rather biased opinion wouldn't you say?
Politics, Politics, Politics
- Thread starter falcondfw69
- Start date
Don't be such a moron. You accused me of supporting Trump. I challenged YOU to prove it, YOU need to prove me wrong - not the other way around - you can't. So either eat crow and shut up - or keep showing you ass.
So stop Trolling.
and I challenged you to prove you are not...since the majority of your posts do support him...and yet you refuse...so I would say the ball is in your court...not mine!
besides my monitor is not bolted down and all that hot air you have spouted over the past year it could come flying off the shelf were I to concentrate on all your post!
never met anyone that would start an argument....quit for over a day...and come right back at it....especially when they were wrong!
have you been drinking some of HH's coffee or something?
he is like that...never right and yet keeps the thing going for days
Last edited:
this could apply to several on here!...others are just sheep!
Politics
Why Do Republicans Vote The Way They Do? Follow the Money
Newsweek Peter Certo
Sometimes I have to remind myself that people in “real America” with “real jobs” don’t while away their mortal hours reading about politics.
But God help me, if you’ve suffered through any coverage of the Republican tax plan, you’ve probably heard three things.
First, it’ll dramatically slash taxes on corporations and billionaires, raise them for nearly a third of us in the middle class, and blow a $1.5 trillion hole in the deficit.
Second, it’s unpopular. Less than a third of Americans support it, Reuters reports. That’s worse than Trump’s own approval rating, which remains mired in the 30s.
And third, the Republicans who control Congress believe it simply must pass.
In fact, this third point sets the tenor for the entire debate. “Republicans are desperate to rack up a legislative win after a series of embarrassing failures,” Time observes. “If tax reform doesn’t pass, many in the party fear an all-out revolt in 2018.”
“All of us realize that if we fail on taxes, that’s the end of the Republican Party’s governing majority in 2018,” South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham told Fox News recently. In fact, “that’s probably the end of the Republican Party as we know it.”
If the tax giveaway doesn’t pass, adds Utah Republican Mike Lee, “We might as well pack up our tent and go home.”
The thing is, that doesn’t make any sense. Gallup polls have shown over and over that most Americans think rich people and corporations should pay more, not less. Even a majority of Republican voters worry about what this wealth grab will do to the deficit.
If they were looking for a win, then, Republicans would be running against their own plan. So what gives?
Well, New York Republican Chris Collins recently offered a clue : “My donors are basically saying, ‘Get it done or don’t ever call me again.'” Ah!
In other words, it doesn’t have a lick to do with voters — many of whom in Collins’s high-tax district will likely pay more, since the party wants to end federal deductions for state and local taxes. It has everything to do with the affluent donors who bankroll GOP campaigns.
A similar dynamic played out in the health care debate. GOP leaders trotted out plan after plan that would eliminate coverage for anywhere from 20 to 24 million Americans — plans that never topped the low 20s in public support.
But those plans would have reduced taxes on the wealthy. So they had to pass.
“Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, who has been deeply involved in health policy for years, told reporters back home that he could count 10 reasons the new health proposal should not reach the floor,” the New York Times reported back in September, “but that Republicans needed to press ahead regardless.”
When those bills met their righteous demise, elite GOP fundraising took a huge dive. Senate Republicans lost $2 million in planned contributions alone, The Hill noted this summer. Fundraising in those months fell some $5 million below where it had been in the spring.
So there it is, team: Follow the money. It’s no wonder Princeton researchers found a few years ago that rich people matter to Congress, but ordinary folks generally don’t. That’s probably why many of us prefer to tune it out entirely.
It’s also exactly why we do have to pay attention. Especially in those rare moments when members admit exactly what’s going on.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-republicans-vote-way-money-113002715.html
Politics
Why Do Republicans Vote The Way They Do? Follow the Money
Newsweek Peter Certo
Sometimes I have to remind myself that people in “real America” with “real jobs” don’t while away their mortal hours reading about politics.
But God help me, if you’ve suffered through any coverage of the Republican tax plan, you’ve probably heard three things.
