13
   

What do Progressives/Democratic Socialists want from the House in 2019-2020

 
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 Nov, 2018 03:54 pm
@RABEL222,
The ACA was designed to fail. I think everyone knew going in that it was a stepping stone to something else. The economics simply don't work out, the people who are knowledgeable on both sides of the issue are saying exactly that.

Let's be honest. The only way to cover pre-existing conditions is to force people to have insurance. Otherwise, the smart way to save money is to skip buying insurance when you are young and cheap knowing that should something happen, you can always get it covered when you need it.

The Democrats won by changing the expectation. We will end up at something very much like single payer. There is not political way to go back now.

(For the record, I have always been in favor of single payer.)
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Nov, 2018 04:58 pm
@maxdancona,
So have i but one has to start somewhere. Obama had conservative democrats against him and got what he could. You understand what a conservative democrat is max since you are one. Or a republican operative. I haven't decided which you are.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Nov, 2018 05:41 pm
@revelette1,
jesus murphy - he got more and more unhinged as that went on

he's nuts
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 7 Nov, 2018 05:42 pm
@RABEL222,
I don't know why my political orientation matters. I certainly don't know why your judgment of my political orientation matters.

I judge each issue on its own merit without worrying about political labels. You may think that is odd, but I think everyone should do just that.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 7 Nov, 2018 05:48 pm
If they spent the next two years giving us universal healthcare and sticking it to Big Pharma, Trump couldn’t get re-elected.

If they spend millions more over the next two years trying to undo the election, they’ll continue to be hated.

Why don’t they respond to the gross economic gulf between THEM and everyone else?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Thu 8 Nov, 2018 11:06 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
Ok, so Democrat’s control the house. They have the ability to pass legislation.
maporsche wrote:
They have the ability to put Republican opposition and maybe Democratic opposition on the record for/against legislation.
They can force people to go on the record as being against their legislation, but they aren't likely to get anything past the Senate unless it is agreeable to Republicans.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 8 Nov, 2018 11:08 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
I feel that FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE of the president needs to be pushed hard.
The courts will only make Trump turn over records if the Democrats can demonstrate some legitimate reason for looking at them.

And anyone who leaks Trump's private records is likely to see the inside of a prison cell.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 8 Nov, 2018 11:09 am
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:
First things first:
I don't want Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. She is terrible at her job and was one of the major factors for the Democrats losing the House of Representatives to the Republicans in the first place.
I like Pelosi. She has always had good relations with the gun rights movement.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 8 Nov, 2018 11:10 am
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:
I don't want him impeached, I thought I did until it was pointed out Pence would just be president and he is as bad if not worse on policies, both foreign and domestic than Trump is.
This is why we need to outlaw the Democratic Party. They view legal witch hunts as a weapon for achieving their political goals.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 8 Nov, 2018 11:11 am
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
I think most people who don't like aca want it improved, not done away with.
Well, you're wrong. The left hates the ACA because they see it as an obstacle to the socialist monstrosity that they want to inflict on the American people.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Nov, 2018 11:19 am
@oralloy,
What we both said are true statements.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 8 Nov, 2018 11:24 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
The ACA was designed to fail. I think everyone knew going in that it was a stepping stone to something else. The economics simply don't work out, the people who are knowledgeable on both sides of the issue are saying exactly that.
Let's be honest. The only way to cover pre-existing conditions is to force people to have insurance. Otherwise, the smart way to save money is to skip buying insurance when you are young and cheap knowing that should something happen, you can always get it covered when you need it.
So what's the problem? Put people in prison if they refuse to buy insurance.

maxdancona wrote:
The Democrats won by changing the expectation. We will end up at something very much like single payer. There is not political way to go back now.
(For the record, I have always been in favor of single payer.)
The American people are not about to let the Democrats do that to them.
tsarstepan
 
  3  
Reply Thu 8 Nov, 2018 12:31 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Put people in prison if they refuse to buy insurance.

Pennywise the Clown has more compassion in his pinkie then in your entire body (plus the bodies of your past 100 previous lives).
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 8 Nov, 2018 03:46 pm
@tsarstepan,
Why are people who maliciously refuse to buy insurance deserving of compassion?

