makes you wonder how that happened when all of the dems were for it...AND 12 republicans...seems like a majority to me
Politics, Politics, Politics
- Thread starter falcondfw69
- Start date
Reagan tax cuts provide a valuable lesson
The Washingtion Times
Since President Reagan’s tax reforms of the 1980s, other countries around the world have been cutting their corporate tax rates and other taxes on businesses. As a result, American companies and their workers suffer today with the highest corporate tax rates and other business taxes in the developed world. What do these other countries understand that America does not? The average corporate tax rate in Asia today is 20.1 percent; in Europe, 18.9 percent. America’s federal corporate rate is 35 percent, nearly 40 percent counting state corporate taxes on average. America’s noncorporate businesses face tax rates of more than 40 percent. What these other countries understand is ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/81188177-820e-34be-ace8-d904bb110d68/reagan-tax-cuts-provide-a.html
when Reagan came into office we were the largest exporter of manufacturing goods and the largest importer of raw materials on the planet. And, the largest creditor--more people owed us money than anybody else in the world. Now, just 28 years later, we're the largest importer of finished goods, manufactured goods; the largest exporter of raw materials--which is kind of the definition of a third-world nation -- and we're the most in-debt of any country in the world. This is the absolute consequence of Reaganomics." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-hartmann/thom-hartmann-defends-the_b_150964.html)
The Washingtion Times
Since President Reagan’s tax reforms of the 1980s, other countries around the world have been cutting their corporate tax rates and other taxes on businesses. As a result, American companies and their workers suffer today with the highest corporate tax rates and other business taxes in the developed world. What do these other countries understand that America does not? The average corporate tax rate in Asia today is 20.1 percent; in Europe, 18.9 percent. America’s federal corporate rate is 35 percent, nearly 40 percent counting state corporate taxes on average. America’s noncorporate businesses face tax rates of more than 40 percent. What these other countries understand is ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/81188177-820e-34be-ace8-d904bb110d68/reagan-tax-cuts-provide-a.html
when Reagan came into office we were the largest exporter of manufacturing goods and the largest importer of raw materials on the planet. And, the largest creditor--more people owed us money than anybody else in the world. Now, just 28 years later, we're the largest importer of finished goods, manufactured goods; the largest exporter of raw materials--which is kind of the definition of a third-world nation -- and we're the most in-debt of any country in the world. This is the absolute consequence of Reaganomics." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-hartmann/thom-hartmann-defends-the_b_150964.html)
The CBO estimates the bipartisan Alexander-Murray health-care bill would cut the deficit by $3.8 billion
The Week
In the ongoing partisan battle over ObamaCare, a recently-struck bipartisan deal is looking like a solid solution. New analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office shows that the recently unveiled bipartisan health-care bill, written by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.), could cut the U.S. deficit by $3.8 billion over the next decade. The CBO estimates that health insurance premiums likely wouldn't change much, but neither would the bill drastically reduce the number of citizens covered under ObamaCare. All 48 Senate Democrats support the Bipartisan Health Care Stabilization Act of 2017, known more colloquially as the Alexander-Murray proposal, Senate Minority ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/b38854e5-4ffd-3a64-a0d2-0c1a798b9325/ss_the-cbo-estimates-the.html
The Week
In the ongoing partisan battle over ObamaCare, a recently-struck bipartisan deal is looking like a solid solution. New analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office shows that the recently unveiled bipartisan health-care bill, written by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.), could cut the U.S. deficit by $3.8 billion over the next decade. The CBO estimates that health insurance premiums likely wouldn't change much, but neither would the bill drastically reduce the number of citizens covered under ObamaCare. All 48 Senate Democrats support the Bipartisan Health Care Stabilization Act of 2017, known more colloquially as the Alexander-Murray proposal, Senate Minority ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/b38854e5-4ffd-3a64-a0d2-0c1a798b9325/ss_the-cbo-estimates-the.html
Judge rejects bid by 18 states to revive Obamacare subsidies
Reuters By Dan Levine and Lawrence Hurley,Reuters
A U.S. judge on Wednesday refused to block President Donald Trump's decision to end subsidy payments to health insurers under Obamacare, handing Trump a victory against Democratic attorneys general who have regularly challenged the president's policies in court.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco said the federal government did not have to make the payments while litigation over the subsidies unfolds.
Chhabria, appointed by former Democratic President Barack Obama, wrote that although the case appeared to be a close call, "it appears initially that the Trump administration has the stronger legal argument."
The Trump administration this month terminated the payments to the insurers, which help cover medical expenses for low-income Americans, as part of several moves to dismantle Obama's signature healthcare law formally known as the Affordable Care Act.
Democratic attorneys general have repeatedly opposed Trump in court this year over immigration, the environment and healthcare.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-rejects-bid-18-u-states-revive-obamacare-203900092--sector.html
Reuters By Dan Levine and Lawrence Hurley,Reuters
A U.S. judge on Wednesday refused to block President Donald Trump's decision to end subsidy payments to health insurers under Obamacare, handing Trump a victory against Democratic attorneys general who have regularly challenged the president's policies in court.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco said the federal government did not have to make the payments while litigation over the subsidies unfolds.
Chhabria, appointed by former Democratic President Barack Obama, wrote that although the case appeared to be a close call, "it appears initially that the Trump administration has the stronger legal argument."
The Trump administration this month terminated the payments to the insurers, which help cover medical expenses for low-income Americans, as part of several moves to dismantle Obama's signature healthcare law formally known as the Affordable Care Act.
Democratic attorneys general have repeatedly opposed Trump in court this year over immigration, the environment and healthcare.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-rejects-bid-18-u-states-revive-obamacare-203900092--sector.html
Democrats lead Trump's Republicans by 15 points in Fox News poll
The Independent Andrew Buncombe,The Independent
Democrats lead Republicans by as many as 15 points, according to a new poll, a finding that heaps fresh problems on a party struggling to push forward its legislative agenda.
Nine months after Donald Trump entered the White House and a year away from midterms polls that will decide who runs the House and Senate, the poll gave Democrats a 50-35 lead in a hypothetical match-up.
People were asked if the election for the two houses of Congress were today – a third of the Senate seats and all of those in the House are to be contested in 2018 – which party’s candidate they would vote for.
A year ago, the same question showed voters more or less split evenly, with 45 per cent saying they would vote for a Democrat, and 45 per cent saying they would vote Republican.
Experts warned that although the poll suggested a large lead for the Democrats, the actual vote was still another 12 months ago.
“Look, nobody knows which pollster is right, but I have to say this is by far the largest advantage Democrats have achieved in any survey,” said Larry Sabato, Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia.
“Personally I doubt it’s that high. Right now I’d put it at upper single digits. That’s what a polling average would suggest. And that’s not enough for a Democratic takeover of the House - 15 per cent would be enough for a takeover.”
The Hill said that generic ballots, where the names of candidates are not mentioned, are considered an important bellwether for how a party's candidates will fare in an election. The results of the Fox News poll would suggest the Republicans have much to worry about as they prepare for next year's ballots.
Republicans are frustrated that at this stage in the political term they have virtually nothing to show to voters; indeed, the party’s most significant achievement may have been the confirmation of Supreme Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Meanwhile, on issues such as healthcare and tax reform, Republicans have failed to make progress, even though they control not just the White House but both houses of congress.
Democrats think they have a real shot at winning back the House and Senate next year, though the second is probably a tougher challenge. Democrats are defending 25 Senate seats, 10 of them in states won by Mr Trump, while Republicans are defending only nine seats.
Yet, the Republicans plight has been made more difficult by the announcement from Mr Trump’s former top strategist, Steve Bannon, that he is to back an “insurgent” Republican candidate in each of the Senate seats being contested, other than that held by Ted Cruz of Texas.
Mr Bannon says his challenge to the mainstream Republicans, headed by Senator Mitch McConnell, is designed to try and support Mr Trump and his populist agenda. But the impact will be to promote hardcore candidates, such as former judge Roy Moore, who may struggle to win over enough voters in the general election. That is certainly the hope of Democrats, desperate for a win after last year’s shock defeat to Mr Trump.