First, it’ll dramatically slash taxes on corporations and billionaires, raise them for nearly a third of us in the middle class, and blow a $1.5 trillion hole in the deficit.
Second, it’s unpopular. Less than a third of Americans support it, Reuters reports. That’s worse than Trump’s own approval rating, which remains mired in the 30s.
And third, the Republicans who control Congress believe it simply must pass.
In fact, this third point sets the tenor for the entire debate. “Republicans are desperate to rack up a legislative win after a series of embarrassing failures,” Time observes. “If tax reform doesn’t pass, many in the party fear an all-out revolt in 2018.”
“All of us realize that if we fail on taxes, that’s the end of the Republican Party’s governing majority in 2018,” South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham told Fox News recently. In fact, “that’s probably the end of the Republican Party as we know it.”
If the tax giveaway doesn’t pass, adds Utah Republican Mike Lee, “We might as well pack up our tent and go home.”
The thing is, that doesn’t make any sense. Gallup polls have shown over and over that most Americans think rich people and corporations should pay more, not less. Even a majority of Republican voters worry about what this wealth grab will do to the deficit.
If they were looking for a win, then, Republicans would be running against their own plan. So what gives?
Well, New York Republican Chris Collins recently offered a clue : “My donors are basically saying, ‘Get it done or don’t ever call me again.'” Ah!
In other words, it doesn’t have a lick to do with voters — many of whom in Collins’s high-tax district will likely pay more, since the party wants to end federal deductions for state and local taxes. It has everything to do with the affluent donors who bankroll GOP campaigns.
A similar dynamic played out in the health care debate. GOP leaders trotted out plan after plan that would eliminate coverage for anywhere from 20 to 24 million Americans — plans that never topped the low 20s in public support.
But those plans would have reduced taxes on the wealthy. So they had to pass.
“Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, who has been deeply involved in health policy for years, told reporters back home that he could count 10 reasons the new health proposal should not reach the floor,” the New York Times reported back in September, “but that Republicans needed to press ahead regardless.”
When those bills met their righteous demise, elite GOP fundraising took a huge dive. Senate Republicans lost $2 million in planned contributions alone, The Hill noted this summer. Fundraising in those months fell some $5 million below where it had been in the spring.
So there it is, team: Follow the money. It’s no wonder Princeton researchers found a few years ago that rich people matter to Congress, but ordinary folks generally don’t. That’s probably why many of us prefer to tune it out entirely.
It’s also exactly why we do have to pay attention. Especially in those rare moments when members admit exactly what’s going on.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-republicans-vote-way-money-113002715.html
Conservatives are more susceptible to believing lies — but not because they're stupid
Business Insider
The right wing's disregard for facts and reasoning is not a matter of stupidity or lack of education. At the most basic level, conservatives and liberals seem to hold different beliefs about what constitutes "truth." For many conservatives, faith and intuition and trust in revealed truth appear as equally valid sources of truth.
Many conservatives have a loose relationship with facts.
The right-wing denial of what most people think of as accepted reality starts with political issues: As recently as 2016, 45 percent of Republicans still believed that the Affordable Care Act included "death panels" (it doesn't). A 2015 poll found that 54 percent of GOP primary voters believed then-President Obama ...
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/m/5...e-85cbab4f4652/ss_conservatives-are-more.html
Business Insider
The right wing's disregard for facts and reasoning is not a matter of stupidity or lack of education. At the most basic level, conservatives and liberals seem to hold different beliefs about what constitutes "truth." For many conservatives, faith and intuition and trust in revealed truth appear as equally valid sources of truth.
Many conservatives have a loose relationship with facts.
The right-wing denial of what most people think of as accepted reality starts with political issues: As recently as 2016, 45 percent of Republicans still believed that the Affordable Care Act included "death panels" (it doesn't). A 2015 poll found that 54 percent of GOP primary voters believed then-President Obama ...
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/m/5...e-85cbab4f4652/ss_conservatives-are-more.html
D
Deleted125623
Guest
LOL Nice try. Feminisim is an ideology end of. The only politicalisation is the need and goal for representation for change through policies and representation. Or are you denying females their rights as well???????
