Support NeoGAF

[Orbis Tabula]

1) We're $18 trillion in debt. 2) Trump's plan INCREASES medical spending on the poor by about 34% over current levels over the next decade

http://reason.com/archives/2017/05/29/trumps-medicaid-cuts-actually-increase-f

The reason we're talking about a drastic cut is because medical costs are skyrocketing as are the populations of people who need those programs (Obama's plan would have nearly doubled Medicaid spending) so even that massive growth means millions will be pushed out of coverage.

But either way, the trend is that government spending for these social welfare programs has exploded - it's the blue part of the first graph here:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/2...-understand-the-extent-of-republican-failure/

It's not defense that's eating up the budget - it's this. "Entitlement" spending is what we call spending for programs for the elderly, disabled, unemployed, impoverished etc. and entitlements have been growing as a share of the federal budget at a terrifying rate. The Republicans say that we're choosing between cruelty or more cruelty - that the current system of spending will eventually collapse the system like in Greece.

I don't happen to agree with their exact plan (they are using their cuts to fund tax cuts for the rich) but they have plenty of economists on their side saying this trajectory isn't sustainable. Costs HAVE to come down at some point - you can't just keep printing money. When are we going to make those choices?

They're saying we either make those cuts now, or else the system will collapse and then millions truly will die.

I think it's pretty generous to say that these are the reasons why they want to repeal Obamacare. When you hear them talk about why Obamacare needs to go, the go-to answers are usually "get rid of regulations" or "give consumers more choice" or "lower healthcare costs", even occasionally "grow jobs". I don't really see Republicans out there beating the deficit drum on this one nearly as much as they did just a few years ago.

Which sort of makes sense, considering that this plan doesn't really do much to help with the national debt, given that a large part of the savings they're getting end up being balanced out by tax cuts for the rich. If they wanted to cut the debt, there'd be no need to add those tax cuts. They don't have much to do with delivering health care. They're just tax cuts.

 

[Autodidact]

In the end it was a group of old white men who wanted to kill Grandma, and not the guy who came to clean up their mess when they destroyed the world economy by starting two major wars in the middle East.

No, those protesters blocking traffic killed Nana Ruth, silly.

 

[EdibleKnife]

They're saying we either make those cuts now, or else the system will collapse and then millions truly will die.

That's not what they're saying because that is nowhere in their damn messaging (aka the Right's continued "Get a job" mindset) That desperation and supposed altruism is not reflected in their behavior towards the opposing party or the American people. Economists exist in every damn major change to how the nation spends it's financing. Why believe that the economists working on the AHCA are more right about their scenario than the economists who worked on the ACA? Even more so when the process of drafting this is literally hidden behind closed doors to the last minute rather than being discussed openly? They've literally had years to genuinely convince the public that ripping people of healthcare is somehow for a greater good without floundering every time. Jesus H, the Republican president barely knows what the fuck to say about it and I'm supposed to believe that it's all a concerted effort to save the US economy? The destruction of Planned Parenthood is part of this somehow too? 555-Come-On-Now.

 

[Trouble]

I think it's pretty generous to say that these are the reasons why they want to repeal Obamacare. When you hear them talk about why Obamacare needs to go, the go-to answers are usually "get rid of regulations" or "give consumers more choice" or "lower healthcare costs", even occasionally "grow jobs". I don't really see Republicans out there beating the deficit drum on this one nearly as much as they did just a few years ago.

Which sort of makes sense, considering that this plan doesn't really do much to help with the national debt, given that a large part of the savings they're getting end up being balanced out by tax cuts for the rich. If they wanted to cut the debt, there'd be no need to add those tax cuts. They don't have much to do with delivering health care. They're just tax cuts.

Republicans don't actually give a shit about the national debt.

Not that they should, it's not actually a problem. They are just hypocrites about it.

 

[David H Wong]

That's not what they're saying because that is nowhere in their damn messaging (aka the Right's continued "Get a job" mindset) That desperation and supposed altruism is not reflected in their behavior towards the opposing party or the American people. Economists exist in every damn major change to how the nation spends it's financing. Why believe that the economists working on the AHCA are more right about their scenario than the economists who worked on the ACA? Even more so when the process of drafting this is literally hidden behind closed doors to the last minute rather than being discussed openly? They've literally had years to genuinely convince the public that ripping people of healthcare is somehow for a greater good without floundering every time. Jesus H, the Republican president barely knows what the fuck to say about it and I'm supposed to believe that it's all a concerted effort to save the US economy? The destruction of Planned Parenthood is part of this somehow too? 555-Come-On-Now.

I know it looks very confusing from the outside, but the Republican party is a coalition of a few groups:

A) Christians who believe a powerful secular government is a threat to the faith (ie, the church used to run education in this country and now the government does it);

B) Wealthy people who want to create a pro-business environment purely for personal gain;

C) Small government true believers who either have Libertarian core beliefs or just fear communism and want to make America the opposite of that;

D) Smart people who are absolutely right in saying that this rate of national debt isn't sustainable at some point, and that the left has no interest in controlling it.