Several mainstream Republicans, including Jeff Flake and Bob Corker, have announced they are not going to run for re-election next year.
Earlier this week, in a speech on the Senate floor, Mr Flake blamed the President for defiling politics and posing a threat to democracy.
“Reckless, outrageous and undignified behavior has become excused and countenanced as ‘Tell it like it is,’ when it is actually just reckless, outrageous and undignified,” he said.
Dr Jeanne Zaino, political scientist at Iona College, said the poll gave an unusually large lead to the Democrats. Yet she said, because Republicans controlled both houses of congress and the White House, there was probably a wish among American voters to spread power around.
I wish it were true but find it kind of hard to believe with all the gerrymandering and voting problems
The Independent Andrew Buncombe,The Independent
Democrats lead Republicans by as many as 15 points, according to a new poll, a finding that heaps fresh problems on a party struggling to push forward its legislative agenda.
Nine months after Donald Trump entered the White House and a year away from midterms polls that will decide who runs the House and Senate, the poll gave Democrats a 50-35 lead in a hypothetical match-up.
People were asked if the election for the two houses of Congress were today – a third of the Senate seats and all of those in the House are to be contested in 2018 – which party’s candidate they would vote for.
A year ago, the same question showed voters more or less split evenly, with 45 per cent saying they would vote for a Democrat, and 45 per cent saying they would vote Republican.
Experts warned that although the poll suggested a large lead for the Democrats, the actual vote was still another 12 months ago.
“Look, nobody knows which pollster is right, but I have to say this is by far the largest advantage Democrats have achieved in any survey,” said Larry Sabato, Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia.
“Personally I doubt it’s that high. Right now I’d put it at upper single digits. That’s what a polling average would suggest. And that’s not enough for a Democratic takeover of the House - 15 per cent would be enough for a takeover.”
The Hill said that generic ballots, where the names of candidates are not mentioned, are considered an important bellwether for how a party's candidates will fare in an election. The results of the Fox News poll would suggest the Republicans have much to worry about as they prepare for next year's ballots.
Republicans are frustrated that at this stage in the political term they have virtually nothing to show to voters; indeed, the party’s most significant achievement may have been the confirmation of Supreme Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Meanwhile, on issues such as healthcare and tax reform, Republicans have failed to make progress, even though they control not just the White House but both houses of congress.
Democrats think they have a real shot at winning back the House and Senate next year, though the second is probably a tougher challenge. Democrats are defending 25 Senate seats, 10 of them in states won by Mr Trump, while Republicans are defending only nine seats.
Yet, the Republicans plight has been made more difficult by the announcement from Mr Trump’s former top strategist, Steve Bannon, that he is to back an “insurgent” Republican candidate in each of the Senate seats being contested, other than that held by Ted Cruz of Texas.
Mr Bannon says his challenge to the mainstream Republicans, headed by Senator Mitch McConnell, is designed to try and support Mr Trump and his populist agenda. But the impact will be to promote hardcore candidates, such as former judge Roy Moore, who may struggle to win over enough voters in the general election. That is certainly the hope of Democrats, desperate for a win after last year’s shock defeat to Mr Trump.
Several mainstream Republicans, including Jeff Flake and Bob Corker, have announced they are not going to run for re-election next year.
Earlier this week, in a speech on the Senate floor, Mr Flake blamed the President for defiling politics and posing a threat to democracy.
“Reckless, outrageous and undignified behavior has become excused and countenanced as ‘Tell it like it is,’ when it is actually just reckless, outrageous and undignified,” he said.
Dr Jeanne Zaino, political scientist at Iona College, said the poll gave an unusually large lead to the Democrats. Yet she said, because Republicans controlled both houses of congress and the White House, there was probably a wish among American voters to spread power around.
I wish it were true but find it kind of hard to believe with all the gerrymandering and voting problems
Congress quietly passed a budget outline with $1.8 trillion in health care cuts
vox.com 6 hours ago .
The budget resolution adopted by the US Senate last week, and by the House of Representatives on Thursday, is not a law. It cannot be signed or vetoed by the president, and the policies it recommends are just that — recommendations. But it still matters. The budget resolution changes the rules for passing certain legislation, especially in the Senate, and this resolution in particular will allow Republicans to pass $1.5 trillion in tax cuts (or more, depending on how they choose to do the math) over 10 years with only 51 votes. The budget also stands as a vision of what the Republican majority wants to do, and perhaps would do if it had eight or nine more votes in the Senate. It tells you what ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/c8d554a1-0664-364a-96b6-85dbf6316597/ss_congress-quietly-passed-a.html
vox.com 6 hours ago .
The budget resolution adopted by the US Senate last week, and by the House of Representatives on Thursday, is not a law. It cannot be signed or vetoed by the president, and the policies it recommends are just that — recommendations. But it still matters. The budget resolution changes the rules for passing certain legislation, especially in the Senate, and this resolution in particular will allow Republicans to pass $1.5 trillion in tax cuts (or more, depending on how they choose to do the math) over 10 years with only 51 votes. The budget also stands as a vision of what the Republican majority wants to do, and perhaps would do if it had eight or nine more votes in the Senate. It tells you what ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/c8d554a1-0664-364a-96b6-85dbf6316597/ss_congress-quietly-passed-a.html
Politics
How GOP Budget Plan Will Wallop Retirees
Forbes
The federal budget plan that the Senate passed last week is full of landmines for retirees. In keeping with long-term Republican proposals to privatize Medicare and Social Security and slash Medicaid, the budget template would hurt tens of millions of retirees. The basic flaw of the GOP plan is that it will balloon the federal deficit by $1.5 trillion and not offset the budget hole by raising revenue or cutting major spending programs — other than social insurance. Although what’s going to be axed in the GOP template isn’t specified, it calls for cutting $1 trillion from Medicaid and nearly a half trillion dollars from Medicare. Who will suffer if these cuts go through and are approved by the ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/03a7b159-56b3-3d24-85bb-f50987142faa/how-gop-budget-plan-will.html
How GOP Budget Plan Will Wallop Retirees
Forbes
The federal budget plan that the Senate passed last week is full of landmines for retirees. In keeping with long-term Republican proposals to privatize Medicare and Social Security and slash Medicaid, the budget template would hurt tens of millions of retirees. The basic flaw of the GOP plan is that it will balloon the federal deficit by $1.5 trillion and not offset the budget hole by raising revenue or cutting major spending programs — other than social insurance. Although what’s going to be axed in the GOP template isn’t specified, it calls for cutting $1 trillion from Medicaid and nearly a half trillion dollars from Medicare. Who will suffer if these cuts go through and are approved by the ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/03a7b159-56b3-3d24-85bb-f50987142faa/how-gop-budget-plan-will.html
At least they passed a budget, I don't recall the Obama administration having a lot of luck at that. I do like your comment about ballooning the budget $1.5 trillion. The national debt went up about $10 trillion while Obama was in office. That works out to about $1.25 trillion for every year he was in office. At least the budget plan makes an effort to start containing medical costs. And of course when the medical industry sees the government buffet being curtailed there will be some real screaming
well everything republican controlled be kind of hard for them not to
although I don't think we have heard the last from the hard core conservatives! Rand paul and crew!
funny they wouldn't pass one for him because of the rising debt...doesn't seem to be an issue now!
he did what he could to control it...but when there is no cooperation...nothing gets done
there are a ton of ways to bring that under control WITHOUT taking medical care from those in need...how about some of that wall street money that just goes for big bonus's
I don't think we have heard the last of that...did you happen to notice just how much the people (Graham and others) are making from the medical industry to push those changes?
just for torp!
1. Debt and Deficit. In the past 17 Presidential terms , nine were GOP led and eight Democratic. Of nine GOP Presidents, six added to debt/GDP and deficit/GDP as a percent. The only three that did not, had a Democratic House and Senate. Of eight Democrats, each one, reduced deficit/GDP and debt/GDP as a percent. That is 66 years of rhetoric of fiscal responsibility with zero net results for GOP. What makes matters even worse, is the fact that the president who added a historical 20.7% to the debt has one unique aspect of his presidency – President G. W. Bush had a GOP majority House and Senate.
