NY Times Publishes Op-Ed From Trump Senior Official

[Doc Brown]

On 9/7/2018 at 1:44 PM, Nanker said:

The Leftists are such cowards. They hide behind anonymity in the workforce and behind masks when they're protesting in the streets.

They're gutless cowards.

This guy or gal praised the tax cuts and deregulation.  I don't think he was a leftist.  A coward?  Yes.  A Democrat.  No way.

[3rdnlng]

9 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

This guy or gal praised the tax cuts and deregulation.  I don't think he was a leftist.  A coward?  Yes.  A Democrat.  No way.

What do you think of the tax cuts and deregulation?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

38 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

This guy or gal praised the tax cuts and deregulation.  I don't think he was a leftist.  A coward?  Yes.  A Democrat.  No way.

This person strikes me as a narcissist, with an agenda carved in stone.  To assume he/she is being truthful in what he/she thinks seems at odds with the part about being a coward.  I think it could literally be anyone, of any political stripe, though it seems most likely to me that the NYT is readily complicit in an elaborate ruse to f with Trump. 

[Doc Brown]

38 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

What do you think of the tax cuts and deregulation?

That's a broad question, so my broad answer is I worry about the unseen long term negative impacts lower tax rates and financial deregulation may produce.  I'm hoping the tax reform bill will eventually lead to a significant increase in wages for the lower and middle class as it's been sluggish thus far.  

[3rdnlng]

2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

That's a broad question, so my broad answer is I worry about the unseen long term negative impacts lower tax rates and financial deregulation may produce.  I'm hoping the tax reform bill will eventually lead to a significant increase in wages for the lower and middle class as it's been sluggish thus far.  

So, if the tax reforms work out then you might consider changing parties?

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

So, if the tax reforms work out then you might consider changing parties?

 

As I understand it, Doc is a single issue voter.

 

His wife is a teacher, and so he's extremely pro-state and federal union, and very anti-privatization and anti-charter school, because it impacts him personal bottom line.

[4merper4mer]

4 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

That's a broad question, so my broad answer is I worry about the unseen long term negative impacts lower tax rates and financial deregulation may produce.  I'm hoping the tax reform bill will eventually lead to a significant increase in wages for the lower and middle class as it's been sluggish thus far.  

If we only had a 100% tax rate everything would be awesome.

[Nanker]

5 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

This guy or gal praised the tax cuts and deregulation.  I don't think he was a leftist.  A coward?  Yes.  A Democrat.  No way.

He/She/It made up the quotes, what makes you really believe the rest of the story isn’t made up too.

 

You’ve been around here long enough to have seen dozens of “Republicans” and “Independents” who profess their credentials as such only to belie the core principles and beliefs of their self-proclaimed status in their posts. 

 

Coward is their real status. The NYT is a cowardly rag now too. It has been for some time. 

Edited September 9, 2018 by Nanker

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, Nanker said:

He/She/It made up the quotes, what makes you really believe the rest of the story isn’t made up too.

 

You’ve been around here long enough to have seen dozens of “Republicans” and “Independents” who profess their credentials as such only to belie the core principles and beliefs of their self-proclaimed status in their posts. 

 

Coward is their real status. The NYT is a cowardly rag now too. It has been for some time. 

It's a possibility, but I don't think even the NYT would completely make up a story because they would be done as a paper if exposed.  The risk would severely outweigh the reward.  We'll find out soon enough.

3 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

So, if the tax reforms work out then you might consider changing parties?

Are the Republicans still anti union, hell bent on entitlement reform, and want health care to go back to the old, awful free market system where insurance companies jacked up the premiums of people with pre-existing conditions?  If so, then no.

 

 

[DC Tom]

2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

It's a possibility, but I don't think even the NYT would completely make up a story because they would be done as a paper if exposed.  The risk would severely outweigh the reward.  We'll find out soon enough.

 

 

Ah, but it wasn't a story.  It was an opinion piece.  Published under the op-ed banner for a reason.

 

You can make those up all day long.  Worst they could be accused of is making up a source - which is still pretty bad, but not as bad as making up news.

[Nanker]

They probably interviewed the Chief Usher of the WH Household Staff. 

Edited September 9, 2018 by Nanker

[TH3]

On 9/7/2018 at 1:44 PM, Nanker said:

The Leftists are such cowards. They hide behind anonymity in the workforce and behind masks when they're protesting in the streets.

They're gutless cowards.

Ummm....pretty sure the guy who wrote that op ed was a conservative republican

Edited September 9, 2018 by baskin

[snafu]

17 minutes ago, baskin said:

Ummm....pretty sure the guy who wrote that op ed was a conservative republican

 

Or, it was written just to sound like the author is a conservative republican.

 

[outsidethebox]

40 minutes ago, baskin said:

Ummm....pretty sure the guy who wrote that op ed was a conservative republican

Do you have proof besides the tingle down your legs?

