PDA

View Full Version : Issues facing the U.S.



David G
10-01-2016, 01:19 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) A selection of issues at stake in the presidential election and their impact on Americans, in brief --

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-matters-issues-stake-election-061415051--election.html

skuthorp
10-01-2016, 06:28 PM
Policy? Jobs? Foreign affairs? You want the candidates to talk about the important stuff not Donald's sniffs?
Well Hill. may well be able to but Donald? No way. And in any case woul the voters listen? Raised on supermarket magazines facts are the last thing they are interested in.

Too Little Time
10-01-2016, 07:28 PM
I did not see the impact stated. But then I quit after seeing:
jobs
minimum wage
infrastructure
education

While those are important issues, the current administration has done little to nothing. I expect more of the same for the next administration.

(My favored solutions to those issues seem to be at odds with both candidate's ideas.

PeterSibley
10-01-2016, 08:05 PM
https://scontent-syd1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14484612_10211187671115737_316162594808225959_n.jp g?oh=6cfdc1c70b65c0a9bbd4e2b5f3d54f2c&oe=5879CB04

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-02-2016, 12:04 AM
I did not see the impact stated. But then I quit after seeing:
jobs
minimum wage
infrastructure
education

While those are important issues, the current administration has done little to nothing. I expect more of the same for the next administration.

(My favored solutions to those issues seem to be at odds with both candidate's ideas.

The current administration is faced with a congress that will kill almost anything with Obama's imprint on it. The last two congresses have been labeled the most do-nothing legislators in the history of the republic. They didn't get their wish of making Obama a one-term president so they did the nest best thing which was to vote over 50 times to repeal Obamacare. They knew they would fail but their constituants thought is was wonderful.

Too Little Time
10-02-2016, 07:46 AM
The current administration is faced with a congress that will kill almost anything with Obama's imprint on it. The last two congresses have been labeled the most do-nothing legislators in the history of the republic. They didn't get their wish of making Obama a one-term president so they did the next best thing which was to vote over 50 times to repeal Obamacare. They knew they would fail but their constituents thought is was wonderful.
And you think that will change?

Because a president has a plan does not mean that the plan should be passed or even considered. And Clinton has several poor plans. I think Obama had several poor plans also.

Paul Pless
10-02-2016, 07:50 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) A selection of issues at stake in the presidential election and their impact on Americans, in brief --

i saw no explicit mention of 'deplorables' on that list of issues. . .

Reynard38
10-02-2016, 08:15 AM
Donald Trump net worth $3.7 billion.
Combined Clinton net worth, $111 million.

Voting is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. Insanity.

David G
10-02-2016, 11:27 AM
i saw no explicit mention of 'deplorables' on that list of issues. . .

I don't think they were attempting to engage on that level. Just an (overly?) even-handed look at the obvious policy-type issues.

But you're right that someone smart and non-partisan should be looking at the same question I posed to Cris y'day - how did the R's get here? How did we, as a nation, get here? What are we going to do to recover, and back away from our flirtation with demagoguery. You already know my inclinations about the answers.

Gerarddm
10-02-2016, 11:34 AM
There is only one seminal issue that effects all others and that is the exaltation of the mediocre, as exemplified in regressives' adulation of Drumpf. Instead of "aspire to greatness" as some Drumpf ads exhort, they should aspire to thoughtfulness.

George Jung
10-02-2016, 02:25 PM
And you think that will change?

Because a president has a plan does not mean that the plan should be passed or even considered. And Clinton has several poor plans. I think Obama had several poor plans also.


And the Republicans have.... no plan. They want to repeal the ACA- but haven't a clue what they'd replace it with. Brilliant. And apparently you support this.

Too Little Time
10-02-2016, 07:12 PM
And the Republicans have.... no plan. They want to repeal the ACA- but haven't a clue what they'd replace it with. Brilliant. And apparently you support this.
We all watched the last 8 years as blacks and the poor were given substandard educations. 2/3 of the time one is in primary school.

We all watched as the ACA was set up to deny the poor and minorities Medicaid in several states. Must to save the Federal government a few dollars.

It sure looks like the Democrats had little to no planning last time. I expect more of the same this time.

On the other hand. Obama has treated us - my wife and I, very well during the last 8 years. Our income has been very good and our wealth is 4 times what it was when he took office.


--

I would get rid of the ACA, have a buy-in for those who have preexisting conditions who want insurance, and enroll all those below the median in Medicaid at no cost. But I don't get to make those decisions.

But the insurance market has been messed up during the last 8 years. It will be hard to change to anything else for quite some time.

George Jung
10-02-2016, 07:46 PM
Gosh. For someone so erudite, you sure don't know much. States had the option of expanding Medicaid, at the Feds expense. The smart states took them up on this; the others, didn't - 'on principle'. Care to guess the relative political leanings?

