The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[boyst]

 

 

House Republicans are a bunch of clowns. They were elected to oppose and now that they have power they don't know how to wield it. They deserve all the ridicule in the world, the irony is that the guys that are most responsible for this are the ones who are politically the safest as they come from districts that are uber conservative and the only way they'll lose their job is if they get out neanderthaled from their right flank during the primaries.

the shoe is simply on the other foot. Prior to the last 3-4 years the democrats were lock step with each other save for radical ideas which would gain traction in the democratic mindset as they continue still to outdo each other on their "social progression.". The error of the Republican party on smaller scale polticis is that they are unforgiving in the house and strict to their principals which us why we have freedom caucus and tea party and all that ****. Splinter cell Republicans. On an even smaller level Republicans control local government by being moderate enough to not waste and piss away welfare. A republican county commissioner in Fort Lauderdale is likely a Democrat in Davie County NC. A Democrat in Wataga County NC is likely Republican in Detroit.

 

And the last part of that is so important. On a national level, where america is so quick to knee jerk, politics are much less impactful to our lives and I would bet half of this country could not name 2 of their county commissioners but could tell you who Paul Ryan, Trump and Bernie are.

 

It's not just the votes, by not passing the Republican reconciliation bill, what they did is damage the Tax reform bill. How?

 

Well, you know those Trillion dollars in Obamacare tax cuts they had would have wiped out under their Reconciliation health bill? Well, now those taxes stay in place.

 

How does that affect the Tax reform bill? Those Trillion dollars in Obamacare tax cuts were going to help finance a decent portion of their Tax reform bill.

 

Now they have to figure out where they are going to get those Trillion dollars.

 

The unintended consequences of stupidity.

can we stop this nonsense saying it was an Obama tax cut? Its not and never was.

[Magox]

can we stop this nonsense saying it was an Obama tax cut? Its not and never was.

 

When I say Obamacare tax cuts, I am referring to the taxes that the ACHA were going to cut due to Obamacare's taxes that were imposed.

 

So yes, it is existing law and if you cut those taxes, that is in fact a tax cut.

[Meathead]

 

By the same token, libertarians were given a gift with Trump's election and they will set the movement back a generation if they squander the opportunity to lead. 20% of House Republicans is 12% of the total House. That's a big enough voting block to affect legislation, but not big enough to lead it. If the Freedom Caucus continues to be obstinate and not compromise on reasonable offers, 2018 will get very ugly. If they want to grandstand, they should get a radio show.

 

this is why democrats are digging in their heels on gorsuch and hc, bc they feel like don has little choice but to seek them out bc he cant get consensus from his own party

 

what im afraid of is that they will fail in that gambit and be left with no influence. if groups like this freedom caucus decide they want to reverse course and be part of the team the net result would be a garbage hc plan similar to the last one

 

balance is and always will be key in healthy politics in america. marginalizing one side always ends up bad in the long run

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

this is why democrats are digging in their heels on gorsuch and hc, bc they feel like don has little choice but to seek them out bc he cant get consensus from his own party

 

what im afraid of is that they will fail in that gambit and be left with no influence. if groups like this freedom caucus decide they want to reverse course and be part of the team the net result would be a garbage hc plan similar to the last one

 

balance is and always will be key in healthy politics in america. marginalizing one side always ends up bad in the long run

There are not two sides, there are dozens of sides, each representing a constituency that elected them because of the positions they take.

 

To those ends, I find it hilarious that you believe "marginalizing one side always ends up bad in the long run", while at the same time insisting that marginalizing libertarians and conservatives is a good thing.

[Meathead]

for the record i was clearly talking about the two political parties and have no problem with libertarians or conservatives

 

with the way the democrats are digging in their heels right now im actually pretty disgusted with them. i hope that changes bc if the republicans coalesce and start passing partisan legislation the country will suffer

[TakeYouToTasker]

for the record i was clearly talking about the two political parties and have no problem with libertarians or conservatives

 

with the way the democrats are digging in their heels right now im actually pretty disgusted with them. i hope that changes bc if the republicans coalesce and start passing partisan legislation the country will suffer

I know you were talking about the two political parties. My point was that you were wrong to do so, as the two parties aren't monolithic (though Democrats certainly are trending that way in opposition), as our two party system forces many more narrowly defined systems of belief to cobble themselves together into a loosely held faction.

 

Having done exactly that, it's a fatal act for big government Republicans to attempt to marginalize 20% of their block.

 

In doing so, they will have to deal with an internal opposition party; and they will likely lose their support in future national elections.

Edited March 29, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[boyst]

Yeah, but the house has 2018 election season on their mind. Do they want their name on a piece of legislation that is extremely unpopular (17%) and would kick a lot of people off insurance (there have been reports that some Trump voters who didn't even realize they were on Obamacare and thought it was ACA ). Liked the ACA but hated Obama. Would improvements to the bill by the Senate get more people on board? Possibly. History shows new health care legislation is a death trap for the midterm elections.