Feminism like Republicans has radicals and extremists. Something you are trying to portray as the whole rather than the part concerning feminism. Begs the question... Whats your hidden agenda
So again NICE TRY.
Also your video above is extremiseme. So again NOT POLITICAL.
So stop telling others to do what you won't do just because someone wants to cut and past..Something you have done with your previous posts in other threads also gives you no right to even ask anyone to stop. Simple. So we're done.
Last edited by a moderator:
pointing to feminists anti-male sentiments is not extremism. calling something you don't like extremism does not make it so.
where did i advocate denying female rights?
feminism is an ideology. ideologies are open to criticism
FYI the majority of women in modern societies do not identify as feminists
The feminist movement purports to improve conditions for women, and yet only a minority of women in modern societies self-identify as feminists. This is known as the feminist paradox.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01011/full
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/feminism-poll_n_3094917
Only one-fifth of Americans identify as feminists, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll. But the vast majority fit the basic definition of the word.
According to the survey, just 20 percent of Americans -- including 23 percent of women and 16 percent of men -- consider themselves feminists. Another 8 percent consider themselves anti-feminists, while 63 percent said they are neither.
7% of Britons identify as feminists
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/only-7-per-cent-of-britons-consider-themselves-feminists/
asking for evidence of one's anti-Trump claims is not telling others what to do. and i unlike subhub do not insult and attack those who disagree with me. your bias is showing again
D
Deleted125623
Guest
Wow you do enjoy whining about biases don't you. You also like to ignore the facts about yourself when dealing with other.. You're a hypocrite. as proven by your insistance on posting multiple posts using copy and paste. Whilste calling others out.
I noticed you changed tact rather quickly when called out on your extremist post on feminism and your rather 'one tag fits all.
I can also see you have limited knowledge of feminism. Hence your first comment tagging all feminists under the one label. But I will accept your apology for getting that simple concept wrong.
Now. Why you are posting UK facts is beyond me. But then again, it would appear you have 'made YET again an assumption'. But I will point some of the more glaring errors is your UK 'fact finding'. Which by the way, you took out of context to support your attempt to use supportive evidence and fact. Sorry laddo but your busted. Also. Please. Is that the best you can do , a three second search then to use the first two which happened to be a post in the Huffington and Telegraph which was limited in its scope.
Look I can do it too, only I can double down on your figures to show a higher porportion https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/10/05/treat-women-equally-dont-call-it-feminism/
http://survation.com/uk-attitudes-to-gender-in-2016-survation-for-fawcett-society/
- 8,000 people surveyed.
- The survey was about poeple and their views on GENDER EQUALITY. NOT were they feminists.
- the 7% (456) you qouted (and took out of context) stated they considered their views to be feminist when it concerned GENDER EQUALITY. Something way out of the ball park in the context of over all feminism you tried to imply.
- The poll you took the information from was a poll on the IDENTIFICATION OF GENDER EQUALITY NOT FEMINISM. (Survation on behalf of women’s equality charity The Fawcett Society surveyed over 8,000 UK adults about attitudes to GENDER ISSUES. The large sample size and interrogation of underlying gender bias is unique and provides a robust picture of the state of British attitudes to GENDER EQUALITY in 2016.) Again GENDER NOT FEMINISM.
As for your facts on the US , maybe its true. But then again The US populus has not been able to agree on anything in the last 50 years. Hence Trump!
The video you posted is concidered by many leading experts to be 'EXTREMISM', yet, you make an assumption without basis or knowledge, (which is beginning to make a regular pattern of events concerning your comments and remarks), and try to attach YOUR assumptions onto me.
'pointing to feminists anti-male sentiments is not extremism. calling something you don't like extremism does not make it so.'
You clearly are a slow learner. ' I said. 'Also your video above is extremiseme'. So again NOT POLITICAL. I didn't say YOU posting it was extremism..... You clearly have difficulty disconcerning what is said. What is meant. And comprehending the context. Do keep up!So stop attributing your lack of understanding and comprehension to a non existant like or dislike concerning me.
