Opinion All the major republican policies pass, now what?

[Jack V Savage]

Ron is in align with the voters - https://www.foxnews.com/official-po...ing-social-security-medicare-over-budget-cuts

It's not the voters that are getting elected. The problem is what I said before. Voters (and elected Republicans) want lower debt, elected Republicans have pledged not to raise taxes, they don't believe in cutting defense, and there's just no room for significant cost-effective cuts to discretionary spending (which is only 14% of the budget if you remove defense, anyway). The only way to make it work in that situation is to cut some combination of SS/Medicare/Medicaid. Their preference among those is Medicaid, which they came close to cutting last time, but SS is also appealing to them because it is treated as separate from the overall budget (to maintain the accounting idea that it's self-sustaining), which means it needs a specific revenue source or cuts. That's the reason for the debt-ceiling bullshit, BTW. They know cutting those programs is politically toxic so the hope is that they can force Democrats to do it.

On the Democratic side, the solution to the general debt issue is much easier--raise revenue, though they also have a problem in that they keep pledging not to raise taxes on the "middle class" (which is often defined as people making less than $400K). For SS specifically, you have to either ditch the idea that it's separate from the overall budget (which I think is the right solution) or you have to shore it up with a tax increase on lower incomes (raising the cap, or eliminating it would hit people making between around $170K and $400K).

Anyway, voters are delusional about this stuff (lots of them think you can balance budgets by cutting unspecified "waste," and keep all the programs they like and not raise taxes). Elected officials (and especially their staffers) know better but face some constraints that make SS cuts the only option for Republicans, which is why the idea keeps coming back.

 

[Loiosh]

Perfect example of making up words … lol “persecuting” yea please don’t play sports with woman bros!, is totally persecuting. Keep playing the victim cards because that helps out people’s mental health

Motte and bailey, I'm one of the loudest supporters of trans rights and I don't support trans women in women's sports.

That may change a little but at the moment it seems too unfair to cis women.

 

[Mr Holmes]

It's not the voters that are getting elected. The problem is what I said before. Voters (and elected Republicans) want lower debt, elected Republicans have pledged not to raise taxes, they don't believe in cutting defense, and there's just no room for significant cost-effective cuts to discretionary spending (which is only 14% of the budget if you remove defense, anyway). The only way to make it work in that situation is to cut some combination of SS/Medicare/Medicaid. Their preference among those is Medicaid, which they came close to cutting last time, but SS is also appealing to them because it is treated as separate from the overall budget (to maintain the accounting idea that it's self-sustaining), which means it needs a specific revenue source or cuts. That's the reason for the debt-ceiling bullshit, BTW. They know cutting those programs is politically toxic so the hope is that they can force Democrats to do it.

On the Democratic side, the solution to the general debt issue is much easier--raise revenue, though they also have a problem in that they keep pledging not to raise taxes on the "middle class" (which is often defined as people making less than $400K). For SS specifically, you have to either ditch the idea that it's separate from the overall budget (which I think is the right solution) or you have to shore it up with a tax increase on lower incomes (raising the cap, or eliminating it would hit people making between around $170K and $400K).

Anyway, voters are delusional about this stuff (lots of them think you can balance budgets by cutting unspecified "waste," and keep all the programs they like and not raise taxes). Elected officials (and especially their staffers) know better but face some constraints that make SS cuts the only option for Republicans, which is why the idea keeps coming back.

I think RDS's reason for not wanting to touch it was valid (but he really shouldn't have to justify that position). I see it as helping him more than hurting him. Haley is much more of a neo-con and I suppose her stance appeals more to her donors. I guess we'll have to see what happens.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think RDS's reason for not wanting to touch it was valid (but he really shouldn't have to justify that position). I see it as helping him more than hurting him. Haley is much more of a neo-con and I suppose her stance appeals more to her donors. I guess we'll have to see what happens.

What was his reason? He's supported cutting it before (and voted to cut it). He's also supported killing it altogether. I think his reason for saying he doesn't want to cut it is that it is really unpopular. But I think he's forced into the same corner in that you have to either cut SS or raise taxes, and he has committed not to raise taxes, which is 100% a bigger priority for him than not cutting SS.

I've seen him say that we need bipartisan action, which I think just means that he knows cutting it would be really unpopular but that gets mitigated if Democrats go along with it. In the past, some have expressed some willingness to do it in exchange for other priorities, but Republicans have never wanted to give anything up.

