Our Parties Don't Stand for Anything Except Hating the Other Party

[JasperL]

The democrats have been running on fixing the ACA for years. They have the house, and all they do is sharpen their long knives.

That and pass a bill to strengthen it within months of gaining power after years of GOP control, and they sent it over to the Senate where it's DOA. But otherwise, good point.

 

[JasperL]

Both parties would rather have the issue than the solution.

This is the fake both sides George Will pushes so no wonder you're a fan. The Democrats passed the ACA, which was a major effort that did bring down the uninsurance rate, etc. The GOP has spent the last 10 years trying to wreck it, including their support for the court striking down the ACA in its entirety with nothing, zero, to replace it. The Democrats took power in January 2019 and by May PASSED a bill addressing the ACA, and it's sitting in a drawer over on McConnell's desk.

But, yeah, right, BOTH SIDES@! :roll:

 

[Port & Starboard]

That and pass a bill to strengthen it within months of gaining power after years of GOP control, and they sent it over to the Senate where it's DOA. But otherwise, good point.

Ah....... that bill!

The one with no meat?

 

[calamity]

This is the fake both sides George Will pushes so no wonder you're a fan. The Democrats passed the ACA, which was a major effort that did bring down the uninsurance rate, etc. The GOP has spent the last 10 years trying to wreck it, including their support for the court striking down the ACA in its entirety with nothing, zero, to replace it. The Democrats took power in January 2019 and by May PASSED a bill addressing the ACA, and it's sitting in a drawer over on McConnell's desk.

But, yeah, right, BOTH SIDES@! :roll:

Yes. It's bull****.

On Bush's last day in office, the company I worked for at the time had zero work. The floor was literally empty, and a company of 185 people was reduced to 8. After Obama's election, we built it back up to 250 people and the place was swimming in money--new SUV's for the owners, a five million dollar expansion, margins on jobs approached 50%. But, they hated Obama. Why?

Right Wing Spin.

BTW: That company today is struggling. Trump's tariffs crushed them. Every top manager there voted for him.

Yes, they are that stupid.

 

[Cardinal]

Every now and then I see something brilliant in the newspaper. In this case I have to thank George F. Will and the Washington Post. In recent years, when asked to explain my party affiliation, I have said I'm an old-fashioned midwest Republican, so my party doesn't exist anymore. Here we have a fuller exposition of that: our parties no longer stand for their programs; they only stand for hating the other party. Will hopes that this current awfulness will cause us to wake up and remember our beliefs. I don't think he's really optimistic about that, based on his closing quote from The Sun also Rises.

America’s current political moment might be so bad that it becomes good
By George F. Will

There are political moments, and this might be one, in which worse is better. Moments, that is, when a society’s per capita quantity of conspicuous stupidity is so high and public manners are so low that a critical mass of people are jolted into saying “enough, already.” Looking on the bright side, as usually he is sensibly disinclined to do, Jonathan Rauch thinks such a moment might be arriving.

Writing in National Affairs (“Rethinking Polarization”), Rauch, a Brookings Institution senior fellow, postulates a vast emptiness at the core of the politics that has engulfed us: “What if, to some significant extent, the increase in partisanship is not really about anything?” What if rival tribalisms are largely untethered from ideologies?

This is plausible. The angriest conservatives, or at least people brandishing this label, show no interest in what was, until recently, conservatism’s substance: limited government, balanced budgets, free trade, curbs in executive power, entitlement reform, collective security. Conservatives’ anger is eerily unrelated to the comprehensive apostasy from what was, three years ago, conservatism’s catechism. . . .

Rauch’s thesis is that increased polarization has little to do with ideas and much to do with hostile feelings — “negative partisanship” — about others. “It’s not so much that we like our own party,” Rauch surmises, “as that we detest the other.” The left, like the right, has no plausible, meaning implementable, plan for solving pressing problems, from immigration to $1 trillion deficits at full employment. So, despising President Trump, who makes this easy, is a substitute for a politics of substance. . . .

The gods of both-sides must be fed.

 

[JasperL]

Obama did not get much done when he controlled both houses. He didn't work with his own party, let alone the other.

You don't have to like him, but you don't get to rewrite history. The House passed tons of legislation that was DOA from GOP filibusters. He only had a 60 vote Senate for less than a year. After that McConnell did what he promised before Obama was sworn in which was to try his best to block everything, and he did a pretty nice job of it.