'where did i advocate denying female rights?'
Again You clearly have a lack of understanding and a difficulty to comprehend a sentence or statement.
'Or are you denying females their rights as well???????.
Again I didn't say 'YOU WERE' I asked' IF YOU WERE'. See the difference?? Then again proberly not
!'The feminist movement purports to improve conditions for women, and yet only a minority of women in modern societies self-identify as feminists. This is known as the feminist paradox.'
And yet it has NOTHING to do with feminism as an ideology. And everything to do with Gender equality identification.
Chicana feminism
Women of All Red Nations (WARN)
The American Indian Movement
Model minority
Transfeminism
Third-world feminism
standpoint feminism
Separatist feminism
Lesbian feminism
Radical feminism
Postmodern feminism
Transnational feminism
Postcolonial feminists
French feminism
Individualist feminism
Anarcha-feminism
Liberal feminism
Classical liberal or libertarian
Cultural feminism
Black feminism
Anarcha-feminism
Mainstream feminism
Now above is a list of some of the various types of Femimism. Do they all fall under your one tag fits all concept? Can you even guess which extremist group it falls under?.... No need to reply as I already know the answer!
I will finish ( and this is the last reply to you) by thanking you for opening up your own can of worms in the political threads. Or any thread for that matter. Political parties, their politics are also idiologies. So can be challenged as you so nicely pointed out. So while you can post your cut and paste items so can he (subhub)... You see, thats the whole point that flew past your head. You post cut and paste yet want him to stop. It matters not one iota which thread its in. Its the priciple ... So its not the imaginary bias you claim I have. But your own hypocrisy and double standards.
Enjoy!
Wow you do enjoy whining about biases don't you. You also like to ignore the facts about yourself when dealing with other.. You're a hypocrite. as proven by your insistance on posting multiple posts using copy and paste. Whilste calling others out.
I noticed you changed tact rather quickly when called out on your extremist post on feminism and your rather 'one tag fits all.
I can also see you have limited knowledge of feminism. Hence your first comment tagging all feminists under the one label. But I will accept your apology for getting that simple concept wrong.
Now. Why you are posting UK facts is beyond me. But then again, it would appear you have 'made YET again an assumption'. But I will point some of the more glaring errors is your UK 'fact finding'. Which by the way, you took out of context to support your attempt to use supportive evidence and fact. Sorry laddo but your busted. Also. Please. Is that the best you can do , a three second search then to use the first two which happened to be a post in the Huffington and Telegraph which was limited in its scope.
Look I can do it too, only I can double down on your figures to show a higher porportion https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/10/05/treat-women-equally-dont-call-it-feminism/
http://survation.com/uk-attitudes-to-gender-in-2016-survation-for-fawcett-society/
But nice try. Then again using the first two articles you came upon without actually understanding or reading them will cause you to slip up everytime exactly as you have done.
- 8,000 people surveyed.
- The survey was about poeple and their views on GENDER EQUALITY. NOT were they feminists.
- the 7% (456) you qouted (and took out of context) stated they considered their views to be feminist when it concerned GENDER EQUALITY. Something way out of the ball park in the context of over all feminism you tried to imply.
- The poll you took the information from was a poll on the IDENTIFICATION OF GENDER EQUALITY NOT FEMINISM. (Survation on behalf of women’s equality charity The Fawcett Society surveyed over 8,000 UK adults about attitudes to GENDER ISSUES. The large sample size and interrogation of underlying gender bias is unique and provides a robust picture of the state of British attitudes to GENDER EQUALITY in 2016.) Again GENDER NOT FEMINISM.
As for your facts on the US , maybe its true. But then again The US populus has not been able to agree on anything in the last 50 years. Hence Trump!
The video you posted is concidered by many leading experts to be 'EXTREMISM', yet, you make an assumption without basis or knowledge, (which is beginning to make a regular pattern of events concerning your comments and remarks), and try to attach YOUR assumptions onto me.