 

[Mr Holmes]

What was his reason? He's supported cutting it before (and voted to cut it). He's also supported killing it altogether. I think his reason for saying he doesn't want to cut it is that it is really unpopular. But I think he's forced into the same corner in that you have to either cut SS or raise taxes, and he has committed not to raise taxes, which is 100% a bigger priority for him than not cutting SS.

I've seen him say that we need bipartisan action, which I think just means that he knows cutting it would be really unpopular but that gets mitigated if Democrats go along with it. In the past, some have expressed some willingness to do it in exchange for other priorities, but Republicans have never wanted to give anything up.

He said the average life expectancy is going down so it didn't make sense the raise the age for benefits.

 

[mkess101]

Anyway, voters are delusional about this stuff (lots of them think you can balance budgets by cutting unspecified "waste," and keep all the programs they like and not raise taxes). Elected officials (and especially their staffers) know better but face some constraints that make SS cuts the only option for Republicans, which is why the idea keeps coming back.

This is spot on. It's the low hanging fruit, so of course it's easy for everyone to agree on regardless of ideology. Waste is bad, duh. And obviously taking steps to eliminate it is worthwhile. But it addresses a very tiny part of a much bigger challenge.

 

[Jack V Savage]

He said the average life expectancy is going down so it didn't make sense the raise the age for benefits.

That doesn't address the shortfall at all, though. Life expectancy isn't even going down. Just blipped down because of COVID. Immigration would also be a fix, BTW, and reduced immigration increases the problem.

BTW, one of the great moments of Pelosi's career was saving it. After 2004, Republicans had full control and killing SS was their top priority. Taken for granted by everyone that they'd succeed, and Democrats were asked for an alternative plan to replace it. Famously, one Democratic Congressperson asked Pelosi when the plan would come out. She said, "Never. Is that good enough for you?" She got them united against the plan, and Republican infighting about the specific replacement prevented them from being unified enough to kill it. She was bashed a lot in the MSM, but she won. That and her opposition to the Iraq War were the key reasons she was such a hated figure among rightists.

 

[helltoupee]

Biden didn't say he doesn't support UHC. He said “I would veto anything that delays providing the security and the certainty of health care being available now." But he has expanded access to care and brought drug costs down already, and if not for McCain, Republicans likely would have cut Medicaid and a bunch of other healthcare regs, including protections for people with pre-existing conditions (plus the payout ratio for insurers, requirements that firms of a certain size provide coverage, etc.).

As to the bolded above. Why do you think GOP lawmakers are so adamant about things like removing protections for people with pre-existing conditions? What do you think the motive is?

Why does the GOP seem to generally favor policy that helps the wealthy/big business over policy that might help the masses?

I ask because I know you take a very firm stance on the idea that politicians are altruistic human beings that would never be susceptible to influence from the corporate lobby/wealthy donors, or the idea that the institution we call lobbying isn't a form of bribery just because any quid pro quos are implied, rather than documented in some kind of legal contract. Corporations and think tanks spend a lot of money on such, I'm just trying figure out why if there was no expected ROI.

And further, why does the GOP almost exclusively side with those who can afford to lobby/wealthy/corporations?

This is not a gotcha, I'm genuinely curios as to what the motivations are for the GOP to consistently oppose policies that might be beneficial to most average people. I think post Obama, a lot of it had to do with spite (during the Trump admin), but the GOP has been this way for decades. What do you think as to why?

 

[Jack V Savage]

As to the bolded above. Why do you thing GOP lawmakers are so adamant things like removing protections for people with pre-existing conditions? What do you think the motive is?

Why does the GOP seem to generally favor policy that helps the wealthy/big business over policy that might help the masses?

I ask because I know you take a very firm stance on the idea that politicians are altruistic human beings that would never be susceptible to influence from the corporate lobby/wealthy donors, or the idea that the institution we call lobbying isn't a form of bribery just because any quid pro quos are implied, rather than documented in some kind of legal contract. Corporations and think tanks spend a lot of money on such, I'm just trying figure out why if there was no expected ROI.

And further, why does the GOP almost exclusively side with those who can afford to lobby/wealthy/corporations?