2. Spending. The Republican Party often talks about financial responsibility, but did you know that since 1978-2011, spending has gone up 9.9% under Democrats versus 12.1% under GOP .
3. Federal Debt. Republicans love to tell us how they will not close tax loopholes on millionaires and billionaires, yet never bring to our attention that from 1978-2011 debt went up 4.2% under Democrats versus 36.4% under the GOP.
4. GDP. The only thing that the Democrats have a higher numerical yield than the GOP led administrations, is the GDP. It’s a good thing to have it at 12.6% versus a GOP 10.7%. From 1960 to 2005 the gross domestic product measured in year-2000 dollars rose an average of $165 billion a year under Republican presidents and $212 billion a year under Democrats.
5. Big Government. Federal spending (aka “big government”): It has gone up an average of about $50 billion a year under presidents of both parties. But that breaks down as $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. If you assume that it takes a year for a president’s policies to take effect, Democrats have raised spending by $40 billion a year and Republicans by $55 billion.
6. Federal Deficit. Under Republican presidents since 1960, the federal deficit has averaged $131 billion a year. Under Democrats, that figure is $30 billion. In an average Republican year, the deficit has grown by $36 billion. In the average Democratic year it has shrunk by $25 billion.
7. National Debt. The national debt has gone up more than $200 billion a year under Republican presidents and less than $100 billion a year under Democrats.
8. Inflation and Unemployment. Democratic presidents have a better record on inflation (averaging 3.13 percent compared with 3.89 percent for Republicans) and on unemployment (5.33 percent versus 6.38 percent). Unemployment went down in the average Democratic year, up in the average Republican one.
Outcome: Based on the data, Democrats have had a much more successful run when it comes to economy, job creation, debt and deficit, and shockingly, even spending.
Plain facts, but what about the qualitative data. Let’s look at some of the best aspects of economy, and drill-down to specific presidencies to see which one added what to the economy. I look at the pivotal economic factors and researched which president added:
1. Greatest gross domestic product (GDP) growth?
2. Biggest jobs increase?
3. Best after-tax personal disposable income rise?
4. Highest industrial production growth?
5. The lowest Misery Index, which is inflation plus unemployment?
6. The lowest inflation?
7. The largest federal budget deficit reduction?
There answers are, if you are done guessing? Okay , here are the answers: 1. Clinton; 2. Truman; 3. Carter; 4. Johnson; 5. Kennedy; 6. Truman; 7. Truman; 8. Clinton.
Outcome: It is also a Democratic sweep.
So, now you are thinking two things. One, this does not mean too much because it takes time for a President’s policies to come into effect and two, what about Obama since this is all in the past?
To address our first question, I gathered this information: First, the analyses presented above took into account the transition time to for policies to kick-in and factored in relative adjustments. Plus, I find it hard to believe that it was just a fluke a that six of nine GOP Presidents failed in terms of GDP and Debt, and not even one of eight Democrats did. So I wanted to look at GOP Presidents that followed at least two GOP terms and Democratic Presidents that followed at least two Democratic terms. Here is the verdict: Truman, who followed two Democratic terms and still succeeded in all areas of economy, while Bush senior, who followed two Republican terms still added to debt and deficit through excessive spending.
Outcome: This highlights an interesting point that somehow Democrats who follow Democrats still outperform economically, and Republicans who followed GOP presidents somehow still failed to perform in absence of policies of the other party impacting them anymore.
Now, the second part, Obama. So, some people who supported him in 2008 are fed up a little. He shows no leadership in the face of stiff tea party politics. But here is the truth about the man who promised you to pass the health care reform, who promised you to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, who promised you that, while it will take time, he will slow down economic failure and he promised you that he will do everything to keep manufacturing jobs in the US. In his defense, he did all of that and then some.
He passed the Health Care Reform Act. He repealed the discriminatory DADT policy. Since he has become president, he has already created more net jobs in his first two years than Bush administration did in 8 years altogether. While GDP growth is slow, it has been positive now for 8 straight quarters since the stimulus was passed, which also worked. Not to mention, Obama inherited an economy in a wreck where the GDP had fallen to over 8.8 percent, the banking industry has just collapsed, two wars were going on for about seven years, and above all, he took over from a President who had raised the debt ceiling a historic, record six times while taking a 53% debt at the beginning of his first term and transforming it into an 84% by the end. According to my research, the Obama administration added more jobs to the economy than eight years of the former President Bush did. The GDP has now been positive for 8 straight quarters bouncing from a negative 8.8%.
Obama extended Bush bailouts and bailed out the auto industry because many US jobs were at risk and our auto industry was soon to become foreign at the hands of global buy outs. Well, this past May, Chrysler paid off its loans . The American auto industry is still American, those jobs in the Mid West still exist. Obama, despite the roughest opposition that any president has faced, still did all he promised. But, here is an eye-opening compilation on more: See what else Obama has done. Also, I must include the fact that we have half as many troops in Iraq, a 2014 plan to be out of Afghanistan, and Osama bin Laden is dead. You don’t need a hyperlink for that, do you? Oh, and he also became the first president ever to have to deal with a distraction of proving, through his birth certificate, that he is an American.
I would like to make one more really important point here because a lot of Republicans often cite their desire to vote for GOP candidates despite their stiff opposition to social and civil freedoms in exchange of offering small government. It is a fact that as Americans we are living in the time of the smallest government in half a century. We are paying the lowest taxes, some of the largest free-trade agreements, and a proposal to pay even lower corporate taxes, small business reliefs, and to lower income taxes down from 6.2% offered by President Bush to 3.2% proposed by Obama and the democrats. It is even mentioned in a post at FOX News.
Outcome: The Obama administration has done everything they promised to do when elected, socially and economically. Democrats have failed to improve the economy but have been very successful in creating jobs and avoiding further economic slip. Actually, this administration has now added over three million jobs in 23 straight months of positive employment gains. 2010 and 2011 also mark the first years since 1997 to see positive gains in manufacturing jobs, as shown in this interactive graph. Additionally, March 2012 marks the month in which the Nasdaq hit 3,000 mark for the first time since dot-com bubble. The Dow Jones hit 13,000 for the first time, growing at 63% under Obama which is the fifth best for any president, and the S&P 500 hit 1,400 for the first time since 2008 showing a remarkable economic recovery on the free-floating capital indexes.
Living standard review of GOP vs. Democratic states
Finally, it’s not fair to highlight just money issues. How about the living standards? None of us desire to live in poverty, food scarcity, without health insurance or earn below a minimum wage. Here is an eye-opening part of my analysis that truly shook me.
The worst standards of living are in states that have Republican legislatures. One can argue that it is just that the poor in the deep South that vote a GOP heavy legislature, but when coupled with all the economic statistics listed above, that argument starts to appear very vulnerable. These conservative states have highest poverty levels despite having all GOP fiscal policies in place, for example:
Poverty. Not even one liberal state has over an 18% poverty rate – six GOP states including Texas do.
Labor Abuse. Not even one liberal state has over 8% of its population being abused through earning lower than minimum wage, but nine GOP states do including Texas.
Food Insecurity. Not even one liberal state has over 17% of its population living “food insecure.” Four conservative states do, including Texas.
Healthcare Access. Not even one liberal state has over 20% of population living without health insurance but four GOP states do, again, including Texas.
This study highlights how a huge population of Texans live under an extreme poverty-stricken climate earning below minimum wage, without health insurance access, and without access to daily food while being abused as workers.
Outcome: While GOP policies seem exciting in rhetoric, when given full liberty to implement them through a Republican controlled legislature like the one in the southern states, they are very ineffective. When Democratic financial policies are given full freedom of being implemented, like in the liberal states, they have been much more effective.
I already explained the GOP vs Democrats on social issues in my other post , through which we understand some fundamental differences such as democrats wanting to legalize gay marriage while GOP candidates run clinics to cure gays, GOP candidates working on legislation to criminalize gays and ban gay marriage, GOP legislation to outlaw Islam, and so on and so forth. But, about economic report, here is a recap and conclusion.
