"One of the many underappreciated legacies of the Obama administration has been its widespread implementation of pro-consumer policies. Under the outgoing president’s leadership, multiple executive branch departments and independent agencies have enacted laws, rules and regulations designed to protect regular Americans from, well, the Donald Trumps of the world." Politico One of these major laws goes into effect April 2017. What are the chances now that will happen? Is this the change Republicans had in mind when they voted for Trump?
In a way, yes. That is to say that the doomsayers will immediately begin saying the world is ending - that Trump will do great damage to everyone in the country.
That it will actually happen ("What are the chances now that will happen?") is yet to be seen. Or are you referring to Obama's illegal orders to protect illegal aliens from the law? Because that is almost sure to come to a halt.
The stranglehold of centrist government regulations are what have stifled our economic engine for eight years - Thank you Pres. Obama. Want to end poverty Kathleen ? Put America back near the opportunity of free enterprise ,back to work - that's Trumps promise , freeing up enterprise ! Of course we won't end free welfare free ,unlimited unemployment benefits , free cell phones , free college , free immigration ,free whatever of the Obama or the Clinton legacy will we ?
Surely you understand Reaganomics ? It worked very well until the" swamp people" right and left in congress and the house ,stole it ! Check out federal revenues during Reagans terms - if you aren't allergic to truth .
Too many regulations and taxes have been the rights cry of foul against freedom and capitalism. History just does not support this as the proof of the last 30+ years has shown that the wealth is well and alive in it's trek up to the top 1%. Business is in the business of acquiring more business'. Acquisitions is what business is all about and is it regulations and taxes that is holding that back? I will not lay all the blame at the feet of Obama as his inheritance was an economy on the brink of the biggest world depression ever. Yes he bailed out the thieves but what choice did he have? Do what Hoover did and let it take its' course? Unbridled capitalism is both detrimental to the economy and the poor as it prays on them like a long sickness.
Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone John Maynard Keynes (1883 - 1946)
John Maynard Keynes was a committed Marxist and a crony capitalist that loved to laugh at his enemies. So, I had to laugh at that quote.
And what's the alternative , Marxism , Socialism , ..........name the one surviving superpower that still feeds its hungry ? Was it Hitler , Stalin , Mussolini , which free nation accomplished as much and when as a free America has ?
Typical answer. You would be better identifying as an extremist rather than a conservative. Is the choice always the polar opposite? Is there nothing in between? Allowing what is going on to continue by either side has helped what?
Your little quip about the hunger is a good example as 1 in 6 in America face hunger. Is that something to brag about? What you promote has no answers or end. It just continues the lies and bull that comes from both sides. Do you have a new constructive option to discuss or is it just more biased one sided conjecture?
The election of Trump over Hilary will take care of hunger , jobs , jobs and more jobs , of course , we'll have to make some people actually TAKE a job instead of not !
Middle ground - The US. constitution protects us from the overreaching of federal "programs " taking money from one taxpaying pocket and putting it into another's .
Trump is playing the same trickle down BS that has been proven a failure time and again. It is what brought us here. If you cannot see that as with many we will repeat the same failure. Low paying jobs and more decimation of the middle class. As far as taking from others it has already been found that Trump's policies will once again raise the taxes of the middle class to make up for the tax shortages. Reagan raised taxes on the middle and poor eleven times. This is the same path.
I fear you're right about the taxes - while the liberal dream is to get all the money they want from the rich it simply isn't there. Confiscation of all the wealth (not income, but wealth) of the 1% won't run the country for but a couple of years. Only the mass middle class has the money, and they are fast running out.
I believe you are absolutely on target. We cannot require one side to change the other. How many small business' will invest the meager relief they get when they have so much debt to make up? The economy does not magically increase because of a preemptive tax law. You have to put money in the hands of those who will spend it. Jobs are what makes that happen and not taking from one segment to offset the other. Regardless of who or how they made their fortune you cannot take any more from them for doing so. We as a whole have to come up with a solution and going back and forth administration to administration with failed policies has gotten us here. And the Pink Elephant in the room we all ignore is what about the National Debt? Cutting taxes with no plan to repay it is typical of both parties.