This is not a gotcha, I'm genuinely curios as to what the motivations are for the GOP to consistently oppose policies that might be beneficial to most average people. I think post Obama, a lot of it had to do with spite (during the Trump admin), but the GOP has been this way for decades. What do you think as to why?

On the first thing, the ACA addressed that issue, and Republicans really worked themselves into a lather over the ACA. The expectation was that the next time they had full control, they'd eliminate it, but it turned out that Pelosi was right (that after it passed, it would become a lot more popular), and the repeal barely failed.

My view is not that politicians are altruistic human beings. I think that it's a lot more complicated. People's sense of what is right or wrong in terms of policy often lines up with their personal interests, and that isn't a coincidence, but I don't think it's solely a matter of unprincipled pursuit of personal gain. I think for a lot of Republicans, they genuinely think that progressive taxation is immoral. "Why should some people pay X% of their income in taxes and others pay <X% or even zero or negative?" In RDS's first book, he argues that people will naturally vote themselves a bigger share of national income (that is, to take from the rich) and the point of the Constitution is to prevent that. I think it's a view that happens to be very convenient for him and doesn't withstand a lot of scrutiny, but I think it's something he really believes and isn't just saying so he'll get donations to his campaigns. And generally, the GOP's brand is that so people who believe that progressive taxation is wrong and that the safety net does more harm than good are going to be Republicans.

In another thread, we discussed the value of donations, which are A) largely small-dollar ones and B) extremely small relative to the size of the economy. If people are expecting a return, as opposed to just to support their preferred party, that expected return is really tiny.

I think opposition to what I consider rational economic policy would be a really small problem if it were just a matter of people being bribed to oppose it. But it's a really deep-seated thing.

 

[helltoupee]

On the first thing, the ACA addressed that issue, and Republicans really worked themselves into a lather over the ACA. The expectation was that the next time they had full control, they'd eliminate it, but it turned out that Pelosi was right (that after it passed, it would become a lot more popular), and the repeal barely failed.

My view is not that politicians are altruistic human beings. I think that it's a lot more complicated. People's sense of what is right or wrong in terms of policy often lines up with their personal interests, and that isn't a coincidence, but I don't think it's solely a matter of unprincipled pursuit of personal gain. I think for a lot of Republicans, they genuinely think that progressive taxation is immoral. "Why should some people pay X% of their income in taxes and others pay <X% or even zero or negative?" In RDS's first book, he argues that people will naturally vote themselves a bigger share of national income (that is, to take from the rich) and the point of the Constitution is to prevent that. I think it's a view that happens to be very convenient for him and doesn't withstand a lot of scrutiny, but I think it's something he really believes and isn't just saying so he'll get donations to his campaigns. And generally, the GOP's brand is that so people who believe that progressive taxation is wrong and that the safety net does more harm than good are going to be Republicans.

In another thread, we discussed the value of donations, which are A) largely small-dollar ones and B) extremely small relative to the size of the economy. If people are expecting a return, as opposed to just to support their preferred party, that expected return is really tiny.

I think opposition to what I consider rational economic policy would be a really small problem if it were just a matter of people being bribed to oppose it. But it's a really deep-seated thing.

Thanks for the response.

I can certainly wrap my head around why certain politicians would want to lower their own taxes, which is simply shifting the tax burden to someone else. But with pre-existing conditions, what's in it for them other than trying to perhaps appease big insurance companies? Or was it more the GOP had a general issue with the ACA in it's entirety, and pre existing conditions fell under that (guilt by association maybe)? I just don't understand why the GOP was so adamant about the pre-existing conditions unless they were beholden to the insurance industry somehow...?? Or is there some kind of ideological motive that accepting pre-existing conditions raises everyone else's insurance?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Thanks for the response.

I can certainly wrap my head around why certain politicians would want to lower their own taxes, which is simply shifting the tax burden to someone else. But with pre-existing conditions, what's in it for them other than trying to perhaps appease big insurance companies? Or was it more the GOP had a general issue with the ACA in it's entirety, and pre existing conditions fell under that (guilt by association maybe)? I just don't understand why the GOP was so adamant about the pre-existing conditions unless they were beholden to the insurance industry somehow...?? Or is there some kind of ideological motive that accepting pre-existing conditions raises everyone else's insurance?