1. GOP Presidents have failed, Democrats have not. Historically over last six decades, Democrats have been consistently successful economically, while six of nine Republicans have failed. Keeping in mind the argument that policies of previous administrations haunt the following, the Democrat Truman that followed two Democratic terms still reduced debt and deficit, the Republican, Bush senior, that followed two Republican terms, still added to both.
2. GOP States have lowest living standards, Democratic states do not.
3. Obama has done what he promised and the economy is getting better. It is just hard to climb out of a financial black hole overnight. He still created more jobs than lost, delivered eight straight positive GDP quarters, and the debt that was growing at $3.65 trillion over four years, is now slowed down to about $1.6 trillion. You were not expecting him to change the economy overnight; I know I was not.
4. The GOP offers rhetoric, Democrats offer plans. I will really back this one for you through solid examples. Remember the debt crisis? Democrats took into account an earlier GOP report in which the GOP stated that the most optimum for economic growth is a deficit reduction plan that has an 85-15 split between cuts and revenues. Democrats offered an 83-17 with $6 in cuts for just $1 in return in tax loophole expiration on millionaires and billionaires. It was a mammoth $4 trillion debt reduction offer. The GOP walked away from it, and failed to offer an alternative. Similarly, remember Heathcare reform? Democrats took a major step by offering a plan under which most Americans would be covered, people would be allowed to stay on parents’ insurance after college graduation, insurance companies will no longer be able to increase cost or drop people after an illness, neither will they be able to refuse insurance to people with a preexisting condition. The GOP is currently running on an agenda to repeal that. The GOP alternative? It does not exist.
5. Democrats are willing to sacrifice, the GOP has evolved into a party of “Always No”. The shared Retirement Sacrifice Act of 2011 , which would require lawmakers to wait until the age of 66 to collect their pensions and take a pay cut has been introduced by an Ohio Democrat. Her logic is that congress should also take a pay cut and delayed retirement like other Americans do. Do you know why her simple bill is not passing? The GOP has it blocked. Additionally, as the Democrats fight to raise the age and reduce benefits for themselves and their GOP peers, Rep. John Fleming (LA), a republican responded to a proposed tax loophole expiration on millionaires and billionaires by saying that “by the time I feed my family, I have maybe $400,000 left over.” Thus, fighting against another democratic plan.
6. Democrats reform, GOP wants to take a step back without reform. Last election Democrats offered ideas that would alter the future such as Healthcare reform, the repeal of don’t ask don’t tell, creation of anti-discriminatory laws, Postal Services Reform which is happening right now, lower taxes on small businesses, tax write-offs on first 104K paid in employee salary for large businesses, and increase education funding to keep America’s edge. Have you notices the GOP platform this year? It has been: Repeal Healthcare reform, repeal the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, ban gay marriage, ban building of Islamic religious institutions, block tax reform on millionaires and billionaires, block the jobs act, block deficit reduction plans, abolish the Department of Education, and abolish the EPA. Do you notice a trend? It’s a step back through repeal without alternatives or abolishing of institutions without an alternative plan.
Certainly, I understand these are politics, and all GOP donations come from big businesses but to letting America’s credit rating fall to protect millionaires and billionaires just because the 2012 election is on the horizon is probably not the best approach for America. While a Democratic donation averages $69 and comes from every day Americans, GOP donations average large sums from huge lobby groups and in order to be competitive the GOP has to protect its interests. But at the end of the day, we hire politicians not to win but to make America succeed. I want you to take these facts into account, remember, you are the CEO and you have a choice to make. I exhort you to make that choice keeping our social freedoms and financial facts into account.
I exhort you to educate yourself. When the GOP tells you that they want to lower taxes on millionaires and billionaires and cut education funding and corporate regulations to help the economy grow, understand that capitalism is not pro-business, it is pro-consumer. Businesses thrive with regulation and demand it. Understand that the GOP wants to cut educational funding because we see a direct link between higher education and an increase in more liberal voting patterns. Please understand that tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires do not funnel into an economic spur, as one of the best investors Warren Buffet, who saved GE, Goldman Sachs, and now the Bank of America from a colossal collapse explains
I have presented you past data, current policies, poverty statistics, and current party agendas. I wanted to just ask myself one last litmus test question. What have GOP and Democratic states added to America to see what kind of societies GOP versus Democratic governments create? If GOP economics really work, then we should see them work in states where we vote GOP legislatures and vice versa for Democratic states.
From the entertainment industry based in California to IT in Silicon Valley, each one of the Ivy League schools to Health Care and Life Sciences industry based in Philadelphia-NJ area, from banking based in NYC to the services hub in Boston, and all the way down to high-tech in Seattle, almost all of America’s progress comes from liberal states. But what is even more shocking is that a lot of southern progress happened in places like Atlanta, with large telecommunications’ industry development post 1996 Olympics, where about majority of Atlanta’s population is liberal and ascends from the north east. The truth is, this alone is a litmus test. Democrats have financially outperformed GOP governments economically and are offering actual plans as opposed to simple repeal ideas. Republicans have carved societies that are drastically behind in economic, living standards, or academic progress.
1. Debt and Deficit. In the past 17 Presidential terms , nine were GOP led and eight Democratic. Of nine GOP Presidents, six added to debt/GDP and deficit/GDP as a percent. The only three that did not, had a Democratic House and Senate. Of eight Democrats, each one, reduced deficit/GDP and debt/GDP as a percent. That is 66 years of rhetoric of fiscal responsibility with zero net results for GOP. What makes matters even worse, is the fact that the president who added a historical 20.7% to the debt has one unique aspect of his presidency – President G. W. Bush had a GOP majority House and Senate.
2. Spending. The Republican Party often talks about financial responsibility, but did you know that since 1978-2011, spending has gone up 9.9% under Democrats versus 12.1% under GOP .
3. Federal Debt. Republicans love to tell us how they will not close tax loopholes on millionaires and billionaires, yet never bring to our attention that from 1978-2011 debt went up 4.2% under Democrats versus 36.4% under the GOP.
4. GDP. The only thing that the Democrats have a higher numerical yield than the GOP led administrations, is the GDP. It’s a good thing to have it at 12.6% versus a GOP 10.7%. From 1960 to 2005 the gross domestic product measured in year-2000 dollars rose an average of $165 billion a year under Republican presidents and $212 billion a year under Democrats.
5. Big Government. Federal spending (aka “big government”): It has gone up an average of about $50 billion a year under presidents of both parties. But that breaks down as $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. If you assume that it takes a year for a president’s policies to take effect, Democrats have raised spending by $40 billion a year and Republicans by $55 billion.
6. Federal Deficit. Under Republican presidents since 1960, the federal deficit has averaged $131 billion a year. Under Democrats, that figure is $30 billion. In an average Republican year, the deficit has grown by $36 billion. In the average Democratic year it has shrunk by $25 billion.
7. National Debt. The national debt has gone up more than $200 billion a year under Republican presidents and less than $100 billion a year under Democrats.
8. Inflation and Unemployment. Democratic presidents have a better record on inflation (averaging 3.13 percent compared with 3.89 percent for Republicans) and on unemployment (5.33 percent versus 6.38 percent). Unemployment went down in the average Democratic year, up in the average Republican one.
Outcome: Based on the data, Democrats have had a much more successful run when it comes to economy, job creation, debt and deficit, and shockingly, even spending.
Plain facts, but what about the qualitative data. Let’s look at some of the best aspects of economy, and drill-down to specific presidencies to see which one added what to the economy. I look at the pivotal economic factors and researched which president added:
1. Greatest gross domestic product (GDP) growth?
2. Biggest jobs increase?
3. Best after-tax personal disposable income rise?
4. Highest industrial production growth?
5. The lowest Misery Index, which is inflation plus unemployment?
6. The lowest inflation?
7. The largest federal budget deficit reduction?
There answers are, if you are done guessing? Okay , here are the answers: 1. Clinton; 2. Truman; 3. Carter; 4. Johnson; 5. Kennedy; 6. Truman; 7. Truman; 8. Clinton.