Rhamson , Reaganomics worked , that is it worked until the congress and house decided to spend it all near the end of the two term Reagan . -look it up ! -Job creation was a high too. But then the Clintons began an economic system breakdown of saving and increased spending ..
The only thing Reaganomics did was increase the deficit through government spending with the military and switching tax raises to the lower income brackets. look it up! The national debt tripled from 1 to 3 trillion during his presidency. You only have to look to more recent history to see that the shift of the nations wealth to the top 1% is glaring proof. Trump may make short term progress but unless money is put in the consumers hands again little real growth will occur. We keep going back and forth with each administration from high taxes to low taxes and the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
You are going to continue to recite the same lazy new leftist rhetoric . Reagan shifted the entire economy by lowering corporate taxes and thus increasing job creation , The economic success of the 80's after the Carter collapse of the seventies , was phenomenal and I experienced both in the job market ............until the end of Reagans terms, the Clintons and the congressional spending splurge destroyed the success . But hey , continue on with the naïve rhetoric ,
The increased and perhaps explosively higher GDP fuels the middle class economic success and thus increased tax revenues . NOT another dozen social programs without a fuel supply .
How does it work ? Carrier * is the prime example , Trump ;"Want to manufacture air conditioners in Mexico ? Good on you carrier , pay a thirty five percent tax on each one coming back to the US market ." OR , keep it all here and keep Americans working . Guess what , what is Carrier doing ?
Are you tired of winning, yet?
Good for Carrier keeping nearly 1,000 jobs in Indiana, instead of moving them to Mexico. Big businesses are seeing the light again!
All Reagan did was reinvigorate the military industrial complex with deficit spending. This really isn't too hard to look up and follow. Reagan even approved military projects the military had turned down. Who do you think that benefited? You are right about the economic boom that followed it but at the cost of such a deficit is irresponsible at best. We created jobs that were bought on credit.
You don't know the details of the Carrier deal. What it stinks of is more tax breaks for the corporate profit while only giving up half of what they wanted. Yeah the 1000 jobs stay here but at what cost?
The right has sold you hook, line and sinker with some stale old bait.
We have such short memories. Don't know how we expect to run a country without a revenue stream.
And you really believe that revenue comes from business and corporate ? The middle class IS the greater source of that revenue , not the rich and not the poor .
"The middle class IS the greater source of that revenue , not the rich and not the poor ...."
You must be talking about more than just taxes then. Because folks making over $200k p/yr are paying almost 60% of our government's revenue, and it looks like the "middle-class" pays somewhere between 23% and 37% - depending on your middle-class cut-off.
Pew Research - High Income Americans pay most taxes
So were you thinking of something besides taxes with your claim? Or are you including $200k p/yr. in your definition of "middle-class"?
The greater majority of tax payers in America IS[was ] the middle class by volume and by amount paid in . The rich can outsource their booty , The poor live of everyone else .
We should just get rid of all the poor people. Ship them off to wherever they came from.
I'm from here, thank you. If you'd like to ship me to Hawaii or something; that would be nice. I've always wanted to visit Montana. You choose. Make it a surprise.
So you're one of the moochers? Get a job!
Well, I admit I did stop looking when I found Pew's data. They say the "middle-class," ($50k - $140K p/yr), was about 33% of taxes filed, and 37% of monies paid. But you are saying they are wrong. Where should I have looked to find the info you have to prove Pew wrong?
changing the subject a bit, from your link:
As Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Louis XIV’s finance minister, is said to have remarked: “The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing.”
It strikes me that the minister would fit in very well today. Rather than setting taxation according to needs, the theory seems to be go "pluck as many feathers" as possible, followed by finding "needs" for it (and more) to be spent on.
"The election of Trump over Hilary will take care of hunger , jobs , jobs and more jobs , of course..."
Sounds a little like Pres. Obama's first election. Remember... "...get some Obama cash from his Obama stash."
or maybe more like this;"... we ain't got pay no mo bills, we got a brother in the White House"
Two sides of the same coin?
The difference is a rebuilding of a self sufficient and tax revenue paying middle class by Trump --Rather than a socialized wealth redistribution by Obama that sucks up all our resources .
Not hard to understand ........for most.