It only sabotages the entire system for all the rest of us.
tsarstepan
 
  4  
Reply Fri 9 Nov, 2018 06:59 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Why are people who maliciously refuse to buy insurance deserving of compassion?

It only sabotages the entire system for all the rest of us.

You're right. Homeless people and people who need to make a choice that... pay health insurance or pay rent? Clearly, both of these populations "maliciously refuse to buy insurance" They don't deserve compassion. Cool story bro.
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 9 Nov, 2018 12:15 pm
@tsarstepan,
Last I knew, anyone who was required to buy insurance off the exchanges and could not afford it, was given a subsidy.

Others are steered into Medicaid -- which is certainly a raw deal for them, but they are not required to pay.

I guess people who should have been steered into Medicaid, but weren't able to get it because their state opted out of the expansion, have a legitimate reason for not being able to have health insurance. But other than that, as far as I can see, refusal to have insurance is just malicious sabotaging of the system.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  2  
Reply Sat 10 Nov, 2018 08:44 am
Quote:
Trump Is Gonna End The Mueller Probe. Here’s What Dems Should Do.

Donald Trump just made his move against the Russia investigation. 

By forcing the Attorney General Jeff Sessions to resign and then going around the established line of succession at the Department of Justice by appointing a partisan loyalist, Matt Whitaker, to be the acting Attorney General—one who will oversee the Special Prosecutors office—Trump has signaled his intent to end Robert Mueller investigation.

There is no mystery here. Sessions wasn’t removed because of a disagreement over his hardline stance on immigration. Trump has been crystal clear about what he wants in an Attorney General: someone who will protect him. And when Sessions recused himself from overseeing the Russia investigation he was no longer able to do that.

The choice of Whitaker, who reportedly will not recuse himself from overseeing the probe, is an obvious tell. First off: the move is quite possibly illegal. So why put at risk the authority of your acting attorney general? Because Whitaker is a Republican loyalist who wrote an oped a year ago outlining a strategy to kill the Mueller investigation by strangling it bureaucratically. Mueller is dependent on the Department of Justice for his budget. The Attorney General can stop him from issuing indictments and try to quash the release of any reports from the investigation to congress. In an appearance on CNN last year Whitaker previewed the play: “I could see a scenario where Jeff Sessions is replaced, it would recess appointment and that attorney general doesn’t fire Bob Mueller but he just reduces his budget to so low that his investigations grinds to almost a halt.” Trump is now running that exact play.

Democrats will have the power to run a new investigation into Russia’s meddling once the new Congress takes office in January. But they shouldn’t wait. Instead, they must demand now that Whitaker grant the Mueller investigation full independence, effectively making Mueller his own boss. This is what happened during Watergate. After President Richard Nixon initiated the “Saturday night massacre”—removing the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, and the Special Council investigating Watergate—Robert Bork, who suddenly became acting Attorney General, gave the new Special Prosecutor full authority over the investigation. If the “Bork standard” was good enough for Nixon, it is good enough for Trump.

Democrats should also send a message to career officials by making clear that anyone that participates in this effort to obstruct justice will be held to account, whether that’s the President, his acting Attorney General, or other DOJ officials.

While there are expectations that Mueller may have a “break glass” plan for this very scenario, such as unsealing additional indictments or having his report ready to go. But there is no guarantee that this is the case. As an employee of the executive branch, Mueller simply may not have many great options in this showdown with the chief executive.

And the public may not even know if a showdown has even happened. For weeks Washington has been a buzz about coming activity from the investigation. Mueller’s grand jury is clearly busy and an indictment of Roger Stone appears imminent, as Stone himself expects to be indicted. Should no indictments come, should the Mueller investigation, which was quiet before the election, stay quiet, then it is likely that the investigation is being strangled to death.

If Whitaker refuses to meet the Bork standard and give Mueller full independence, the new Democratic congress will need to act right away in January. The House Judiciary Committee will need to immediately investigate to determine whether the investigation is being killed (or has been) from within. This should involve bringing Whitaker, Sessions, the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and possibly Mueller and other officials in the Justice Department, before congress to determine whether the investigation is being obstructed.