Interesting you 'have a plan' for replacing the ACA. Unfortunately, you must not be too high up on the Republican pecking order - no one, who could, has advocated any sort of plan to replace the ACA.

Too Little Time
10-02-2016, 08:14 PM
Gosh. For someone so erudite, you sure don't know much. States had the option of expanding Medicaid, at the Feds expense. The smart states took them up on this; the others, didn't - 'on principle'. Care to guess the relative political leanings?
You made a misstatement. The Feds were not going to pick up the whole expense. Some states do not like being told how to spend their money and chose opt out.

If the Feds picked up the whole expense, the states could have been forced to expand Medicaid. But that is not how the ACA was written. It is clear that the Democrats wrote the ACA.

George Jung
10-02-2016, 08:59 PM
Wrong again. The ACA was a....wait for it.... Republican plan - until it wasn't. Funny, isn't it?

The 'expanded Medicaid' goes with 90% coverage by the Feds, compared with a 50/50 split with 'current' medicaid. The 'money back' is our taxes - money we've already sent Washington, in the form of taxes. Don't expand, don't get your money back. Those states get to pay for indigent care twice.

Too Little Time
10-02-2016, 09:10 PM
Wrong again. The ACA was a....wait for it.... Republican plan - until it wasn't. Funny, isn't it?
This has been argued in the past. You are in error. I will now vote for Trump.

George Jung
10-02-2016, 09:27 PM
Gosh...I guess you sure showed me! Hehehe.

Too Little Time
10-03-2016, 10:14 AM
Gosh...I guess you sure showed me! Hehehe.
Perhaps I am in error. If you provide me with copies of both the ACA and the prior Republican plan, I will compare them. I will stop at the first difference. If they are identical then perhaps we should be calling the ACA by a name other than Obamacare. Perhaps it should not be regarded as Obama's major achievement.

You are using a common political ploy - making a false claim of equivalence. I now expect you to make a claim that my few comments about what I would do are equivalent to the ACA. And they are not.

David G
10-03-2016, 10:48 AM
Dingleberries desperately dingle.

TomF
10-03-2016, 10:57 AM
TLT, that was an amazing tour de force of deflection.

There has been so much discussion of the origins of the ACA (even simply here on the forum) that it boggles the imagination you can begin to pretend as you are.

The Heritage Foundation came up with the bones of the idea in the 1990s, as a counter to the proposals for universal health care being developed by the Clinton administration. Key things being the maintenance of private provision, and the individual mandate to carry insurance.
Former Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney took this model, adapted it to suit application in a single state, and implemented it successfully when he was Governor of Mass. That in effect served as a "pilot project" for the ACA policy brief.
In the first years of Obama's administration, a variety of options for state participation were explored - some proposed by Republicans (before they stopped negotiating entirely), others by various policy think tanks and experts, and by the administration's own people. The eventual option was for a joint roll-out where Federal money covered 90% of the Medicaid expansion. Many states chose to participate.
Other states chose to not participate in the Medicaid expansion, retaining only the previously existing Federal financial contribution mechanism. The poor living in such places did not receive further benefits, and independent analyses have shown that compared with the poor elsewhere, they're now doing worse.

I understand that it's unpleasant to acknowledge such things, but they are as they are.

David G
10-03-2016, 11:02 AM
Some people here are either Hugely Ignorant... or Massively Dishonest.

Though, logically, I guess we can't rule out 'both'.

Too Little Time
10-03-2016, 12:22 PM
TLT, that was an amazing tour de force of deflection.

There has been so much discussion of the origins of the ACA (even simply here on the forum) that it boggles the imagination you can begin to pretend as you are.
...
I understand that it's unpleasant to acknowledge such things, but they are as they are.
My objection was the equating the ACA with a Republican plan. You seem to acknowledge that there are differences. I understand that it's unpleasant to acknowledge such things, but I am proud you did.

(Just remembered Dunning-Kruger. That takes a load off my mind.)

TomF
10-03-2016, 12:50 PM
It is certainly true that one is not a photocopy of the other. It is also certainly true that the core aspects of the ACA, the things which made it the ACA and were contested at the Supreme Court level, were what originated in the Heritage Foundation document in the early 1990s. And were implemented by Romney in Mass.

Too Little Time
10-03-2016, 07:58 PM
It is certainly true that one is not a photocopy of the other. It is also certainly true that the core aspects of the ACA, the things which made it the ACA and were contested at the Supreme Court level, were what originated in the Heritage Foundation document in the early 1990s. And were implemented by Romney in Mass.
I found this.


Is the Affordable Care Act really the same as "the Republican plan in the early '90s?"