'pointing to feminists anti-male sentiments is not extremism. calling something you don't like extremism does not make it so.'
So stop attributing your lack of understanding and comprehension to a non existant like or dislike concerning me.
'where did i advocate denying female rights?'
Again You clearly have a lack of understanding and a difficulty to comprehend a sentence or statement.
'Or are you denying females their rights as well???????.
Again I didn't say 'YOU WERE' I asked' IF YOU WERE'. See the difference?? Then again proberly not
'The feminist movement purports to improve conditions for women, and yet only a minority of women in modern societies self-identify as feminists. This is known as the feminist paradox.'
And yet it has NOTHING to do with feminism as an ideology. And everything to do with Gender equality identification.
Chicana feminism
Women of All Red Nations (WARN)
The American Indian Movement
Model minority
Transfeminism
Third-world feminism
standpoint feminism
Separatist feminism
Lesbian feminism
Radical feminism
Postmodern feminism
Transnational feminism
Postcolonial feminists
French feminism
Individualist feminism
Anarcha-feminism
Liberal feminism
Classical liberal or libertarian
Cultural feminism
Black feminism
Anarcha-feminism
Mainstream feminism
Now above is a list of some of the various types of Femimism. Do they all fall under your one tag fits all concept? Can you even guess which extremist group it falls under?.... No need to reply as I already know the answer!
I will finish ( and this is the last reply to you) by thanking you for opening up your own can of worms in the political threads. Or any thread for that matter. Political parties, their politics are also idiologies. So can be challenged as you so nicely pointed out. So while you can post your cut and paste items so can he (subhub)... You see, thats the whole point that flew past your head. You post cut and paste yet want him to stop. It matters not one iota which thread its in. Its the priciple ... So its not the imaginary bias you claim I have. But your own hypocrisy and double standards.
Enjoy!
so responding to your postings to me is now whining?
and yes they all follow the same man hating, leftist, victimhood agendas they blame men or "patriarchy" for thier problems and women's problem. try read their blogs, websites, opinion pieces on mainstream newspapers, and watch their youtube videos. and make up cute words like "intersectionality" they major in bullshit degrees in universities that don't lead to careers and employment and many earn a living on people's money using patron and go fund me.
D
Deleted125623
Guest
I am going to reply this very last time... I suggest you take a course in language comprehension and understanding.
If you will have noticed I have replied using explicite qoutes or comments YOU have posted to make either the reply and/or use as an example. If you take the time time to READ you will have noticed I said QOUTE: Wow you do enjoy whining about biases don't you. Notice I never said YOU replying was whining. I mentioned a specific trait.
Lastly.. Ohh please. Stop posting about anything to do with feminism as you clealry haven't a clue as to anything you post. For your information they are NOT all man hating etc etc. I gave you one simple task to perform to see if you knew your *******. And you failed.
Enjoy!
so all this started
you started all this when i ask subhub to post any crimes Trump has committed that would lead to impeachment and yes.
you started all this when i ask subhub to post any crimes Trump has committed that would lead to impeachment and yes.
2bi...looks like your friends are up to some "skullduggery"
Just a little something he forgot to mention....
Trump Court Pick Forgot To Mention He's Married To A White House Lawyer
HuffPost Jennifer Bendery
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-court-pick-forgot-mention-203019576.html
and to make it worse......
Trump’s ridiculously unqualified judicial nominee is sailing through Senate
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/c81b9079-7048-3243-aa28-d25381f4110c/ss_trump’s-ridiculously.html
Last edited:
(Reuters) - U.S. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky said he returned to work on Monday, more than a week after he suffered six broken ribs when tackled by a neighbor while mowing his lawn
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...being-tackled-while-mowing-lawn-idUSKBN1DD27W
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...being-tackled-while-mowing-lawn-idUSKBN1DD27W
REPORT: Rand Paul Having Problems Breathing After Vicious Attack From Democrat Neighbor
http://www.dailywire.com/news/23519/report-rand-paul-having-problems-breathing-after-ryan-saavedra
http://www.dailywire.com/news/23519/report-rand-paul-having-problems-breathing-after-ryan-saavedra
CBO: House GOP tax plan triggers $25 billion in Medicare cuts
If the House GOP tax plan passes, it is projected to cut revenue significantly, likely increasing the deficit by $1.456 trillion from 2018 to 2027, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
With a number that large, Congress’s “pay as you go” rules that prevent unchecked spending would fall into place, a move that could cut Medicare’s budget by as much as $25 billion for 2018.
