Trump

[Dave Stalwart]

Nm

[ShockCrazy]

Sweet Mother of Jesus. We didn't owe them anything. Some of it was Irainian funds in American banks, which had been frozen for years by the US govt. Giving them cash (planeloads stacked on pallets and shrinkwrapped cash, currency) might seem like a positive thing to a lunatic begging for the end of the world, I suppose



http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politi...ash/index.html

Quite literally the article you cited said it was a failed arms deal. LOL. Read much?

"The money was flown into Iran on wooden pallets stacked with Swiss francs, euros and other currencies as the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement resolving claims at an international tribunal at The Hague over a failed arms deal under the time of the Shah."

[pinstripers]

I ****ing give up

[ShockCrazy]

I ****ing give up

Please do cause I have no idea your point. So we didn't owe them but it was their money which sure, semantics, then why is returning their money so worthy of condemnation?

[Kung Wu]

She appears to have deleted her account.

See my edit in this post.

[shockfan89_]

I agree we should reign in spending, and it should be moved towards state and local level. But let's not pretend that's what Republicans want either. I don't believe the administration is working in our benefit, I think it is working to benefit Donald Trump and his ego and mostly to slow progress.

Wait a minute, benefit Donald Trump and his ego and mostly slow progress? What evidence do you have of this? What has Donald Trump done to benefit himself or his ego? He is donating his salary to charity and trying to make meaningful changes to improve how this country is run. Establishment Republicans, Democrats and the media are slowing progress. Just today the Senate announced they were cutting half of their August vacation to work on healthcare because of Trump's pressure to get things done and move faster.

[ShockCrazy]

Wait a minute, benefit Donald Trump and his ego and mostly slow progress? What evidence do you have of this? What has Donald Trump done to benefit himself or his ego? He is donating his salary to charity and trying to make meaningful changes to improve how this country is run. Establishment Republicans, Democrats and the media are slowing progress. Just today the Senate announced they were cutting half of their August vacation to work on healthcare because of Trump's pressure to get things done and move faster.

How about all the business dealings that are benefiting him? Mar-a-lago stays? Etc. The salary is chump change compared to that alone.

[Aargh]

Someone mentioned the desire for lower health care costs without big taxes to cover it. That's not going to happen.

To lower health care costs there aren't a lot of options. Hospital, pharmaceutical, and doctors charges, prices, and fees could be regulated. That's incredibly unlikely. The insurance industry could be removed from the equation and the dollars that go toward making those corporations profitable could be eliminated. That's beyond incredibly unlikely to happen.

That leaves us with the costs we're incurring now that make health care unaffordable for many. The situation we're in now could have been predicted decades ago. It is the logical conclusion of how we've handled health care for as long as this old-timer can remember.

Cut through all the talk, sound bites, and rhetoric and there are only two viable options for health care.

1) Spend tax dollars to subsidize those who can't afford it.
2) Deny health care to those who can't afford it.

Both options are incredibly unpopular, but hospitals can't stay open if they have to absorb the cost of treating the uninsured. Where the current system breaks down is when hospitals hit the breaking point on providing no cost emergency room services to uninsured and attempting to pass those costs along to those who are insured. When we hit that one, health care is broken. It doesn't matter if it's ACA, AHCA, or any other current form - it's brokien.

[wufan]

Sometimes it seems we might just as well have a debate between Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher as what we've got here. It's sort of like WWI. Both sides are dug into their trenches and not giving up or gaining an inch of ground.

I totally agree. I believe there is a philosophical difference between the two parties that are extremely difficult to overcome, as such I started the thread on this forum to discuss those differences.

In the past two or so decades the Democratic Party is been over-taken by post-modern ideology which believes in a victim/oppressor hierarchy. This is most clear in the third-wave feminism movement and the ideas of intersectionality. It is further revealed by BLM and the ideas of white privledge and white fragility, and finally the idea of equality of outcome (see occupy Wall Street). How else could Sheria Law Muslims, and feminists be on the same side?

The Republican Party has taken on the near entirety of the Judeo-Christian ethic. They have collected evangelical christians, who's main goal in life seems to be to make homosexuality and abortion illegal, and teamed them up with small federal government fiscal conservatives and libertarians.

At their core, these two philosophies are not reconcilable, so they demand MUCH compromise. I can talk more about the reasons for hard-lining against each other and possible solutions should anyone care to discuss.