It may be easy for a believer to understand your explanation, but as a skeptic, your comment sure sounded similar to those I linked.
So..... cutting the corporate taxes helps the middle class how? By creating more mediocre paying service jobs? The savings are passed onto the consumer who does not have a job to keep up with the inflation? How does cutting taxes pay down the $19 trillion and increasing national debt? Please give me the details.
Legalized theft helps the moral structure of the country how? Destruction of motivation to produce helps the middle class how? Chaining the middle class to the largess of politicians buying votes how?
The point is that "helping" the country and its citizens comes in many forms, and simply robbing the rich to give to the poor has many downsides in the long term. Short term it sounds great: feed the hungry, house the homeless, heal the sick, etc., but the long term prognosis of continual charity as a way of life, paid for by confiscation from others, is not positive.
The idea isn't to give it to the poor. The idea is that billions and billions of untaxed profits sit overseas while the countries infrastructure that the corporations rely upon waste away. The jobs associated with the rebuilding would go back into the economy and the cycle would begin anew. Your idea of just make a bunch of money and tuck it away helps who? It deprives the country of the revenues that make us sustainable. When you have corporations like GE who essentially pay no taxes what do you suggest? Give them a pat on the back and a attaboy? If you make income in this country from the consumers in this country there is a tax associated with it and it is being gerrymandered from jump out of the country. I pay more in taxes than the average citizen being in business. Why not the corporations?
Have you ever travelled to Europe, to Australia, to New Zealand?
Every developed country in the world has its homeless and its hungry. But there are DEGREES. Take some time to look outside the borders of the US and you'll find plenty of countries that care for their poor, hungry and especially their sick, much much better than the US does. And they are not socialist or communist. And by the way, in spite of caring for the less fortunate in their society, in many cases their economies are in better shape than the US too.
Hello Marisa Wright,
I have heard your points before, and I believe they have some validity, but, as you stated about degrees, I think their validity has degrees also.
Would you consider that geography and population distribution factors might affect the validity of such comparisons? Or that it could be a problem of scale; what works for three million might not work for three hundred million?
If I had a `bucket list', a trip to New Zealand would be at the top. I have heard a lot of good things. My skimming of information about the place left a good impression, but, when considering issues such as you mentioned, I don't think New Zealand is an equitable comparison. I feel the same reservations about other frequently mentioned examples; Denmark, Sweden, etc.
Or, do you see it as basic as; `if it can be done one place it can be done in any place?'
Marisa: Good points. We could also follow other (virtually every other) countries on their gun control policies. I have Austrailian friends who sincerely asked me what our problem was with government controlled health care. They love theirs and are financially successful retired business owners.
"We could also follow other (virtually every other) countries on their gun control policies."
We could. With the same proven results: that just as many people are murdered if we take the guns away as if we don't. So we lose another freedom...for no results. A fine goal, that!
Where did you get that information because every source I've found is in direct conflict with your statement.
Can you show just one? Only one country that saw a decrease in homicide rates after a gun confiscation, or even gun control laws (attributable to those laws, of course)?
Because there isn't a single one. There is a hub on my carousel that examines the statistics of this...but one must bear in mind that it is homicide rates, not gun homicides that matters. The dead don't care, after all, whether they were shot to death, burned, stabbed or bombed.
And there is not a bit of information to the contrary. Only opinions of people that refuse to consider that a murder is a murder whether by gun or other tool.
You keep going on about homicides as if that's the whole story.
Of course someone who really wants to murder someone will find a weapon, any weapon. And someone who wants to commit suicide will find some other way. What guns do provide is the ability for someone to kill a lot of people in a short time - something they can't do with a knife or a baseball bat.
So I ask again, how many children have been massacred in Australia and the UK since 1996? The answer is none.
How many children have been massacred in the US since 1996? Can you give me that figure?
You'll notice that crime rates didn't go UP when gun control came in, in either country, so it doesn't look as though giving up guns would cause any harm. So why are you so scared to give up your guns?
OK so maybe it won't reduce murders - but how many massacred children do you want on your conscience?
Wilderness, murder is only one crime.