In a letter to House minority whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the CBO explained that without any more money to offset the fall in revenue, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would be required to issue a “sequestration order” to reduce spending in 2018 by $136 billion.
The effects of this sequestration order would trigger automatic cuts to various programs, including Medicare. According to the CBO, this could be as much as 4% for Medicare, which amounts to $25 billion in 2018. Furthermore, all non-exempt programs would be eliminated, which include some farming subsidies, border security, and student loan help. Others, like Social Security, would remain untouched.
At the same time, the tax plan’s changes to the estate and gift taxes would cut revenue $151 billion from 2018 to 2027, according to the JCT. Only 4,700 estates were large enough to be subject to the estate tax as the 2017, since the exemption is over $5 million.
Because of the rules exempting or limiting how much can be cut from certain programs, the CBO also estimated that the reductions would not make up for the need for money to pay for what Congress “bought.”
Touching Medicare has been traditionally considered explosive, and some have noted the “pay as you go” rules give Democrats leverage in the tax bill debates.
In a response to the CBO’s letter, Rep. Hoyer issued a statement, noting the broad impact beyond the deficit on the program cuts, adding that he actually wrote the “pay as you go” law, and called for a bipartisan lawmaking process.
According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the “pay as you go rules” were passed with bipartisan support.
that should just tickle you to death 2bi
If the House GOP tax plan passes, it is projected to cut revenue significantly, likely increasing the deficit by $1.456 trillion from 2018 to 2027, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
With a number that large, Congress’s “pay as you go” rules that prevent unchecked spending would fall into place, a move that could cut Medicare’s budget by as much as $25 billion for 2018.
In a letter to House minority whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the CBO explained that without any more money to offset the fall in revenue, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would be required to issue a “sequestration order” to reduce spending in 2018 by $136 billion.
The effects of this sequestration order would trigger automatic cuts to various programs, including Medicare. According to the CBO, this could be as much as 4% for Medicare, which amounts to $25 billion in 2018. Furthermore, all non-exempt programs would be eliminated, which include some farming subsidies, border security, and student loan help. Others, like Social Security, would remain untouched.
At the same time, the tax plan’s changes to the estate and gift taxes would cut revenue $151 billion from 2018 to 2027, according to the JCT. Only 4,700 estates were large enough to be subject to the estate tax as the 2017, since the exemption is over $5 million.
Because of the rules exempting or limiting how much can be cut from certain programs, the CBO also estimated that the reductions would not make up for the need for money to pay for what Congress “bought.”
Touching Medicare has been traditionally considered explosive, and some have noted the “pay as you go” rules give Democrats leverage in the tax bill debates.
In a response to the CBO’s letter, Rep. Hoyer issued a statement, noting the broad impact beyond the deficit on the program cuts, adding that he actually wrote the “pay as you go” law, and called for a bipartisan lawmaking process.
According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the “pay as you go rules” were passed with bipartisan support.