2018 could and will likely to shape up interestingly as polls have shown that they do not reflect the people.

[Meathead]

... our two party system forces many more narrowly defined systems of belief to cobble themselves together into a loosely held faction.

 

Having done exactly that, it's a fatal act for big government Republicans to attempt to marginalize 20% of their block.

 

In doing so, they will have to deal with an internal opposition party; and they will likely lose their support in future national elections.

 

thats a good point

 

but its also entirely possible that trying to appease everyone with the republican party will lead to permanent gridlock for exactly the reasons we saw play out in the attempt to 'reform' health care via the AHCA. moderate republicans who wanted to protect their constituents from losing their hc were offset by extreme republicans who wanted to gut everything, and there was no middle ground to compromise to bc they were diametrically opposed positions that do not allow compromise

 

this dilemma has been well explained in the piece that i just posted regarding ultra-extreme district gerrymandering. this has been one of my political pet peeves for a long time and it is now truly paralyzing our efforts to govern

 

as ive said many times, balance in the key to a healthy government. this kind of gerrymandering is the exact opposite of balance and we are now seeing the rotting fruits of that partisan rigging

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

thats a good point

 

but its also entirely possible that trying to appease everyone with the republican party will lead to permanent gridlock for exactly the reasons we saw play out in the attempt to 'reform' health care via the AHCA. moderate republicans who wanted to protect their constituents from losing their hc were offset by extreme republicans who wanted to gut everything, and there was no middle ground to compromise to bc they were diametrically opposed positions that do not allow compromise

 

this dilemma has been well explained in the piece that i just posted regarding ultra-extreme district gerrymandering. this has been one of my political pet peeves for a long time and it is now truly paralyzing our efforts to govern

 

as ive said many times, balance in the key to a healthy government. this kind of gerrymandering is the exact opposite of balance and we are now seeing the rotting fruits of that partisan rigging

And, as I mentioned in your thread, any redrawing of district lines is gerrymandering.

 

Please provide what you believe to be a better, non-arbitrary, drawing of those lines for every district in the country, and then providing his reasons why your preferred lines are better.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

By the same token, libertarians were given a gift with Trump's election and they will set the movement back a generation if they squander the opportunity to lead. 20% of House Republicans is 12% of the total House. That's a big enough voting block to affect legislation, but not big enough to lead it. If the Freedom Caucus continues to be obstinate and not compromise on reasonable offers, 2018 will get very ugly. If they want to grandstand, they should get a radio show.

Libertarians we no more given a gift by a Trump victory than they would have been by a Clinton victory, given that they oppose both.

 

They were elected to be libertarians as representative of their constituencies, and that means holding to their principles. They were not elected to help create new big government entitlements, and they will not suffer for being an internal opposition party within their own party. It's what they were elected to do.

 

As I've been telling you for years, libertarians should hold the Republican Party hostage unless and until they can produce sufficiently libertarian policies which they can support.

[GG]

Libertarians we no more given a gift by a Trump victory than they would have been by a Clinton victory, given that they oppose both.

 

They were elected to be libertarians as representative of their constituencies, and that means holding to their principles. They were not elected to help create new big government entitlements, and they will not suffer for being an internal opposition party within their own party. It's what they were elected to do.

 

As I've been telling you for years, libertarians should hold the Republican Party hostage unless and until they can produce sufficiently libertarian policies which they can support.

 

Then they're no different than dogs barking at cars.

 

You're forgetting the most important reason they are in DC in the first place, and that is to be part of an effective government. The gift that Trump gave them is much bigger than what they would have received with HRC, in that now they actually have to earn the role of being part of the representative government. The easy part of heckling leftist policies is not available to them for 2 more years. But if they continue down their path, they'll have that role again very soon, and probably for eternity given the demographic patterns.

 

If it's true that they refused any sort of compromise and kept on doubling down on demands after their initial conditions were met, and if this is the way they are going to behave for the next two years, they will pave a nice red carpet ride for the liberals to swoop back in.

 

And if you think that being obstinate is a winning long term strategy, you're sadly mistaken. The trump gift came solely because Dems nominated the only candidate in the world who could lose to Trump, and that was only thanks to a couple of thousand angry voters in three states. These states are not the libertarian strongholds. You can flail at the windmills all day long, but if the libertarian wing continues to be overtly obstructionist, you'll be back to a Dem supermajority in no time.

[DC Tom]

As I've been telling you for years, libertarians should hold the Republican Party hostage unless and until they can produce sufficiently libertarian policies which they can support.

 

Very much like the Progressives did to the Democratic Party.

 

Look how that turned out.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Very much like the Progressives did to the Democratic Party.

 

Look how that turned out.

The progressives got the government they wanted.

 

Then they're no different than dogs barking at cars.