One incontrovertible fact is that both the UK and Australia do not have mass murders any more, except for terrorist attacks (which are unfortunately a global phenomenon). No children have been killed in mass attacks since gun control was introduced. How many children have died in massacres in the US since 1996, I wonder?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-28/f … ur/7254880
https://www.truthorfiction.com/australi … ime-rates/
Untrue, and in the extreme. Australia has not had mass gun murders (remember the insistence that the tool used not be the deciding factor, but the number of killings in general?), but the incidents of mass murder by arson has skyrocketed. When it comes to mass murders, Australia has had more since the gun confiscation than before...it's just by different tools. If you google "mass murders in Australia" you will find article after article claiming zero gun mass murders since 1996. You will also find a list on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m … _Australia) of some 18 mass murders since Port Arthur, killing a total of 93 people with as many as 15 in one incident with tools ranging from arson to shooting to knives to blunt instruments and even gassing. This is not "Australia do not have mass murders any more", but rather Australia does not have mass shootings any more (although they actually do). The death toll from mass killings is higher than it was (given the vagaries of statistics with limited numbers to work with). It's easy to kill lots of people with arson, even easier than with a machine gun (virtually banned in the US as well as Australia). All it takes is a single match.
From your links:
"Fact check: Have firearm homicides and suicides dropped since Port Arthur as a result of John Howard's reforms?"
"However, we do know that the number of gun deaths decreased from 4.2 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 1979 to 1.5 per 100,000 people in 2000, the British Medical Journal reports."
"The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise [somewhere between 35% and 50%"
"Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths."
See what I mean? No gun control advocate ever talks about saving lives or reducing homicide rates...because they can't show any results! Only by talking about deaths only from guns can any improvement be shown, but once more, the dead don't care how they were killed. And as gun homicides fall, homicides by other means rises, giving a lie to the insinuation that taking guns from people will save lives.
Further, the Australian government provides information clearly showing that the homicide rate after 1996 continued the same slow decline it was already on before the gun confiscation. It did that (with yearly variations) for 10 years before rate of decline increased any. This, again, is NOT an indication that taking guns saved any lives at all - just that taking guns means fewer shootings.
Your own article (last one) points this out: "For Australia, a difficulty with determining the effect of the law was that gun deaths were falling in the early 1990s." That further discussion on the problem was not forthcoming says something, don't you think?
That the crime rate did not go up when guns were taken from their owners is hardly a reason to deny a free people the right (guaranteed by our constitution) to keep and bear arms. Rather, it takes an extremely good reason to deny rights, not just that some people don't like others to have that right. In a free nation that doesn't even make a decent excuse, let alone a valid reason.
I could see the argument if you said, what works for ten people won't work for three million.
But when you are talking about a system that works for three million people, there should be no problem upscaling it for thirty million. Apart from anything else, America has states, and each state is no bigger than many countries. So there is no excuse, really.
Geography is totally irrelevant IMO - climate and geographic conditions vary hugely across all the countries which have universal health care, effective gun control, etc and yet they all achieve similar results. And those same climate and geographic conditions apply in the US because it covers such a wide area.
Perhaps you could say that the people themselves are a factor, but I'm reluctant to make that statement. Because if I did, it would mean that people in these enlightened countries, are intelligent, compassionate towards the less fortunate and have a strong sense of civic responsibility - whereas Americans are stupid and selfish. I really hope it's not that simple.
Do you think that a state with a population density of 1200/sq mi (New Jersey) or 740 (Connecticut) will have the same culture or attitudes as the people in a state with 4 people per sq mi (North Dakota) or 2 (Wyoming)? When neither of the latter has a single large city while the first two are pretty much wall to wall urban dwelling?
I would disagree strongly with that. The US election made a major point of that - nearly every urban area went Democrat while every rural precinct went Republican. There is a MAJOR difference in the wants and attitudes between the two.
True, but what does that have to do with the universal principle of compassion? What does that have to do with the universal principle that no one should be refused health care just because they have no money?
Australia is a vast empty country. If we city-dwellers said, we want our taxes to pay for our services and no one else's, there would be no schools in the outback, no hospitals, no train services, no internet. The farmers and ranchers and people in small country towns would be left uneducated, isolated, and sick.