Short answer -- sort of. There was a Republican bill in the Senate that looked a whole lot like Obamacare, but it wasn’t the only GOP bill on Capitol Hill, it never came to a vote and from what we can tell, plenty of conservative Republicans didn’t like it.

If you are still willing to make your claim, I would suggest that you give someone other than Obama and the Democrats credit for the law. I am sure you will give the Republicans blame for any future failures of the ACA.

George Jung
10-03-2016, 09:08 PM
Dishonest to the last breath.

skuthorp
10-03-2016, 09:10 PM
I only hope that the dis-United States is in better political shape than it seems from Aus. I see serious commentators swinging between disbelief, concern and straight out laughter at the exhibition we are confronted with.
You know the next President, whichever it is, might find a confrontation with China, and another with the Russians just the distraction he or she needs internally. You know, beat the patriotic drum again, ramp up the military, jobs in the MIC etc.
What? Nukes? Oh yes……. them……...

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-04-2016, 12:04 AM
I did not see the impact stated. But then I quit after seeing:
jobs
minimum wage
infrastructure
education

While those are important issues, the current administration has done little to nothing. I expect more of the same for the next administration.

(My favored solutions to those issues seem to be at odds with both candidate's ideas.

Our constitution apportions responsibility. The administration cannot constitutionally put laws into effect. In our current situation those that legally can choose not to. It seems they have concocted a beef with our president who is black because it pleases their constituents and to do otherwise would endanger their seats in the congress. And if a certain candidate is not elected things may get a lot worse.

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-04-2016, 12:17 AM
I found this.


If you are still willing to make your claim, I would suggest that you give someone other than Obama and the Democrats credit for the law. I am sure you will give the Republicans blame for any future failures of the ACA.

Obamacare was based on a plan concocted by a right-leaning organization, the Enterprise Institute. It was use to sweeten the deal and possibly get some Republican votes. The Republicans were intent on denying him any kind of victory but were slow on the uptake when the president used a seldom used parliamentary scheme to get the bill passed. The Repubs are still whining to this day.

Too Little Time
10-04-2016, 10:08 AM
Our constitution apportions responsibility. The administration cannot constitutionally put laws into effect. In our current situation those that legally can choose not to. It seems they have concocted a beef with our president who is black because it pleases their constituents and to do otherwise would endanger their seats in the congress. And if a certain candidate is not elected things may get a lot worse.
There is a Federal Court decision from the 1980's that relates to discrimination. The federal government - who lost, has decided to no apply that decision nation wide. It could apply that decision nation wide and change the education scene over night. The administration can do a lot.

The fact that the President sat for 7+ years and did nothing relative to this is amazing since he is black and the people who would be helped are black. To the President's shame: he made a comment about this matter a few months ago. Nothing more has been heard of since.

And I have made many comments alone the lines that Congress is necessary to pass laws. In part, that is why I quit reading the article. Most of what the candidates want and many take as campaign promises will not happen.

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-04-2016, 12:06 PM
And you think that will change?

Because a president has a plan does not mean that the plan should be passed or even considered. And Clinton has several poor plans. I think Obama had several poor plans also.

My point IS the lack of meaningful legislation is due mostly to REPUBLICAN legislators who are playing a game of keep-away while b!tch!ng about what Obama has accomplished.
The current congress is probably the least productive in history. They have endangered the faith in and credit of the country by going to the wall on bills that should have been passed in a timely manner.

Too Little Time
10-04-2016, 12:38 PM
My point IS the lack of meaningful legislation is due mostly to REPUBLICAN legislators who are playing a game of keep-away while b!tch!ng about what Obama has accomplished.
The current congress is probably the least productive in history. They have endangered the faith in and credit of the country by going to the wall on bills that should have been passed in a timely manner.
I am not going to place blame on either party. I think the presidential elections have been close to 50:50 for a while. If your party wants to pass legislation, there has to be some compromise in your position. The same goes for the Republicans.

I am happy with the government as it is. I would like some issues addressed and legislation passed, but I don't expect to see it happen.

I don't know what you mean by meaningful, except that it is something you want. If 50% of the people don't want it, I don't think passing it is meaningful.

I think you referred to the budget and the subsequent shutdown. I am in favor of a shutdown. I was in a national park last week, when a shutdown was looking likely. I did not care. (I was in a national park for the last shutdown.)

bobbys
10-04-2016, 12:49 PM
Dingleberries desperately dingle.
.

OP posts a thread, lays in wait for any other opinion then he throws out a ad hominum, sits back smug.

Too Little Time
10-04-2016, 12:56 PM
.

OP posts a thread, lays in wait for any other opinion then he throws out a ad hominum, sits back smug.
That appears to be the best he can do.