The idea behind insurance is that you make regular payments so you're protected against unexpected high costs. If someone has a pre-existing condition, they (and insurers) know that the high costs are coming and they would not be good candidates to be offered insurance unless their premiums were very high. And having people with those conditions mixed into group markets weakens the entire pool from an insurer standpoint and thus raises the premium level needed to viably insure the group. So it's the exact type of redistribution opposed by opponents of progressive taxation and a safety net.

 

[no fat chicks]

LOL, you really are one of the those guys that think the chuds are the root of all your problems.

No I'm of the belief that we should enact evidence based policy. The Republican party has shown itself to be vibes based for quite some time now.

 

[HereticBD]

No I'm of the belief that we should enact evidence based policy. The Republican party has shown itself to be vibes based for quite some time now.

"Vibes" like "diversity is good, so lets open the border and tell anyone complaining about not having the resources to deal with millions of illegal immigrants to go fuck themselves"...?

Those kind of "vibes"?

 

[Helden]

There is a reason conservatives are on the wrong side of history on every single issue

 

[no fat chicks]

"Vibes" like "diversity is good, so lets open the border and tell anyone complaining about not having the resources to deal with millions of illegal immigrants to go fuck themselves"...?

Those kind of "vibes"?

You're not even American wtf are you talking about.

Show me data that backs up these claims. Would their be a cornucopia of resources if not for all those darn illegals?
Look at the numbers whatever "drain" you claim they are to society if offset by all the nonsense jobs they're doing for us. They big issue which is seemingly never brought up is the countless business interests that hire these folks.

 

[emefer]

Thanks for the response.

I can certainly wrap my head around why certain politicians would want to lower their own taxes, which is simply shifting the tax burden to someone else. But with pre-existing conditions, what's in it for them other than trying to perhaps appease big insurance companies? Or was it more the GOP had a general issue with the ACA in it's entirety, and pre existing conditions fell under that (guilt by association maybe)? I just don't understand why the GOP was so adamant about the pre-existing conditions unless they were beholden to the insurance industry somehow...?? Or is there some kind of ideological motive that accepting pre-existing conditions raises everyone else's insurance?

The thing is now they (republicans) are pushing Medicare (dis)advantage which is a scam and more profitable to the insurance companies than traditional health insurance, and it will kill traditional Medicare. Keep in mind that health insurance companies profits are approaching a billions dollars every week.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You're not even American wtf are you talking about.

Show me data that backs up these claims. Would their be a cornucopia of resources if not for all those darn illegals?
Look at the numbers whatever "drain" you claim they are to society if offset by all the nonsense jobs they're doing for us. They big issue which is seemingly never brought up is the countless business interests that hire these folks.

And it's not like anyone notable in politics actually supports unauthorized immigration. Dumb discussion all around.

 

[Mr Holmes]

You're not even American wtf are you talking about.

What does his nationality have to do with it? Are you a xenophobe?

Show me data that backs up these claims. Would their be a cornucopia of resources if not for all those darn illegals?
Look at the numbers whatever "drain" you claim they are to society if offset by all the nonsense jobs they're doing for us. They big issue which is seemingly never brought up is the countless business interests that hire these folks.

Maybe you should try to follow current events. The resources they are consuming are our social programs, infrastructure, and tax revenue. What evidence do you have that mass illegal immigration is a good thing? Sounds like the best you can come up with is they can be our slave underclass.

 

[no fat chicks]

What does his nationality have to do with it? Are you a xenophobe?


Maybe you should try to follow current events. The resources they are consuming are our social programs, infrastructure, and tax revenue. What evidence do you have that mass illegal immigration is a good thing? Sounds like the best you can come up with is they can be our slave underclass.

Wrong a second time.
I said show me the numbers on how they're such a drain on society.
I'm all for regulating businesses to have stricter hiring requirements and to raise the minimum wage so people can afford to have a decent life working for them.

Basically everything the current republican platform opposed.

 

[Mr Holmes]

Wrong a second time.
I said show me the numbers on how they're such a drain on society.
I'm all for regulating businesses to have stricter hiring requirements and to raise the minimum wage so people can afford to have a decent life working for them.

Basically everything the current republican platform opposed.

What? Like I said, follow the news. See what the mayors of the sanctuary cities are complaining about. I'm not going to google for you.

You can't even defend your nonsensical "vibes" theory the first time some one questions it. You should probably just stick to calling republicans Disney villains.