We don't do that, because we are one country. We are well aware that the taxes raised in city areas subsidise the country areas. That's how a country works.
You left out that the country folks would be not only be uneducated, isolated ? and sick. They wouldnt be able to get on Facebook either.
What does compassion have to do with available resources? Or personal self sufficiency? And where in the world do you find a "universal principle that no one should be refused health care just because they have no money"??? You have to know that it is a small minority of the world's population that gets such a thing - that any such principle is ONLY in socialistic countries that are also fairly rich.
You Aussies are kind of an enigma to me. Is a large percentage of the population in cities, with vast open areas with almost no people? Is it mostly an urban country, in other words, with a few people way out in the massive boondocks? The US has open spaces (plus Alaska, of course), but not like yours. And about half the population lives outside of any metropolitan area, but that seems much higher than what I think of as Australia in spite of the huge interior.
Where in the world do you find a "universal principle that no one should be refused health care just because they have no money"???
In Australia, Canada, New Zealand, most of Europe, and countless other countries. And I can tell you that Australians are horrified at the thought that any country would think otherwise. Even though we are not "socialistic", whatever that means! Our government is right-wing.
Out of the 196 countries, how many apply that universal principle? 20? 30? 50?Whatever the number, it is hardly "universal" and hardly "countless". It is, in fact, a minority of both countries and people.
Few countries have the resources to supply free health care to all citizens, and fewer yet have actually done so.
That's a distortion and I think you know it, really.
Of course, poor African countries can't afford health care. But take a look at the DEVELOPED countries and see how many of them don't have universal health care.
http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa … it/259153/
As you can see, most Western countries do have it.
What you're actually saying is that the USA belongs with countries like Bangladesh. You're saying the USA is poorer than New Zealand or Sweden - seriously?
You are correct; among the developed nations, the US (before Obamacare) was one of the few that did not provide formal health care for all its citizens.
But health care? Protection from financial disaster? No one in the country was denied health care; they had only to pick up a phone for ambulance to the nearest emergency room. And, if necessary, take out bankruptcy, protecting most of their assets.
But it is you that would compare it to Bangladesh, not I. What you ignore is that US citizens are NOT socialists - that they value their freedom and their personal responsibility. Those values are decreasing, of course, as is the sense that we all pay our way without shoving the burden onto our children and their children, but it is still present in many. That's not to say that US citizens have no care for others, for they are among the most giving of people on earth. But they do not share the concept of forcibly taking from one to give to another - that is left to the nations that feel the government is a father figure, forever running the lives of the people rather than the other way around.
I'm not a socialist either, and most of those countries aren't either. Americans seem to think there are two extremes - personal responsibility (what we'd call, I'm allright Jack and devil take the hindmost) and communism. There is a long continuum between the two.
So all the stories I hear about people being refused treatment because they don't have insurance are baloney? And I don't just mean if you need treatment in an emergency room, I mean treatment if you have cancer or bad teeth or any other condition that may not kill you but can destroy your quality of life.
It shouldn't be necessary to declare yourself bankrupt just to get treatment, what a ridiculous idea.
By American standards Australia, and certainly Britain, are quite socialist. Meaning big government, lots of laws and lots of control over personal decisions being made by that big government. Meaning lots of "share the wealth", taking from one to give to another.
"So all the stories I hear about people being refused treatment because they don't have insurance are baloney?"
Probably. I know Canada does not provide life saving care in unlimited amounts, and I doubt that either Britain or Australia does either. There must be limits or the country would quickly bankrupt itself. So yes, some care is denied, just as in all health care systems - a million$ cost will likely be covered, a 10 or 20 million$ cost will not.
"It shouldn't be necessary to declare yourself bankrupt just to get treatment, what a ridiculous idea."
Keeping in mind that bankruptcy in the US does NOT mean you lose all your assets, or even a significant portion of them, why not? Why should anyone else be forced for pay for what YOU want while you walk away scott free without contributing anything at all? (Although they will pay anyway as medical costs rise because some don't pay their own way.)
Marisa Wright, I only offered those points because I think they do affect comparisons with smaller nations. My perspective isn't the result of serious study, and since I think this topic is extremely subjective, it was only offered for consideration.