Outcome: It is also a Democratic sweep.
So, now you are thinking two things. One, this does not mean too much because it takes time for a President’s policies to come into effect and two, what about Obama since this is all in the past?
To address our first question, I gathered this information: First, the analyses presented above took into account the transition time to for policies to kick-in and factored in relative adjustments. Plus, I find it hard to believe that it was just a fluke a that six of nine GOP Presidents failed in terms of GDP and Debt, and not even one of eight Democrats did. So I wanted to look at GOP Presidents that followed at least two GOP terms and Democratic Presidents that followed at least two Democratic terms. Here is the verdict: Truman, who followed two Democratic terms and still succeeded in all areas of economy, while Bush senior, who followed two Republican terms still added to debt and deficit through excessive spending.
Outcome: This highlights an interesting point that somehow Democrats who follow Democrats still outperform economically, and Republicans who followed GOP presidents somehow still failed to perform in absence of policies of the other party impacting them anymore.
Now, the second part, Obama. So, some people who supported him in 2008 are fed up a little. He shows no leadership in the face of stiff tea party politics. But here is the truth about the man who promised you to pass the health care reform, who promised you to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, who promised you that, while it will take time, he will slow down economic failure and he promised you that he will do everything to keep manufacturing jobs in the US. In his defense, he did all of that and then some.
He passed the Health Care Reform Act. He repealed the discriminatory DADT policy. Since he has become president, he has already created more net jobs in his first two years than Bush administration did in 8 years altogether. While GDP growth is slow, it has been positive now for 8 straight quarters since the stimulus was passed, which also worked. Not to mention, Obama inherited an economy in a wreck where the GDP had fallen to over 8.8 percent, the banking industry has just collapsed, two wars were going on for about seven years, and above all, he took over from a President who had raised the debt ceiling a historic, record six times while taking a 53% debt at the beginning of his first term and transforming it into an 84% by the end. According to my research, the Obama administration added more jobs to the economy than eight years of the former President Bush did. The GDP has now been positive for 8 straight quarters bouncing from a negative 8.8%.
Obama extended Bush bailouts and bailed out the auto industry because many US jobs were at risk and our auto industry was soon to become foreign at the hands of global buy outs. Well, this past May, Chrysler paid off its loans . The American auto industry is still American, those jobs in the Mid West still exist. Obama, despite the roughest opposition that any president has faced, still did all he promised. But, here is an eye-opening compilation on more: See what else Obama has done. Also, I must include the fact that we have half as many troops in Iraq, a 2014 plan to be out of Afghanistan, and Osama bin Laden is dead. You don’t need a hyperlink for that, do you? Oh, and he also became the first president ever to have to deal with a distraction of proving, through his birth certificate, that he is an American.
I would like to make one more really important point here because a lot of Republicans often cite their desire to vote for GOP candidates despite their stiff opposition to social and civil freedoms in exchange of offering small government. It is a fact that as Americans we are living in the time of the smallest government in half a century. We are paying the lowest taxes, some of the largest free-trade agreements, and a proposal to pay even lower corporate taxes, small business reliefs, and to lower income taxes down from 6.2% offered by President Bush to 3.2% proposed by Obama and the democrats. It is even mentioned in a post at FOX News.
Outcome: The Obama administration has done everything they promised to do when elected, socially and economically. Democrats have failed to improve the economy but have been very successful in creating jobs and avoiding further economic slip. Actually, this administration has now added over three million jobs in 23 straight months of positive employment gains. 2010 and 2011 also mark the first years since 1997 to see positive gains in manufacturing jobs, as shown in this interactive graph. Additionally, March 2012 marks the month in which the Nasdaq hit 3,000 mark for the first time since dot-com bubble. The Dow Jones hit 13,000 for the first time, growing at 63% under Obama which is the fifth best for any president, and the S&P 500 hit 1,400 for the first time since 2008 showing a remarkable economic recovery on the free-floating capital indexes.
Living standard review of GOP vs. Democratic states
Finally, it’s not fair to highlight just money issues. How about the living standards? None of us desire to live in poverty, food scarcity, without health insurance or earn below a minimum wage. Here is an eye-opening part of my analysis that truly shook me.
The worst standards of living are in states that have Republican legislatures. One can argue that it is just that the poor in the deep South that vote a GOP heavy legislature, but when coupled with all the economic statistics listed above, that argument starts to appear very vulnerable. These conservative states have highest poverty levels despite having all GOP fiscal policies in place, for example:
Poverty. Not even one liberal state has over an 18% poverty rate – six GOP states including Texas do. Labor Abuse. Not even one liberal state has over 8% of its population being abused through earning lower than minimum wage, but nine GOP states do including Texas. Food Insecurity. Not even one liberal state has over 17% of its population living “food insecure.” Four conservative states do, including Texas. Healthcare Access. Not even one liberal state has over 20% of population living without health insurance but four GOP states do, again, including Texas. This study highlights how a huge population of Texans live under an extreme poverty-stricken climate earning below minimum wage, without health insurance access, and without access to daily food while being abused as workers.
Outcome: While GOP policies seem exciting in rhetoric, when given full liberty to implement them through a Republican controlled legislature like the one in the southern states, they are very ineffective. When Democratic financial policies are given full freedom of being implemented, like in the liberal states, they have been much more effective.
I already explained the GOP vs Democrats on social issues in my other post , through which we understand some fundamental differences such as democrats wanting to legalize gay marriage while GOP candidates run clinics to cure gays, GOP candidates working on legislation to criminalize gays and ban gay marriage, GOP legislation to outlaw Islam, and so on and so forth. But, about economic report, here is a recap and conclusion.
1. GOP Presidents have failed, Democrats have not. Historically over last six decades, Democrats have been consistently successful economically, while six of nine Republicans have failed. Keeping in mind the argument that policies of previous administrations haunt the following, the Democrat Truman that followed two Democratic terms still reduced debt and deficit, the Republican, Bush senior, that followed two Republican terms, still added to both.
2. GOP States have lowest living standards, Democratic states do not.
3. Obama has done what he promised and the economy is getting better. It is just hard to climb out of a financial black hole overnight. He still created more jobs than lost, delivered eight straight positive GDP quarters, and the debt that was growing at $3.65 trillion over four years, is now slowed down to about $1.6 trillion. You were not expecting him to change the economy overnight; I know I was not.
4. The GOP offers rhetoric, Democrats offer plans. I will really back this one for you through solid examples. Remember the debt crisis? Democrats took into account an earlier GOP report in which the GOP stated that the most optimum for economic growth is a deficit reduction plan that has an 85-15 split between cuts and revenues. Democrats offered an 83-17 with $6 in cuts for just $1 in return in tax loophole expiration on millionaires and billionaires. It was a mammoth $4 trillion debt reduction offer. The GOP walked away from it, and failed to offer an alternative. Similarly, remember Heathcare reform? Democrats took a major step by offering a plan under which most Americans would be covered, people would be allowed to stay on parents’ insurance after college graduation, insurance companies will no longer be able to increase cost or drop people after an illness, neither will they be able to refuse insurance to people with a preexisting condition. The GOP is currently running on an agenda to repeal that. The GOP alternative? It does not exist.
5. Democrats are willing to sacrifice, the GOP has evolved into a party of “Always No”. The shared Retirement Sacrifice Act of 2011 , which would require lawmakers to wait until the age of 66 to collect their pensions and take a pay cut has been introduced by an Ohio Democrat. Her logic is that congress should also take a pay cut and delayed retirement like other Americans do. Do you know why her simple bill is not passing? The GOP has it blocked. Additionally, as the Democrats fight to raise the age and reduce benefits for themselves and their GOP peers, Rep. John Fleming (LA), a republican responded to a proposed tax loophole expiration on millionaires and billionaires by saying that “by the time I feed my family, I have maybe $400,000 left over.” Thus, fighting against another democratic plan.