Should it become clear that Mueller is not able to investigate—whether that’s because Mueller is fired or his investigation is being strangled or because Mueller resigns in protest—Democrats in congress will have to pick up where Mueller left off. They will need to hold immediate hearings into whether the President is abusing the power of his office to obstruct justice and whether his campaign did indeed conspire with Russia. They will need to immediately subpoena documents and records related to the investigation, such as any report prepared by the Special Counsel, witness lists, any information that was transmitted to the Special Counsel’s office from another government agency, and any materials related to the decision by the Acting Attorney General to overrule the Special Counsel on the filing of charges related to any individual or group. They will need to hold public hearings, including calling Mueller, as well as key figures in the investigation like Donald Trump Jr. to publically testify. They will need to demonstrate to the American public that this is a clear abuse of power and then they must take steps to hold Trump accountable.

There will be a debate if this is politically the best course, as this might be seen as distracting from a more, prefered messages. But this goes beyond politics. If Trump is able to get away with killing an investigation into him, in effect showing that the rules don’t apply, that he is above the law, he will feel emboldened to get away with so much more.

This is how democracies often die. An elected leader uses their position to eliminate the checks on their power, and when they’re not stopped they eliminate additional checks. This can happen here, just as it is happening elsewhere. Fortunately, a buffer now exists in the form of a Democratic Congress. But they have to be ready to act.


DB
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Nov, 2018 11:41 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Why are people who maliciously refuse to buy insurance deserving of compassion?

It only sabotages the entire system for all the rest of us.

The ACA insurance mandate tax was a regressive tax on people who make far less than most people working in the industries that would benefit from the tax. So it was basically a tax on the poor to stimulate the economy for the rich.

Insurance is just tax-spend government at a private level. If Dems want to really achieve things, they should operate outside of the market system instead of manipulating and stimulating it. They won't do that, however, because the ultimate masters they serve are the global investment banks that demand fiscal injections that make it possible to use the stock markets as a tool to siphon money out of some economies and move it to others.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Nov, 2018 11:53 am
@livinglava,
Quote:
If Dems want to really achieve things, they should operate outside of the market system instead of manipulating and stimulating it.


Ignoring the silly conspiracy theory... I agree with you in this post.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Nov, 2018 11:54 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

As much as I hate Trump if it fixes the DACA kids futures. Improves the health care law or makes it cheaper while protecting the core of the law. Helps balance the bidget while still protecting social safety nets......well good, I think?

Of course Trump will take credit, but if it improves the lives of Americans then ok.

DACA is a political trap on multiple levels:
1) it seduces people into registering as potential deportees, which helps government (threaten) deportation when it serves their interests to do so.
2) it only offered very limited protection to a very limited class of people, so it basically just created a way to hold these kids' future's hostage for political bargaining. There would be an endless procession of negotiations to variously expand or chip away at the program, which would depend on various quid-pro-quo offers in government.

As much as I hate to admit it, after watching European migration and xenophobia interplay for years, my conclusion is that there is just no way to stop these nationalist nations from playing economic games with migrants' lives and futures. They allow them to come when the economy is good and push them to leave when the economy is cooling down.

Until there is a whole-hearted acceptance of migration as a normal part of human existence, the best way for migrants to avoid getting exploited is to stay where they/we have citizenship. Maybe one day the world will come around, but even if/when they do, it's going to take a lot to establish the trust necessary for people who have been burnt by migrant-exploitation to think about moving someplace where they are deprived of full citizenship.

The people who keep taking the risk are those who are so desperate for whatever reason that they are willing to submit to exploitation in hopes that the rewards/benefits of doing so will be better than what they can expect staying put where they are citizens. It is a very sad situation and it is irritating when Democrats act like DACA or any other puny measure they propose solves it. They are just trying to pay lip service in order to relieve their consciences for the exploitations that enable their privileged lives as citizens who don't have to (try to) migrate for a better life.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/17/2018 at 04:07:10