I think the scale of the comparison does matter. With the exception of your Australia, the typical comparisons mentioned involve nations that are 30 to 50 times smaller than the U.S. I think it is reasonable to be skeptical that those systems would ramp-up without constrictions.
I am not worried about pointing to people as another factor in the comparisons. But the point would be cultural, not degrees of enlightenment or intelligence. Or stupidity or selfishness. Any example of national cultural differences offered could easily lead to the detour of "yeah but" and counter-example rebuttals - and that is the subjective part that neither of us can know more about than our own perspective. But the historical culture and tradition of a nation - the bedrock supporting a nation's growth, can be viewed a little more objectively, and it is that bedrock which guides, (or should), a nation's acceptance or refusal of an effort. Just because it is the choice of one nation of folks doesn't make it the right choice for all others. To even bring the concept of rude or selfish into consideration is well outside the realm of enlightenment.
I don't see the point about states as you do. As a part of a republic, I see the states as distinct personalities, and I think the red/blue designations commonly applied point to that same conclusion. The issue is a national one more than a state one. It would be awkward to tip-toe around the thought that Vermont or Massachusetts are more intelligent, enlightened, and civic minded - because they agree with your perspective. As you said, I hope that is not the case.
The man has not taken office. If there were voting irregularities he may not.
Can we at least wait until we see what anyone will do before we complain about it?
We know what he'll do. He's already told us. Those of you who voted for him, weren't you listening?
I was listening but I never expected Trump to create more jobs that Obama's entire eight years BEFORE he even takes office . It's just so wrong to show up an incumbent president like that , How evil!
We, or I to be exact, will wait and see. I know what Hillary would have done and I can't imagine anything worse than her in power. So, whatever the outcome I can always fall back on 'it could have been worse'.
"I can't imagine anything worse than her in power." You don't have to imagine it. You are about to experience it in real life.
The sky is not falling. No matter how much the far left screams. This is politics Kathleen. One side has control, than the other. And on, and on, and on. I have no idea what you think 'anything worse' is but I get the impression that you and I would disagree on the definition.
I have disagreed with every Republican president since Nixon - and for good reason to my way of thinking. But not one of them has been a man without some admirable qualities. Trump has demonstrated none. "Anything worse" is this man who is unqualified, but that doesn't bother me as much as the vivid evidence that he is . . . What's the word? Deplorable. My biggest problem is understanding how my fellow Americans could put a person like this in office - any office - much less the presidency. Yes, the pendulum swings. But not this far.
So either half of America is deplorable or there is something wrong with your judgment ? It might just be the same symptoms that led you to entirely ....overlook Hilary's faults........:-}
I find him no more or less deplorable than I find Hillary to be. For different reasons. But Hillary is much more dangerous because she has had a lifetime of experience manipulating the system, stonewalling the system and getting rich while using that system. I cannot imagine how much more damage she might have done had she attained the highest office in the land.
The danger is that the rightwinger will fix the pendulum so that it cannot work itself back from the extreme in the direction of the moderate or progressive.
Funny you should say that. I've thought the same of Obama.
And therein lies the difference in how Americans see our country. How we can have such diametrically opposing views is disconcerting. When you remember where we were at the end of the Bush era and where Obama took us, how could anyone be less than impressed? Those who have opposed him are about to haul the country back to the brink it was teatering on, and we can only pray that this time we don't go over the cliff.
That is a concern. On the foreign policy front alone, there is room for massive damage. Trump's foreign policy is so erratic (on the face of it), that he could easily destroy the US's reputation for honoring its commitments, treaties etc. You don't get a good rep back easily.
What "Rep",? Obama has destroyed that Rep. The Obama pendulum --could take forever to correct .
You want to go back to the mess we were left with after Bush II? Sincerely, I don't understand what opponents think is so terrible about the past 8 years. Do you remember 2008?
I remember 2008. What most fail to accept is that one political party is not responsible for everything that happens at the moment. The party in power is not always the one responsible for what happens at the moment. What happened in 2008 was the culmination of our federal government not putting citizens first as they developed policy. Over a period of decades, not years. Both parties played their part in setting that stage. But we, the citizens, paid the price.