6. Democrats reform, GOP wants to take a step back without reform. Last election Democrats offered ideas that would alter the future such as Healthcare reform, the repeal of don’t ask don’t tell, creation of anti-discriminatory laws, Postal Services Reform which is happening right now, lower taxes on small businesses, tax write-offs on first 104K paid in employee salary for large businesses, and increase education funding to keep America’s edge. Have you notices the GOP platform this year? It has been: Repeal Healthcare reform, repeal the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, ban gay marriage, ban building of Islamic religious institutions, block tax reform on millionaires and billionaires, block the jobs act, block deficit reduction plans, abolish the Department of Education, and abolish the EPA. Do you notice a trend? It’s a step back through repeal without alternatives or abolishing of institutions without an alternative plan.
Certainly, I understand these are politics, and all GOP donations come from big businesses but to letting America’s credit rating fall to protect millionaires and billionaires just because the 2012 election is on the horizon is probably not the best approach for America. While a Democratic donation averages $69 and comes from every day Americans, GOP donations average large sums from huge lobby groups and in order to be competitive the GOP has to protect its interests. But at the end of the day, we hire politicians not to win but to make America succeed. I want you to take these facts into account, remember, you are the CEO and you have a choice to make. I exhort you to make that choice keeping our social freedoms and financial facts into account.
I exhort you to educate yourself. When the GOP tells you that they want to lower taxes on millionaires and billionaires and cut education funding and corporate regulations to help the economy grow, understand that capitalism is not pro-business, it is pro-consumer. Businesses thrive with regulation and demand it. Understand that the GOP wants to cut educational funding because we see a direct link between higher education and an increase in more liberal voting patterns. Please understand that tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires do not funnel into an economic spur, as one of the best investors Warren Buffet, who saved GE, Goldman Sachs, and now the Bank of America from a colossal collapse explains
I have presented you past data, current policies, poverty statistics, and current party agendas. I wanted to just ask myself one last litmus test question. What have GOP and Democratic states added to America to see what kind of societies GOP versus Democratic governments create? If GOP economics really work, then we should see them work in states where we vote GOP legislatures and vice versa for Democratic states.
From the entertainment industry based in California to IT in Silicon Valley, each one of the Ivy League schools to Health Care and Life Sciences industry based in Philadelphia-NJ area, from banking based in NYC to the services hub in Boston, and all the way down to high-tech in Seattle, almost all of America’s progress comes from liberal states. But what is even more shocking is that a lot of southern progress happened in places like Atlanta, with large telecommunications’ industry development post 1996 Olympics, where about majority of Atlanta’s population is liberal and ascends from the north east. The truth is, this alone is a litmus test. Democrats have financially outperformed GOP governments economically and are offering actual plans as opposed to simple repeal ideas. Republicans have carved societies that are drastically behind in economic, living standards, or academic progress.
This Is How Much Trump's Obamacare Sabotage Increased Health Insurance Costs
HuffPost Jeffrey Young,HuffPost
President Donald Trump’s decision to cut off billions of dollars owed to health insurance providers under the Affordable Care Act caused those companies to substantially increase premiums to cover their losses, according to an analysis published Friday.
President Donald Trump’s decision to cut off billions of dollars owed to health insurance providers under the Affordable Care Act caused those companies to substantially increase premiums to cover their losses, according to an analysis published Friday.
Enrollment on health insurance exchanges like HealthCare.gov begins Nov. 1 and runs until Dec. 15 in most states; a few have later deadlines. Consumers who use these exchanges or purchase their coverage directly from a health insurance company or through a broker can expect to see large rate hikes when they shop for plans. Prices already were set to rise before Trump’s action exacerbated the problem.
The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation studied documents that health insurance carriers submitted to regulators in 32 states and the District of Columbia. These documents detail price changes for health insurance policies and the justification for those changes.
Among those states, Trump’s action caused premium increases that range from 7 percent to 38 percent higher than they would have been for mid-level “Silver” health plans, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported. The analysis includes numerous examples of how specific insurers dealt with Trump’s decision to deny their reimbursements, based on information they provided to state insurance agencies.
This month, Trump halted payments to health insurance companies serving low-income customers. These so-called cost-sharing reduction payments are intended to reimburse insurers that provide discounts on out-of-pocket costs for people earning up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level, or $30,150 for a single person.
The Affordable Care Act requires health insurance companies to reduce deductibles and other forms of cost-sharing for eligible enrollees. The federal government is supposed to repay the companies for the expense. The payments are worth $7 billion this year and $10 billion next year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
But Trump decided to cut off those funds. The spending to reimburse health insurance companies is the subject of a three-year-old legal dispute started by then-House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who alleged that then-President Barack Obama’s administration was unlawfully spending money Congress hadn’t authorized.
Last year, a federal judge sided with House Republicans over Obama, but allowed the federal government to continue repaying insurers while the case worked its way through the appeals process. When Trump became president this year, his administration became the defendant in the case, and continued to make the payments until his announcement this month.
After months of threatening to end the cost-sharing reduction payments, Trump followed through this month by stopping the payments and dropping the federal government’s appeal of the House GOP lawsuit. A group of state attorneys general has taken up the defense instead.
As a consequence, health insurance companies are set to lose an equivalent amount of money because they are still required to reduce eligible customers’ out-of-pocket costs.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/much-trump-apos-obamacare-sabotage-070022410.html
HuffPost Jeffrey Young,HuffPost
President Donald Trump’s decision to cut off billions of dollars owed to health insurance providers under the Affordable Care Act caused those companies to substantially increase premiums to cover their losses, according to an analysis published Friday.
President Donald Trump’s decision to cut off billions of dollars owed to health insurance providers under the Affordable Care Act caused those companies to substantially increase premiums to cover their losses, according to an analysis published Friday.
Enrollment on health insurance exchanges like HealthCare.gov begins Nov. 1 and runs until Dec. 15 in most states; a few have later deadlines. Consumers who use these exchanges or purchase their coverage directly from a health insurance company or through a broker can expect to see large rate hikes when they shop for plans. Prices already were set to rise before Trump’s action exacerbated the problem.
The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation studied documents that health insurance carriers submitted to regulators in 32 states and the District of Columbia. These documents detail price changes for health insurance policies and the justification for those changes.
Among those states, Trump’s action caused premium increases that range from 7 percent to 38 percent higher than they would have been for mid-level “Silver” health plans, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported. The analysis includes numerous examples of how specific insurers dealt with Trump’s decision to deny their reimbursements, based on information they provided to state insurance agencies.
This month, Trump halted payments to health insurance companies serving low-income customers. These so-called cost-sharing reduction payments are intended to reimburse insurers that provide discounts on out-of-pocket costs for people earning up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level, or $30,150 for a single person.
The Affordable Care Act requires health insurance companies to reduce deductibles and other forms of cost-sharing for eligible enrollees. The federal government is supposed to repay the companies for the expense. The payments are worth $7 billion this year and $10 billion next year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
But Trump decided to cut off those funds. The spending to reimburse health insurance companies is the subject of a three-year-old legal dispute started by then-House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who alleged that then-President Barack Obama’s administration was unlawfully spending money Congress hadn’t authorized.
Last year, a federal judge sided with House Republicans over Obama, but allowed the federal government to continue repaying insurers while the case worked its way through the appeals process. When Trump became president this year, his administration became the defendant in the case, and continued to make the payments until his announcement this month.
After months of threatening to end the cost-sharing reduction payments, Trump followed through this month by stopping the payments and dropping the federal government’s appeal of the House GOP lawsuit. A group of state attorneys general has taken up the defense instead.
As a consequence, health insurance companies are set to lose an equivalent amount of money because they are still required to reduce eligible customers’ out-of-pocket costs.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/much-trump-apos-obamacare-sabotage-070022410.html
Trump administration’s CMS head leads assault on Medicaid
wsws.org 13 hours ago .