 

[JasperL]

I suggest that there is no need to replace the ACA at sll. The issue is better left to the individual states, with several federal guidelines which must be met. If you truly want to solve the problem without rancor, admit that the solution the people living in Connecticut is likely different than for those living in South Carolina. Much the same can be said for many continuing "issues" that seemingly exist for the sake of unending dispute.

You mean like having individual states with their own exchanges, and private insurance regulated by the states, that's priced differently in CT versus AL, but that has uniform subsidies, and minimum coverage requirements and stuff like that?

FWIW, the problem with true state by state solutions is people are very mobile and you have big companies with employees in 50 states, who get transferred regularly.

 

[JasperL]

He didn't get the Obamacare he wanted. He got Harry Reid Care. Obama opposed the individual mandate and Harry & Nancy shoved it down his throat; TARP was a boondoggle and the economy was saved by the fed which Obama did not control.

TARP was signed by George W. Bush, and why do you think the spending and temporary tax cuts had no impact? Deficit spending is stimulus, at least in the short run.

FWIW, the individual mandate is the flip side of guaranteed issue. If you can get insurance after you've been diagnosed with diabetes or cancer, and there is no penalty for being uninsured, why isn't it a rational decision to not be insured until you get a chronic illness?

 

[JasperL]

Individuals making below about $40K and couple somewhere in the $70K range pay zero percent on long term cap gains. This is more than just stocks and IRA's and 401K's do get taxed. It is just deferred until people are older.

You didn't address my point. I know what the tax rates are, and I know that the middle class and below do not hold much in stocks at all, and what they do own is almost all in retirement plans. If you think otherwise, show your work. The next most valuable asset for the vast majority of those households is their personal residence, and there are generous exclusions that will exempt all but the biggest gains from any tax, capital or ordinary.

And yes, IRAs and other pensions get taxed but the distributions from them are ordinary income, and have always been ordinary income, even though the underlying gains in the IRA might be capital gains. The policy is simple - you get an ordinary deduction for contributions to pension plans, and tax deferral during your working years, and ordinary income tax on the distributions.

Bottom line is a change in capital gains tax rates will have little impact on the middle and below and will have a big impact on the top 10% and especially the rarified 1% and 1/10th of 1%.

 

[JasperL]

1. Your link is to the very source article cited (and linked) by Will in his column.
2. Will has in recent years regularly pointed fingers at the GOP.
3. Obama added more to the debt than either GWB or Trump, so there's no room for partisan crowing on that front.

1) I know and it was much better
2) We're discussing this effort, not some unknown past column.
3) Inheriting a collapsing economy, financial system, and losing 700k jobs per month and the Great Recession will tend to drive up deficits, but thanks for a brainless BOTH SIDES! on that. The early Obama deficits versus the current $trillion deficits are sort of like going into debt to pay for cancer surgery, versus going into debt to pay for an around the world cruise, and concluding BOTH SIDES! went into debt, so same/same. That's exactly the kind of rigorous analysis in Will's column.

 

[JasperL]

OK, then at least march it out there and blame it on the Republicans for blocking.

If they had anything at all they would be running to the media for face time.

They did. The bill is on McConnell's desk.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190517.626290/full/

 

[JasperL]

Ah....... that bill!

The one with no meat?

Versus the nothing on offer from the GOP? BOTH SIDES!!

That's not quite true - they are trying to get the whole thing repealed through the courts, have nothing to replace it with, and so are urging a repeal, but not really, because if the court struck it down immediately, which is what the lawsuit would do, it would be a disaster, so they want to court to repeal it all, but not right away until they get a new plan that they're not working on in place, and that we all have no idea what it might look like, because they're not working on anything.

 

[humbolt]

You mean like having individual states with their own exchanges, and private insurance regulated by the states, that's priced differently in CT versus AL, but that has uniform subsidies, and minimum coverage requirements and stuff like that?

FWIW, the problem with true state by state solutions is people are very mobile and you have big companies with employees in 50 states, who get transferred regularly.

I think there are quite a few ways to address such things. Personal mobility has been a fact of life since WWII.

 

[JasperL]

I think there are quite a few ways to address such things. Personal mobility has been a fact of life since WWII.

Yes it has, and we have 10s of millions uninsured, and the most expensive system in the world by far, double what most of our peer countries spend.

But the point was pretty obvious - the ACA does a lot of what the GOP say they want, a lot of what you said you want. It's not a one-size fits all program because it relies on state-based private insurance. What it does have is "several federal guidelines which must be met" and a subsidy program based on the cost of a benchmark plan in that state, along with Medicaid subsidies where Medicaid is a state-based program.