What happened with the much touted Obamacare? No one in Washington put the citizens first. But now we, the citizens, pay the price.
We will probably end up paying the price until we stop bickering amongst ourselves and support the drive toward a more honest and accountable government.
Well said - our problems did not come from one party, but from the entire collection in the swamp.
"What happened to Obamacare?"
Insurance is a voluntary program whereby people choose to share the costs of catastrophic events. They pay an average cost that everyone in their group can statistically expect to incur, plus a profit to the insurance company. Those with large losses are then paid from the left in the pool from those that had costs lower than the average.
But Obamacare was a blatant effort, not to share statistically average costs, but to force those with statistically low costs to cover the statistically large costs of another group. And it isn't voluntary, but required by law. Not surprising that that the "paying" group has opted out of the program!
Somehow, these questions always end up going off into tit-for-tat arguments that go off topic, so here's a reminder (above) of the original question, cuz its a good one.
If it was only Republicans who voted for Trump, things would be far more understandable - cuz yeah, they have a completely different view on how the economy should work. But, ever heard of the GOP #NeverTrump movement? Many MANY Republican did not vote for Trump simply because they held to a higher moral standard.
Trump only won 20% of the country; and Hillary won by 2.5m more of the popular vote than he did. THAT means that the majority of us did NOT vote for Trump's policies (and a LOT of you who voted for him didn't vote for his policies, either). This is what the protests are about. The GOP are all gung-ho about undoing all that this country as accomplished - on 20% of the countrywide vote.
Uncool beyond the telling of it, especially since GOP made it clear for 8 years that they do not respect the votes of the people; by trying to convince everyone that government is bad because of us EVIL ‘elitists’ (your NORMAL American neighbors) - while painting themselves as ‘abused’. They refused to work across partisan divides on budgets, immigration laws, jobs programs, climate change, tax reform, energy, etc - AND had a majority, yet Obamacare exists. Citizens became angry with a stalled country; while GOP continued to blame Obama & those who voted for him.
And again, many white, male Bernie voters couldn't vote for Hillary long before Trump's misogynistic dribble gave them permission to hate her, more. The people who voted for Trump are a mix of genuine GOP supporters who would have voted for whatever candidate was in that place without conscious (as many did); and spiteful Bernie voters crying cuz 'their extreme-liberal' MAN who wanted 100% FREE Universal Healthcare & College implemented was rejected.
Conservative white men & women don't have enough numbers to elect anyone into that office on their own, anymore - especially when they are as divided as they are. Its really quite a shame.
Misogyny: other 'groups' beyond white men had every reason to be JUST as ANGRY as anyone else about anything; and yet we all found it in our hearts to vote fair between both Trump & Hillary. Search YouTube for “70 Awful Displays Of Sexism On Fox News” Its not just GOP men. Women expect this misogynistic attitude from the disoriented right-wing.
So no, I really don't think this is what probably close to half of Trump's voters had in mind. All most people wanted to do was p*ss on Hillary, Dems, 'Elitists' and/or Obama, in general.
Since the election, Trump has ignored trying to unify our country - while doing everything he can to fracture America right down the middle of every possible dividing line. He’s inspired good people to turn ugly; and ugly people to become uglier. Its easier to heal than we realize - Christians & ex-Christians Prove God Exists by Debunking Salvation: Science & Spirituality Reveal the Real Jesus Christ. Look it up. Next time, no more wannabee armchair scientists or Christian militants voting on fake hype, fake news or fake fear.
The people who voted for Trump need to remain vigilant to make SURE he isn't really just a bull in a china shop INSTEAD of a brilliant strategist - cuz that's what he looks like, now. And, you know who we're going to blame is he flucks things up other than the harmless ways you hope he does. Hint: we won't be blaming The Donald nearly as much as his supporters.
Chick: OMG! Where have you been since Nov. 8th? THIS needs to be a hub in its own right, but I appreciate you answering my question on steroids!
I seriously asked this question because I truly believe those who voted for Trump have blocked out everything that happened before Nov. 9. There is no way they could have taken all that into consideration when they entered the voting booth. No one is capable of that much denial. (I know. Here come the HIllary bashers to rebut. But with them considering GEN Petreaus for Secretary of State - their juice on the handling of secret information is running dry.)