By Kate Randall 28 October 2017 The Trump administration’s attempts at health care “reform” have stalled in Washington, with numerous attempts to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act failing to pass the Republican-controlled Congress. However, this has not stopped the president and one of his top health care leaders from prosecuting a campaign to implement sweeping changes to Medicaid, the government health insurance program for the poor, disabled and seniors that covers nearly 75 million people. Seema Verma, director of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), is campaigning to give states an “unprecedented level of flexibility” to design their Medicaid programs, ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/1382d858-bbe4-3c7d-9d01-c6bf12589bb9/trump-administration’s-cms.html
wsws.org 13 hours ago .
By Kate Randall 28 October 2017 The Trump administration’s attempts at health care “reform” have stalled in Washington, with numerous attempts to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act failing to pass the Republican-controlled Congress. However, this has not stopped the president and one of his top health care leaders from prosecuting a campaign to implement sweeping changes to Medicaid, the government health insurance program for the poor, disabled and seniors that covers nearly 75 million people. Seema Verma, director of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), is campaigning to give states an “unprecedented level of flexibility” to design their Medicaid programs, ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/1382d858-bbe4-3c7d-9d01-c6bf12589bb9/trump-administration’s-cms.html
Pentagon chief says North Korea engages in 'outlaw' behavior
Associated Press BY ROBERT BURNS,Associated Press
The threat of nuclear missile attack by North Korea is accelerating, U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Saturday, accusing the North of illegal and unnecessary missile and nuclear programs and pledging to repel any strike.
In remarks in Seoul with South Korean Defense Minister Song Young-moo at his side, Mattis said North Korea engages in "outlaw" behavior and that the U.S. will never accept a nuclear North.
The Pentagon chief added that regardless of what the North might try, it is overmatched by the firepower and cohesiveness of the decades-old U.S.-South Korean alliance.
"North Korea has accelerated the threat that it poses to its neighbors and the world through its illegal and unnecessary missile and nuclear weapons programs," he said, adding that U.S.-South Korean military and diplomatic collaboration thus has taken on "a new urgency."
"I cannot imagine a condition under which the United States would accept North Korea as a nuclear power," Mattis said.
As he emphasized throughout his weeklong Asia trip, which included stops in Thailand and the Philippines, Mattis said diplomacy remains the preferred way to deal with the North.
"With that said," he added, "make no mistake — any attack on the United States or our allies will be defeated, and any use of nuclear weapons by the North will be met with a massive military response that is effective and overwhelming."
Mattis' comments did not go beyond his recent statements of concern about North Korea, although he appeared to inject a stronger note about the urgency of resolving the crisis.
While he accused the North of "outlaw" behavior, he did not mention that President Donald Trump has ratcheted up his own rhetoric. In August, Trump warned the North not to make any more threats against the United States, and said that if it did, it would be met with "fire and fury like the world has never seen."
Song said at the news conference that he and Mattis agreed to further cooperation on strengthening Seoul's defense capabilities, including lifting warhead payload limits on South Korean conventional missiles and supporting the country's acquisition of "most advanced military assets." He offered no specifics and refused to answer when asked whether the discussions included nuclear-powered submarines.
Song said at the news conference that he and Mattis agreed to further cooperation on strengthening Seoul's defense capabilities, including lifting warhead payload limits on South Korean conventional missiles and supporting the country's acquisition of "most advanced military assets." He offered no specifics and refused to answer when asked whether the discussions included nuclear-powered submarines.
Some South Korean government officials have endorsed the nation getting nuclear-powered submarines amid calls for more military strength. There's a growing concern among the South Korean public that North Korea's expanding nuclear weapons arsenal, which may soon include an intercontinental ballistic missile that could target the U.S. mainland, would undermine Seoul's long alliance with Washington.
South Korea's conservative politicians have also called for the United States to bring back tactical nuclear weapons that were withdrawn from the Korean Peninsula in the 1990s. But Mattis and Song were strongly dismissive of the idea.
"When considering national interest, it's much better not to deploy them," said Song, adding that the allies would have "sufficient means" to respond to a North Korean nuclear attack even without placing tactical nuclear weapons in the South. Mattis said current U.S. strategic assets are already providing nuclear deterrence and that the South Korean government has never approached him with the subject of tactical nuclear weapons.
Trump entered office declaring his commitment to solving the North Korea problem, asserting that he would succeed where his predecessors had failed. His administration has sought to increase pressure on Pyongyang through U.N. Security Council sanctions and other diplomatic efforts, but the North hasn't budged from its goal of building a full-fledged nuclear arsenal, including missiles capable of striking the U.S. mainland.
If Trump sticks to his pledge to stop the North from being able to threaten the U.S. with a nuclear attack, something will have to give — either a negotiated tempering of the North's ambitions or a U.S. acceptance of the North as a nuclear power.
The other alternative would be U.S. military action to attempt to neutralize or eliminate the North's nuclear assets - a move fraught with risk for South Korea, Japan and the United States.
Mattis touched off unease in South Korea last month when he told reporters at the Pentagon that the United States has military options for North Korea that doesn't put Seoul at risk. At Saturday's briefing, Mattis didn't offer a direct answer to what those options are or how and when they would be used.
"Our military options as I mentioned are designed to buttress the diplomats' efforts to maintain a deterrence stance and denuclearize the Korean Peninsula," he said. While the allies are committed to deterring North Korea, they also need "many different military options that would realistically reduce that threat as low as possible," Mattis said.
"And yes, we do have those options," he said.
The North says it needs nuclear weapons to counter what it believes is a U.S. effort to strangle its economy and overthrow the Kim government.
This was Mattis's second visit to South Korea since taking office in January. He made a point of going to Seoul and Tokyo on his first overseas trip in February, saying he wanted to emphasis the importance he places on strengthening alliances and partnerships.
Associated Press BY ROBERT BURNS,Associated Press
The threat of nuclear missile attack by North Korea is accelerating, U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Saturday, accusing the North of illegal and unnecessary missile and nuclear programs and pledging to repel any strike.
In remarks in Seoul with South Korean Defense Minister Song Young-moo at his side, Mattis said North Korea engages in "outlaw" behavior and that the U.S. will never accept a nuclear North.
The Pentagon chief added that regardless of what the North might try, it is overmatched by the firepower and cohesiveness of the decades-old U.S.-South Korean alliance.
"North Korea has accelerated the threat that it poses to its neighbors and the world through its illegal and unnecessary missile and nuclear weapons programs," he said, adding that U.S.-South Korean military and diplomatic collaboration thus has taken on "a new urgency."
"I cannot imagine a condition under which the United States would accept North Korea as a nuclear power," Mattis said.
As he emphasized throughout his weeklong Asia trip, which included stops in Thailand and the Philippines, Mattis said diplomacy remains the preferred way to deal with the North.
"With that said," he added, "make no mistake — any attack on the United States or our allies will be defeated, and any use of nuclear weapons by the North will be met with a massive military response that is effective and overwhelming."
Mattis' comments did not go beyond his recent statements of concern about North Korea, although he appeared to inject a stronger note about the urgency of resolving the crisis.
While he accused the North of "outlaw" behavior, he did not mention that President Donald Trump has ratcheted up his own rhetoric. In August, Trump warned the North not to make any more threats against the United States, and said that if it did, it would be met with "fire and fury like the world has never seen."
Song said at the news conference that he and Mattis agreed to further cooperation on strengthening Seoul's defense capabilities, including lifting warhead payload limits on South Korean conventional missiles and supporting the country's acquisition of "most advanced military assets." He offered no specifics and refused to answer when asked whether the discussions included nuclear-powered submarines.
Song said at the news conference that he and Mattis agreed to further cooperation on strengthening Seoul's defense capabilities, including lifting warhead payload limits on South Korean conventional missiles and supporting the country's acquisition of "most advanced military assets." He offered no specifics and refused to answer when asked whether the discussions included nuclear-powered submarines.
Some South Korean government officials have endorsed the nation getting nuclear-powered submarines amid calls for more military strength. There's a growing concern among the South Korean public that North Korea's expanding nuclear weapons arsenal, which may soon include an intercontinental ballistic missile that could target the U.S. mainland, would undermine Seoul's long alliance with Washington.
South Korea's conservative politicians have also called for the United States to bring back tactical nuclear weapons that were withdrawn from the Korean Peninsula in the 1990s. But Mattis and Song were strongly dismissive of the idea.