that should just tickle you to death 2bi
Last edited:
Clinton Uranium 'Scandal' Doesn't Have Much Fuel
Bloomberg
Did Hillary Clinton cut a secret deal in 2010 to hand Russia 20 percent of the U.S.'s uranium deposits? Was Robert Mueller, then the FBI director and now running the investigation into Russian meddling in the presidential election, complicit? Has the New York Times confirmed it all? Those questions were mostly just making the rounds of the right-wing media until this week, when the Justice Department announced it was going to "evaluate" requests by Republican members of Congress to investigate the woman President Donald Trump reflexively calls "Crooked Hillary." But is there anything to the accusations? So far, there is little to back them up. And to understand it all, we'll have to take a brief ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/4460e5af-6f9b-3dae-9c24-5f6f48bea276/ss_clinton-uranium-'scandal'.html
Bloomberg
Did Hillary Clinton cut a secret deal in 2010 to hand Russia 20 percent of the U.S.'s uranium deposits? Was Robert Mueller, then the FBI director and now running the investigation into Russian meddling in the presidential election, complicit? Has the New York Times confirmed it all? Those questions were mostly just making the rounds of the right-wing media until this week, when the Justice Department announced it was going to "evaluate" requests by Republican members of Congress to investigate the woman President Donald Trump reflexively calls "Crooked Hillary." But is there anything to the accusations? So far, there is little to back them up. And to understand it all, we'll have to take a brief ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/4460e5af-6f9b-3dae-9c24-5f6f48bea276/ss_clinton-uranium-'scandal'.html
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/14/anti-trump-billionaire-linked-to-lawsuits-against-oil-companies/
The billionaire philanthropist who kickstarted a $10 million campaign to impeach President Donald Trump is linked to class action lawsuits against oil companies, according to a Monday report.
Two officials inside Democratic moneyman Tom Steyer’s nonprofit group NextGen were briefed in 2015 on the strategy behind a legal crusade against various oil producers, the Daily Mail report notes. Steyer, a well-heeled environmentalist, has repeatedly denied any involvement in campaigns to sue companies like Exxon.
The billionaire philanthropist who kickstarted a $10 million campaign to impeach President Donald Trump is linked to class action lawsuits against oil companies, according to a Monday report.
Two officials inside Democratic moneyman Tom Steyer’s nonprofit group NextGen were briefed in 2015 on the strategy behind a legal crusade against various oil producers, the Daily Mail report notes. Steyer, a well-heeled environmentalist, has repeatedly denied any involvement in campaigns to sue companies like Exxon.
well 2 bi looks like you are going to get your wish...can't seem to get rid of ACA...but they can dismantle it to where it isn't worth a ******* and people lose coverage
'Obamacare' mandate repeal would remake market for consumers
Associated Press RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
Millions are expected to forgo coverage if Congress repeals the unpopular requirement that Americans get health insurance, gambling that they won't get sick and boosting premiums for others in a sharp break with the idea that everyone should contribute toward health care.
Just as important, the drive by Senate Republicans to undo the coverage requirement under former President Barack Obama's health care law fits neatly with the Trump administration's effort to write new regulations allowing for skimpier plans with limited benefits and lower premiums.
Put the two together and the marketplace for about 18 million people buying their own health insurance may look very different in a few years. Consumers would have layers of new options with different pluses and minuses. They'd notice a shift away from the "Obamacare" requirement that health plans cover a broad set of "essential" benefits. New winners and losers would emerge.
Defending the GOP's move, the Senate's chief tax writer said Wednesday that the "Obamacare" fines on people who go without coverage amount to a tax on working people. "It's a terribly regressive tax that imposes harsh burdens on low- and middle-income taxpayers," said Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
Orin Hatch...THE SAME MAN THAT THE PHARMA COMP PAID BIG BUCKS FOR HIS CAMPAIGN!?
But Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said doing away with the coverage requirement will undermine insurance markets and raise costs, particularly for those who need care. She accused Republicans of "sneaking devastating health care changes into a partisan bill at the last minute."
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that repeal of the insurance requirement would save the government $338 billion through 2027, mainly because fewer people would seek subsidized coverage. That would give GOP lawmakers money to offset some of the tax cuts they're proposing.
CBO estimates the number of uninsured would rise by 13 million by 2027, reversing coverage gains seen under Obama. Because fewer people would be paying into the insurance pool, premiums for individual plans would rise about 10 percent. Little impact was expected on employer coverage.