Seriously. This "comment" should be a hub.
I've been around, pretty much cutting & pasting this info absolutely everywhere in shorter bursts (except in HP's forum section, ha!) - and, I have so much more I could write - but aren't the cartoons fun? Thanks so much, I may turn it all into a hub someday; but it seems like a constantly-evolving animal. I add more info & resource links to my already long list, every day.
Collecting 'back-up' opinions has become quite a hobby (along with the cartoons). People have been saying a lot of this for a long time; but the people who needed to listen the most where listening to Trump.
These are some of the best of the best:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ … ump-214498
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the … use-of-me/
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/robert- … the-media/
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/a … 102096.htm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won … andom_1_na
The thing is Obama has enacting laws, rules, and regulations that weren't built upon the rock of legislation, but instead by shortcuts because of his impatients, and desire to keep his promises to big businesses that enrich themselves and politicians first.
Big businesses are realizing their short-sightedness in supporting policies build on sand that can be easily changed by a new president. They were betting and investing in another Obama term by supporting Hillary.
Now, Obama's Adm. is working over-time, from what I hear from insiders, to enact more regulations that will make it more difficult if not impossible for Trump Adm. to stop policies before they become law (60 days). Then, there will be a greater amounts of tax-payer dollars and time used to be able to make American great again.
Well phrased words in the Obama Adm. means more cronyism capitalism in action. (edited) "The devil is in the details".
Rural America and working class America has too long been ignored.
The U.S. has been focusing on making foreigners happy, growing the globalist agenda of free trade, trying to bring up poor countries other than ours, and satisfying the needs of minority groups in the inner cities.
All we've read about for years is how homosexuals are being persecuted, how blacks are being imprisoned and don't have jobs, how Latinos are coming across the border and being provided services, how women are being wronged. Well, this election, the core of America spoke up. Real Americans who live in the heart of this country and just go about their lives every day got sick of being ignored.
Donald Trump is going to change America by focusing his energy on working class Americans, people who just do their jobs every day and don't complain. These are regular people who go to church on Sundays and mind their own business. Donald Trump is going to ignore the globalists and focus on the nationalists.
I've understood all of this so much better since I started reading The Daily Stormer.
"Donald Trump is going to change America by focusing his energy on working class Americans, people who just do their jobs every day and don't complain." Hold that thought.
What the heck is The Daily Stormer? Please take a look at The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and Politico. They have decades of experience in traditional journalism.
Every modern educated and time wizened economist knows pretty well that Reaganomics worked ---AFTER deducing the fact that congress willingly spent all of the gains by 1990,-- and too many leftists today cannot fathom that their representation in congress [the swamp ] spent it all ,almost as fast as it came in .
"robbing the rich"? And we know they got their riches honestly?
It is the same as saying money is people. And some more important than others.
Sorry. The article is actually from the Wall St. Journal editorial board.
When you got US 2/3 of firearms deaths are suicide. So when the US health care gets to be too much suffering, plan B is the gun.
Not after the left takes all of the guns. Then, it's down to a bb gun. We're screwed.
by Jack Lee 13 months ago
It has been almost a year since he left office. Though he seems to stick around DC and make his comments occasionally about policies...The question I have for all is this - what is your opinion of this President in his 8 years in office...?Overall, has he been good or bad for America?Please use...
by Jack Lee 2 weeks ago
I am curious. Why did you post this? Obama has been out of office for eighteen months.
by Onusonus 20 months ago
Be like Hitler. To implement capitalism, be like Walt Disney.
by Susan Reid 5 years ago
The Gish Gallup. Who knew?http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/0 … ish-Gallop
by Susan Reid 7 years ago
What a SHOCK! The major CA health insurers have been fined for delayed and underpaid claims to physicians and hospitals. If it's happening here -- and it is -- it's happening elsewhere in the US, too. Who does this practice help? Duh. The longer insurers keep that cash in their pocket the more they...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 days ago
Is the issue of socioeconomic class a relative construct in America? What is considered to be the lower socioeconomic class? What is considered to be the middle socioeconomic class? What is considered to be the upper socioeconomic class? Most of all what do YOU...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|