"When considering national interest, it's much better not to deploy them," said Song, adding that the allies would have "sufficient means" to respond to a North Korean nuclear attack even without placing tactical nuclear weapons in the South. Mattis said current U.S. strategic assets are already providing nuclear deterrence and that the South Korean government has never approached him with the subject of tactical nuclear weapons.
Trump entered office declaring his commitment to solving the North Korea problem, asserting that he would succeed where his predecessors had failed. His administration has sought to increase pressure on Pyongyang through U.N. Security Council sanctions and other diplomatic efforts, but the North hasn't budged from its goal of building a full-fledged nuclear arsenal, including missiles capable of striking the U.S. mainland.
If Trump sticks to his pledge to stop the North from being able to threaten the U.S. with a nuclear attack, something will have to give — either a negotiated tempering of the North's ambitions or a U.S. acceptance of the North as a nuclear power.
The other alternative would be U.S. military action to attempt to neutralize or eliminate the North's nuclear assets - a move fraught with risk for South Korea, Japan and the United States.
Mattis touched off unease in South Korea last month when he told reporters at the Pentagon that the United States has military options for North Korea that doesn't put Seoul at risk. At Saturday's briefing, Mattis didn't offer a direct answer to what those options are or how and when they would be used.
"Our military options as I mentioned are designed to buttress the diplomats' efforts to maintain a deterrence stance and denuclearize the Korean Peninsula," he said. While the allies are committed to deterring North Korea, they also need "many different military options that would realistically reduce that threat as low as possible," Mattis said.
"And yes, we do have those options," he said.
The North says it needs nuclear weapons to counter what it believes is a U.S. effort to strangle its economy and overthrow the Kim government.
This was Mattis's second visit to South Korea since taking office in January. He made a point of going to Seoul and Tokyo on his first overseas trip in February, saying he wanted to emphasis the importance he places on strengthening alliances and partnerships.
If they are looking for sympathy it is some where between ******* and syphilis in the dictionary
Republicans' horrible week (and not-great year) was entirely predictable
Washington Post
Nine months into gaining full control of Washington, Republicans are not where they hoped they’d be. Very far from it, actually. They have no major legislative accomplishments to tout. After this week, they are tipping into a civil war. And early polls suggest voters would rather elect a generic Democrat than a generic Republican in next year’s congressional elections. All of this was entirely predictable — not that there was much Republican leaders could do about it. And yes, I’m referring to President Trump. But Republicans’ fracturing was evident long before Trump rode down that escalator in Trump Tower two and a half years ago. “I think we’re trying to figure out when ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/6fcfb59c-d304-32c7-9849-f6bd05017fa5/ss_republicans'-horrible-week.html
Republicans' horrible week (and not-great year) was entirely predictable
Washington Post
Nine months into gaining full control of Washington, Republicans are not where they hoped they’d be. Very far from it, actually. They have no major legislative accomplishments to tout. After this week, they are tipping into a civil war. And early polls suggest voters would rather elect a generic Democrat than a generic Republican in next year’s congressional elections. All of this was entirely predictable — not that there was much Republican leaders could do about it. And yes, I’m referring to President Trump. But Republicans’ fracturing was evident long before Trump rode down that escalator in Trump Tower two and a half years ago. “I think we’re trying to figure out when ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/6fcfb59c-d304-32c7-9849-f6bd05017fa5/ss_republicans'-horrible-week.html
Guess they just wanted your vote...after that...go to hell!
GOP Director of Evangelical Outreach Resigns
NEW YORK —
The national GOP’s director of evangelical outreach is quitting, and lodging complaints about what he calls the party’s “tone deaf attitude” toward a crucial Republican voting bloc.
Chad Connelly, who served as the Republican National Committee’s director of faith engagement for the last four years, announced his resignation in an email circulated to close friends late Thursday. He complained that religious outreach has not been prioritized at the RNC under the leadership structure implemented by President Donald Trump’s White House.
“The treatment I received from the new political department has been disrespectful, antagonistic and unacceptable,” Connelly wrote in an email that was obtained by The Associated Press. He added, “GOP Faith in general and me in particular, just don’t have the priority I anticipated.”
The Republican National Committee rejected Connelly’s assertion and said his departure had more to do with concerns about his job performance.
“Chad failed to meet simple metrics, expectations and responsibilities crucial to his duties at the RNC. Because of the importance of faith engagement to the RNC, it was time to move in a new direction in the department in order to expand our efforts,” said RNC political director Juston Johnson.
Connelly previously served as the chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party. He was an ally of former White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, who tapped Connelly to serve as the RNC’s first-ever director of faith engagement in 2013.
Trump’s victory last fall was due in part to his popularity among white evangelical voters. He won 81 percent of white evangelical Christians, a figure higher than the GOP’s last three presidential nominees.
A frustrated Connelly highlighted the importance of the nation’s faith community in the email that criticized several RNC officials by name.
https://www.voanews.com/a/gop-director-of-evangelical-outreach-resigns/4090766.html
GOP Director of Evangelical Outreach Resigns
NEW YORK —
The national GOP’s director of evangelical outreach is quitting, and lodging complaints about what he calls the party’s “tone deaf attitude” toward a crucial Republican voting bloc.
Chad Connelly, who served as the Republican National Committee’s director of faith engagement for the last four years, announced his resignation in an email circulated to close friends late Thursday. He complained that religious outreach has not been prioritized at the RNC under the leadership structure implemented by President Donald Trump’s White House.
“The treatment I received from the new political department has been disrespectful, antagonistic and unacceptable,” Connelly wrote in an email that was obtained by The Associated Press. He added, “GOP Faith in general and me in particular, just don’t have the priority I anticipated.”
The Republican National Committee rejected Connelly’s assertion and said his departure had more to do with concerns about his job performance.
“Chad failed to meet simple metrics, expectations and responsibilities crucial to his duties at the RNC. Because of the importance of faith engagement to the RNC, it was time to move in a new direction in the department in order to expand our efforts,” said RNC political director Juston Johnson.
Connelly previously served as the chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party. He was an ally of former White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, who tapped Connelly to serve as the RNC’s first-ever director of faith engagement in 2013.
Trump’s victory last fall was due in part to his popularity among white evangelical voters. He won 81 percent of white evangelical Christians, a figure higher than the GOP’s last three presidential nominees.
A frustrated Connelly highlighted the importance of the nation’s faith community in the email that criticized several RNC officials by name.
https://www.voanews.com/a/gop-director-of-evangelical-outreach-resigns/4090766.html
go figure......sheep!
After 'Choosing Donald Trump,' Is The Evangelical Church In Crisis?
NPR.org
President Trump addresses the crowd before delivering the keynote address at Liberty University's commencement in Lynchburg, Va., on May 13. When Donald Trump announced he would be running for president, he didn't seem like the obvious candidate for evangelical voters, given his multiple divorces, use of crass language and one-time admission that he had never asked God for forgiveness. Almost a year since Election Day, President Trump's unlikely marriage with the religious right seems to have only strengthened, as seen at the Values Voter Summit earlier this month. Trump administration officials peppered the speaker list, and attendees praised the president as having been chosen by God to lead the country at this time. ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/8783e4e6-cfe6-31cd-af60-7558ecdbba31/after-'choosing-donald.html
After 'Choosing Donald Trump,' Is The Evangelical Church In Crisis?
NPR.org
President Trump addresses the crowd before delivering the keynote address at Liberty University's commencement in Lynchburg, Va., on May 13. When Donald Trump announced he would be running for president, he didn't seem like the obvious candidate for evangelical voters, given his multiple divorces, use of crass language and one-time admission that he had never asked God for forgiveness. Almost a year since Election Day, President Trump's unlikely marriage with the religious right seems to have only strengthened, as seen at the Values Voter Summit earlier this month. Trump administration officials peppered the speaker list, and attendees praised the president as having been chosen by God to lead the country at this time. ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/8783e4e6-cfe6-31cd-af60-7558ecdbba31/after-'choosing-donald.html
Similar threads