Repealing the mandate would be like taking away the stick that nudges people to get comprehensive health insurance, while the skimpier plans envisioned by the Trump administration's regulation writers would be like new carrots introduced into the marketplace, said Katherine Hempstead, who directs health insurance work for the nonpartisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
"They point in the same direction," Hempstead said of the changes sought by Senate Republicans and the administration. "Not requiring people to buy comprehensive coverage and giving them alternative sources of more bare-bones coverage."
The result would be higher premiums for people who need comprehensive health insurance, often those who are older and patients coping with chronic conditions. "It's going to leave a lot of people poorly served," she said.
GOP economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin said that he thinks the predictions of dire consequences are overstated and that repealing the mandate would be more like a safety valve for a health insurance market that is pricing out people not entitled to subsidies under "Obamacare."
"In the individual market, this is all about getting premiums down so people will want to buy, as opposed to making them have to buy," Holtz-Eakin said. A former CBO chief, Holtz-Eakin said he thinks the agency's current estimates give too much weight to the effectiveness of the coverage mandate in getting people to buy coverage.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/obamacare-mandate-repeal-remake-market-195912306.html
Let me think about this a minute....should I believe a partisan politician....or a gov agency out to protect us?
'Obamacare' mandate repeal would remake market for consumers
Associated Press RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
Millions are expected to forgo coverage if Congress repeals the unpopular requirement that Americans get health insurance, gambling that they won't get sick and boosting premiums for others in a sharp break with the idea that everyone should contribute toward health care.
Just as important, the drive by Senate Republicans to undo the coverage requirement under former President Barack Obama's health care law fits neatly with the Trump administration's effort to write new regulations allowing for skimpier plans with limited benefits and lower premiums.
Put the two together and the marketplace for about 18 million people buying their own health insurance may look very different in a few years. Consumers would have layers of new options with different pluses and minuses. They'd notice a shift away from the "Obamacare" requirement that health plans cover a broad set of "essential" benefits. New winners and losers would emerge.
Defending the GOP's move, the Senate's chief tax writer said Wednesday that the "Obamacare" fines on people who go without coverage amount to a tax on working people. "It's a terribly regressive tax that imposes harsh burdens on low- and middle-income taxpayers," said Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
Orin Hatch...THE SAME MAN THAT THE PHARMA COMP PAID BIG BUCKS FOR HIS CAMPAIGN!?
But Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said doing away with the coverage requirement will undermine insurance markets and raise costs, particularly for those who need care. She accused Republicans of "sneaking devastating health care changes into a partisan bill at the last minute."
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that repeal of the insurance requirement would save the government $338 billion through 2027, mainly because fewer people would seek subsidized coverage. That would give GOP lawmakers money to offset some of the tax cuts they're proposing.
CBO estimates the number of uninsured would rise by 13 million by 2027, reversing coverage gains seen under Obama. Because fewer people would be paying into the insurance pool, premiums for individual plans would rise about 10 percent. Little impact was expected on employer coverage.
Repealing the mandate would be like taking away the stick that nudges people to get comprehensive health insurance, while the skimpier plans envisioned by the Trump administration's regulation writers would be like new carrots introduced into the marketplace, said Katherine Hempstead, who directs health insurance work for the nonpartisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
"They point in the same direction," Hempstead said of the changes sought by Senate Republicans and the administration. "Not requiring people to buy comprehensive coverage and giving them alternative sources of more bare-bones coverage."
The result would be higher premiums for people who need comprehensive health insurance, often those who are older and patients coping with chronic conditions. "It's going to leave a lot of people poorly served," she said.
GOP economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin said that he thinks the predictions of dire consequences are overstated and that repealing the mandate would be more like a safety valve for a health insurance market that is pricing out people not entitled to subsidies under "Obamacare."
"In the individual market, this is all about getting premiums down so people will want to buy, as opposed to making them have to buy," Holtz-Eakin said. A former CBO chief, Holtz-Eakin said he thinks the agency's current estimates give too much weight to the effectiveness of the coverage mandate in getting people to buy coverage.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/obamacare-mandate-repeal-remake-market-195912306.html
Let me think about this a minute....should I believe a partisan politician....or a gov agency out to protect us?
Similar threads