[shockfan89_]

How about all the business dealings that are benefiting him? Mar-a-lago stays? Etc. The salary is chump change compared to that alone.

Totally fair criticism but that should have been resolved prior to Trump's election. It is also hardly a central theme to this administration. To say this administration is working to benefit Trump is a false characterization. Trump was rich and popular before running for President. In fact, you could argue his ego was better off without the headache's of being President.

[shocka khan]

Thank you MoValley John. Hope she didn't put your pet rabbit in a cooking pot at your house!!!

Yup, I tried to warn her about Troll Valley John, he must be real proud of himself, perhaps you both should join the he-man woman-haters club. I bet if you watch this closely, you'll see the doc, too. Perhaps he's the fat one named Spanky?

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=he-man+women+haters+club&view=detail&mid=C2E9D067EB6D5221FC8AC2E9D067EB6D5221FC8A&FORM=VIRE

[wufan]

@shocka khan:, uncalled for.

[Play Angry]

Someone mentioned the desire for lower health care costs without big taxes to cover it. That's not going to happen.

To lower health care costs there aren't a lot of options. Hospital, pharmaceutical, and doctors charges, prices, and fees could be regulated. That's incredibly unlikely. The insurance industry could be removed from the equation and the dollars that go toward making those corporations profitable could be eliminated. That's beyond incredibly unlikely to happen.

That leaves us with the costs we're incurring now that make health care unaffordable for many. The situation we're in now could have been predicted decades ago. It is the logical conclusion of how we've handled health care for as long as this old-timer can remember.

Cut through all the talk, sound bites, and rhetoric and there are only two viable options for health care.

1) Spend tax dollars to subsidize those who can't afford it.
2) Deny health care to those who can't afford it.

Both options are incredibly unpopular, but hospitals can't stay open if they have to absorb the cost of treating the uninsured. Where the current system breaks down is when hospitals hit the breaking point on providing no cost emergency room services to uninsured and attempting to pass those costs along to those who are insured. When we hit that one, health care is broken. It doesn't matter if it's ACA, AHCA, or any other current form - it's brokien.

@Kung Wu: has made good posts in prior years detailing several ways to cut costs with systemic reform. @CBB_Fan: has offered some interesting insight on cost-cutting possibilities from a point of view that veers to the left of KW's proposals.

Unfortunately, Obamacare was a highly-flawed piece of legislation that focused on enlarging the coverage tent with little thought to rein in costs (the supposed primary benefit during the 08 campaign). Now, we have an administration and Congress with a rare mandate for a mulligan, and they have no stomach to tackle broad systemic change. The version passed by the House was the healthcare equivalent of tweaking the income brackets and calling it "tax reform".

It is a bummer, for sure. We are going to be stuck with a crap system for another decade at least it appears.

[jdshock]

Re: Trump donating salary to charity. I don't know where I land on this issue. It's my understanding that historically we've forced the president to take a salary so that we didn't just have rich folks taking the position. If we have presidents start donating their salary, the first person that doesn't donate it is going to be dead on arrival.

On the other hand, we have a bunch of other parts of our system that basically ensure only a rich person could be president anyway.

[wufan]

Re: Trump donating salary to charity. I don't know where I land on this issue. It's my understanding that historically we've forced the president to take a salary so that we didn't just have rich folks taking the position. If we have presidents start donating their salary, the first person that doesn't donate it is going to be dead on arrival.

On the other hand, we have a bunch of other parts of our system that basically ensure only a rich person could be president anyway.

I find it to be a comendable act of its own nature. It should not impact what past or future presidents do as giving to charity is a completely personal decision. I would actually guess that DJT has ulterior motives for this, i.e. "Look how rich I am."

As to the rich being president, yeah, it's pretty hard to get there without being a regular 1%er. We have set up a society that rewards the 80 hour a week leader with ridiculous amounts of money. These same people desire to collect as much money/power as they can, thereby the POTUS is the ultimate goal (if they are politically inclined). You literally have the most hard working, narcissistic, and wealthy people drooling all over themselves for an opportunity to make a primary for one of the major parties.

While these candidates have huge flaws, I'm totally okay with vs the person that isn't competent or hard working enough to be valued by society. POTUS sounds like a horrible job to the vast majority of people due to the high stress, high time commitments of the position. I'm glad we have a few hard working smart people (assholes?) that are willing to take on this thankless job.