driverless cars with embedded technology that interact wt vehicles. Get the govt involved in these big ideas and watch industry grow around those ideas.

 

While there is a certain truth that the best govt is local govt (closest to the need) and also small govt (not in everyone's business), there is also the truth that the best govt is that which thinks the biggest - using innovative ideas to solve our problems wt health, infrastructure, education, etc. We don't have enough big thinkers in govt. Maybe because too many have never been in business where you have to be innovative to survive. Govt leaders should do a 'Walk a Mile' in the lives of business leaders to understand how to think wt innovation. The govt could reform itself to be more efficient. Do we really need them to meet in DC all year long where they are exposed to lobbyists and group think. Why not use technology and work out of their local office where they are closer to the people and go to DC once a quarter or less??

[zoogs]

The Week: The percentage of Republicans interested in repealing Obamacare has plummeted

 

Even among Republicans, interest in scrapping the law has fallen dramatically. While 69 percent were in favor of a total dismantling in October, now only 52 percent are.

 

At the same time, 49 percent of Americans now say they want to keep the law as is, or even expand it. Seventeen percent say they just want to see the law "scaled back," CNN reported. The latter option seems to be a growing favorite among Republicans: Now 24 percent say they favor scaling the law back, up from 11 percent in October.

Wow -- maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this seems to reveal considerable but unsurprising ignorance. What, indeed, is "scaling back"? I get the impression people think it's a straightforward spending program and not a legal framework to get more people on health insurance. "Less" government spending and intervention isn't what will lower premiums, which are still the domain of private insurers.

 

It's like how Trump casually said he wants to keep the requirement that everybody with pre-existing conditions gets covered. This isn't one little feature of a big spending bill from which bells and whistles can be extracted at whim. It's an entire pillar of the law; solving this problem is what the ACA sprung up around. It's why we have the individual mandate.