 

You're forgetting the most important reason they are in DC in the first place, and that is to be part of an effective government. The gift that Trump gave them is much bigger than what they would have received with HRC, in that now they actually have to earn the role of being part of the representative government. The easy part of heckling leftist policies is not available to them for 2 more years. But if they continue down their path, they'll have that role again very soon, and probably for eternity given the demographic patterns.

 

If it's true that they refused any sort of compromise and kept on doubling down on demands after their initial conditions were met, and if this is the way they are going to behave for the next two years, they will pave a nice red carpet ride for the liberals to swoop back in.

 

And if you think that being obstinate is a winning long term strategy, you're sadly mistaken. The trump gift came solely because Dems nominated the only candidate in the world who could lose to Trump, and that was only thanks to a couple of thousand angry voters in three states. These states are not the libertarian strongholds. You can flail at the windmills all day long, but if the libertarian wing continues to be overtly obstructionist, you'll be back to a Dem supermajority in no time.

Which is fine when your long game is to force the Republican Party towards a libertarian bent.

 

Remember, I advocate voting for Democrats when Republicans don't offer a libertarian leaning candidate. In a two party system you are never represented unless you can force your party towards your preferred philosophy.

 

Republicans are dependent on libertarians to win elections, and it would be wise for them heed that when attempting to legislate and govern. That is, unless you don't want their votes. In which case, yes, you'll be in for decades of Democrat rule, just as you said.

[GG]

The progressives got the government they wanted.

 

Which is fine when your long game is to force the Republican Party towards a libertarian bent.

 

Remember, I advocate voting for Democrats when Republicans don't offer a libertarian leaning candidate. In a two party system you are never represented unless you can force your party towards your preferred philosophy.

 

Republicans are dependent on libertarians to win elections, and it would be wise for them heed that when attempting to legislate and govern. That is, unless you don't want their votes. In which case, yes, you'll be in for decades of Democrat rule, just as you said.

And as Tom pointed out, the libertarians are playing the role of the leftists in pushing the electorate to the other side. And the one thing that the left has going for them that the right does not, is the demographic trends. So if the libertarians don't partake in the governing part of government, their utility to GOP is useless.

[TakeYouToTasker]

And as Tom pointed out, the libertarians are playing the role of the leftists in pushing the electorate to the other side. And the one thing that the left has going for them that the right does not, is the demographic trends. So if the libertarians don't partake in the governing part of government, their utility to GOP is useless.

And as I responded to Tom, by doing that the leftists got the government that they want. They'd have taken the White House had they nominated Sanders, or really, anyone other than Clinton.

 

Libertarians are not going to acquiesce to big government Republicans who are trying to marginalize them.

Edited March 29, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[GG]

And as I responded to Tom, by doing that the leftists got the government that they want. They'd have taken the White House had they nominated Sanders, or really, anyone other than Clinton.

 

Libertarians are not going to acquiesce to big government Republicans who are trying to marginalize them.

If they're not willing to partake in governing, then they need to be marginalized

[TakeYouToTasker]

If they're not willing to partake in governing, then they need to be marginalized

They are not there to conduct business that big government Republicans deem to be in the best interests of the country. They are there to represent their own constituents only.

 

The libertarian movement has grown from nearly non-existent to comprising 20% of the majority party in the House in a very short amount of time because of their unwillingness to compromise on libertarian issues.

 

They will continue to grow as distrust in government grows, and even more so if Republicans attempt to marginalize them. You don't have to like that reality, but it's still reality.

[Rockpile233]

And as I responded to Tom, by doing that the leftists got the government that they want. They'd have taken the White House had they nominated Sanders, or really, anyone other than Clinton.

 

Libertarians are not going to acquiesce to big government Republicans who are trying to marginalize them.

 

Yes, you are very principled we get it. But who isn't being marginalized? What tired rhetoric not moving off of principles is. We have a few hundred million Americans. Everyone is marginalized, it's called living in a community.

 

Yes, yes, yes the equally tired rhetoric of being elected to represent a base's ideologies will follow. Last I checked, those people are elected to serve that groups best interest. Digging in and refusing to give an inch doesn't accomplish that in the real world. You get cut out. Getting some of what you want is more than getting none. It's called a divisional strategy.

 

The libertarian base is the most entitled base of all.

[GG]

They are not there to conduct business that big government Republicans deem to be in the best interests of the country. They are there to represent their own constituents only.

 

The libertarian movement has grown from nearly non-existent to comprising 20% of the majority party in the House in a very short amount of time because of their unwillingness to compromise on libertarian issues.

 

They will continue to grow as distrust in government grows, and even more so if Republicans attempt to marginalize them. You don't have to like that reality, but it's still reality.

Given the defections from the Freedom gang this week, the trend would actually be in the opposite direction because the constituents will feel their representatives are not willing to govern . Edited March 29, 2017 by GG

[Rockpile233]

I also think it's funny that along racial demographics, libertarians are predominantly white. Racial population trends are not in your favor either.