And you say there are "quite a few ways" to address those things, but we haven't seen those ways. It's a bit frustrating for people to throw rocks at the ACA when it does much of what you suggest, and when this bigger OR smaller, but better, cheaper, covers more plan that's not the ACA at the core is just a dream.

 

[Jack Hays]

Here, this should help you. :lol:

You continue to make my point.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

OK, then at least march it out there and blame it on the Republicans for blocking.

If they had anything at all they would be running to the media for face time.

They did, much of the beating the GOP took in 2018 in the House was because of ACA. Many people, even some Republicans want something, anything to help with their HC and HI cost. The Dems plan need fixing, ACA is far from perfect. But the GOP has less than nothing.

 

[Jack Hays]

But "implementable" does a lot of work there. MFA is one option, and it's kind of the fantasy option. The Democrats passed a bill strengthening the ACA and it's on McConnell's desk. Raising taxes might not be "implementable" with a GOP Senate, but that doesn't mean the idea is not, unless we just accept that the only things "implementable" are what McConnell and a GOP majority will put up for a vote.

As Will said, not implementable.

 

[Jack Hays]

This is the fake both sides George Will pushes so no wonder you're a fan. The Democrats passed the ACA, which was a major effort that did bring down the uninsurance rate, etc. The GOP has spent the last 10 years trying to wreck it, including their support for the court striking down the ACA in its entirety with nothing, zero, to replace it. The Democrats took power in January 2019 and by May PASSED a bill addressing the ACA, and it's sitting in a drawer over on McConnell's desk.

But, yeah, right, BOTH SIDES@! :roll:

Yes, both sides. Dems get no points for a bill they know will die in the Senate.

 

[Jack Hays]

The gods of both-sides must be fed.

Thank you for illustrating my point.

 

[Jack Hays]

1) I know and it was much better
2) We're discussing this effort, not some unknown past column.
3) Inheriting a collapsing economy, financial system, and losing 700k jobs per month and the Great Recession will tend to drive up deficits, but thanks for a brainless BOTH SIDES! on that. The early Obama deficits versus the current $trillion deficits are sort of like going into debt to pay for cancer surgery, versus going into debt to pay for an around the world cruise, and concluding BOTH SIDES! went into debt, so same/same. That's exactly the kind of rigorous analysis in Will's column.

Only true if you think BHO's deficits were necessary. Regardless, you can't claim exigency for BHO's deficits in one post, and crow about a decade-long expansion in another.

 

[JasperL]

As Will said, not implementable.

What's not implementable?

 

[Jack Hays]

What's not implementable?

A bill the Dems pass in the House, knowing it can't pass the Senate.

 

[JasperL]

Yes, both sides. Dems get no points for a bill they know will die in the Senate.

You're deliberately missing the point. You said, "Both parties would rather have the issue than the solution." That's not true. The Democrats PASSED a huge attempt at a solution, and it's called the ACA. The Democrats have PASSED bills to improve on that solution, and have other detailed plans for ACA that aren't just napkin sketches. So to say that BOTH SIDES are uninterested in a solution is just....false.

That's why all these BOTH SIDES analyses are such worthless drivel IMO. There is sometimes a real difference.

 

[Jack Hays]

You're deliberately missing the point. You said, "Both parties would rather have the issue than the solution." That's not true. The Democrats PASSED a huge attempt at a solution, and it's called the ACA. The Democrats have PASSED bills to improve on that solution, and have other detailed plans for ACA that aren't just napkin sketches. So to say that BOTH SIDES are uninterested in a solution is just....false.

That's why all these BOTH SIDES analyses are such worthless drivel IMO. There is sometimes a real difference.

The Dems have never presented a bill resulting from consultation with the Repubs. The Repubs have never presented a bill resulting from consultation with the Dems. Same same.

 

[JasperL]

Only true if you think BHO's deficits were necessary.

It's not a question of necessary. When revenues collapse, and spending goes up because demand for social services goes up when 700k per month are losing their jobs, and the economy has cratered, and the financial system has cratered, deficits just happen. The alternative is fiscal contraction in the teeth of the worst recession in 80 years, which would have made it worse.

Regardless, you can't claim exigency for BHO's deficits in one post, and crow about a decade-long expansion in another.

What I'm pointing out is it's not both sides on deficits when the GOP cuts taxes and blows them up, and Democrats take over and raise taxes, then get blamed for being tax raising communists and voted out of office, rinse and repeat. The most recent tax cuts were the most fiscally irresponsible tax legislation in decades at least. There was no reason for them.