[Tiberius]

28 minutes ago, westside said:

Do you have proof besides the tingle down your legs?

Well, since The NY Times doesn't leak like the Trump Administration, we will have to wait and find out 

[outsidethebox]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Well, since The NY Times doesn't leak like the Trump Administration, we will have to wait and find out 

Good morning tibs! 

Go Bills!!!!

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

11 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

It's a possibility, but I don't think even the NYT would completely make up a story because they would be done as a paper if exposed.  The risk would severely outweigh the reward.  We'll find out soon enough.

Are the Republicans still anti union, hell bent on entitlement reform, and want health care to go back to the old, awful free market system where insurance companies jacked up the premiums of people with pre-existing conditions?  If so, then no.

 

 

Doc, I'm not anti-union, recognize the need for social programs and don't begrudge anyone the deal they have even if it's a deal better than I have. That said, in the world of haves and have nots, public sector employees are in the "have" category and it's not even close.  The union(s) that represent the members do exactly what you accuse the health insurance companies of, that is, strike deals that are in the best interest of their members regardless of the financial impact on the have nots.  To make matters worse, the deals that were/are struck for retirement benefits directly benefiting everyone involved in the negotiations.  As I see it, the NYSTU is less a union, and more a corporation acting in its own best interests. 

 

On on the other hand, when you talk about 'free market insurance' companies, the regulatory environment pre-NYS dictated what was covered, how it was covered, rates that could be charged and who got what, when and where.  It also dictated the penalties for non-compliance.  As stated earlier, I'm not ant-union, and I am not pro-insurance company for a number of reasons.  However, as with most things in life, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.  Reasonable regulation coupled with a competitive market probably makes the most sense.  But when you have people out there screaming about greedy insurance companies denying people for "pre-existing conditions", the situation was always much more complex than "poor Suzie paid her premiums for 10 years straight and found a lump and they cancelled her on the spot!".  Very little happened without the approval of the state government. 

 

 

 

[boyst]

On 9/6/2018 at 12:35 PM, OCinBuffalo said:

GG don't F with me. We all know how that turns out. You end up crying to everybody in PMs for a week. 

Why do you carry yourself with such high of steam?  It's rather shallow while looking insecure.

[Doc Brown]

11 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Doc, I'm not anti-union, recognize the need for social programs and don't begrudge anyone the deal they have even if it's a deal better than I have. That said, in the world of haves and have nots, public sector employees are in the "have" category and it's not even close.  The union(s) that represent the members do exactly what you accuse the health insurance companies of, that is, strike deals that are in the best interest of their members regardless of the financial impact on the have nots.  To make matters worse, the deals that were/are struck for retirement benefits directly benefiting everyone involved in the negotiations.  As I see it, the NYSTU is less a union, and more a corporation acting in its own best interests. 

 

On on the other hand, when you talk about 'free market insurance' companies, the regulatory environment pre-NYS dictated what was covered, how it was covered, rates that could be charged and who got what, when and where.  It also dictated the penalties for non-compliance.  As stated earlier, I'm not ant-union, and I am not pro-insurance company for a number of reasons.  However, as with most things in life, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.  Reasonable regulation coupled with a competitive market probably makes the most sense.  But when you have people out there screaming about greedy insurance companies denying people for "pre-existing conditions", the situation was always much more complex than "poor Suzie paid her premiums for 10 years straight and found a lump and they cancelled her on the spot!".  Very little happened without the approval of the state government. 

 

 

 

Those are some valid points and I am lucky enough to be set financially for the rest of my life thanks to a decent state pension system thanks to the NYSUT.  The attack on public teachers (and obviously their unions) has been what's always irked me about Republicans just being a school psychologist for over 20 years now.  I see these teacher strikes in other states and I'm rooting for the teachers.  They're already paid less on average than other professions with a Master's degree and without a strong union they'd be paid even less.  I know they get holiday breaks and the summer off, but 95% of those who are tenured regularly put 10 to 12 hour workdays in with hardly any breaks throughout the day.  The immense pressure of state test results doesn't help.  I get exhausted just watching them put up with 20 plus kids all day and then trying to get all their clerical work done during their breaks and before/after school.  I'd rather be a hot tar roofer than a public school teacher so I think the benefits they get are warranted.  Except for gym teachers      

 

As far as health care goes, I think we're eventually headed for single payer in some form.  The inability of Republicans to repeal the ACA was the final nail in the coffin.  I agree that Democrats were purposefully histrionic about the amount of people that will die from its repeal.  However, the thought of not having to worry about finding a job that has health insurance or staying in a job that you hate because they have health insurance makes single payer desirable to a lot of Americans.  

[Tiberius]

This is obviously true: 

 

Quote

 

Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.

Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.

On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.