So any legislation has to please all of those groups and the messaging makes them sound like a bunch of random crazy people ("Wait, do you want small government, or do you want the government controlling women's bodies?"). The tragedy is that group D has a point -- an insolvent system would hit the poor harder than anyone, just ask literally any country that has gone belly-up - but they seem to be a real minority among elected officials.

Exactly zero of them are in it because they love evil and suffering. You'll forever be confused if you're assuming that as their motivation. They are just as empathetic to their fellow humans as you are.

 

[David H Wong]

Republicans don't actually give a shit about the national debt.

Not that they should, it's not actually a problem. They are just hypocrites about it.

It's not a problem currently, the issue is projecting into the future. The population is aging, medical care is STILL rising at twice the pace of inflation (up something like 500% in the last 50 years) and at some point interest rates will go up and financing the debt will get much more expensive.

If your argument is that there is absolutely no point at which debt becomes a problem, ever, and that we literally have infinite money to spend forever, I don't think you'll find a single expert who agrees with you. As for exactly at what debt/GDP ratio things become a problem, absolutely no one knows. There is no analog for this in world history. The issue is that there is no end in sight and no coalition that is interested in genuinely trying to fix it. That's bad!

 

[Steel]

D) Smart people who are absolutely right in saying that this rate of national debt isn't sustainable at some point, and that the left has no interest in controlling it.

See, this isn't even historically true.

Amount Added to the Debt for Each Fiscal Year Since 1960:
Barack Obama: Added $6.494 trillion, a 56% increase in the $11.657 trillion debt level attributable to President Bush by the end of his last budget, FY 2009.
• FY 2015 - $327 billion
• FY 2014 - $1.086 trillion.
• FY 2013 - $672 billion.
• FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion.
• FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion.
• FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion.
• FY 2009 - $253 billion. (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009. This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.)
George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase to the $5.8 trillion debt level at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.
• FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. (Bush's deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act).
• FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion.
• FY 2007 - $501 billion.
• FY 2006 - $574 billion.
• FY 2005 - $554 billion.
• FY 2004 - $596 billion.
• FY 2003 - $555 billion.
• FY 2002 - $421 billion.
Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase to the $4.4 trillion debt level at the end of Bush's last budget, FY 1993.
• FY 2001 - $133 billion.
• FY 2000 - $18 billion.
• FY 1999 - $130 billion.
• FY 1998 - $113 billion.
• FY 1997 - $188 billion.
• FY 1996 - $251 billion.
• FY 1995 - $281 billion.
• FY 1994 - $281 billion.
George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase in the $2.8 trillion debt level at the end of Reagan's last budget, FY 1989.
• FY 1993 - $347 billion.
• FY 1992 - $399 billion.
• FY 1991 - $432 billion.
• FY 1990 - $376 billion.
Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase in the $998 billion debt level at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981. See Did Reaganomics Work?
• FY 1989 - $255 billion.
• FY 1988 - $252 billion.
• FY 1987 - $225 billion.
• FY 1986 - $297 billion.
• FY 1985 - $256 billion.
• FY 1984 - $195 billion.
• FY 1983 - $235 billion.
• FY 1982 - $144 billion.
Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion, a 43% increase in the $699 billion debt level at the end of Ford's last budget, FY 1977.
• FY 1981 - $90 billion.
• FY 1980 - $81 billion.
• FY 1979 - $55 billion.
• FY 1978 - $73 billion.
Gerald Ford: Added $224 billion, a 47% increase in the $475 billion debt level at the end of Nixon's last budget, FY 1974.
• FY 1977 - $78 billion.
• FY 1976 - $87 billion.
• FY 1975 - $58 billion.
Richard Nixon: Added $121 billion, a 34% increase in the $354 billion debt level at the end of LBJ's last budget, FY 1969.
• FY 1974 - $17 billion.
• FY 1973 - $31 billion.
• FY 1972 - $29 billion.
• FY 1971 - $27 billion.
• FY 1970 - $17 billion.
Lyndon B. Johnson: Added $42 billion, a 13% increase in the $312 billion debt level at the end of JFK's last budget, FY 1964.
• FY 1969 - $6 billion.
• FY 1968 - $21 billion.
• FY 1967 - $6 billion.
• FY 1966 - $3 billion.
• FY 1965 - $6 billion.
John F. Kennedy: Added $23 billion, a 8% increase in the $289 billion debt level at the end of Eisenhower's last budget, FY1961.
• FY 1964 - $6 billion.
• FY 1963 - $7 billion.
• FY 1962 - $10 billion.

Note that the Republicans add more to the debt.

If republicans wanted to deal with the debt they would not table lowering defense spending and increasing taxes, not just on the wealthy but everyone, though favoring the wealthy.

When our deficit was more under control, we had a higher tax rate than we do now. Most of the current deficit is due to the Bush tax cuts.

Thinking for a second that Reganomics decreases debt when Regan increased the deficit by a higher percentage than any president in history to the point where his VP had to increase taxes when he took control of government to his own political downfall is telling.

The libertarian bent toward tax cuts is the absolute worse thing if you're at all interested in solving the debt problem.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Republicans don't actually give a shit about the national debt.

Not that they should, it's not actually a problem. They are just hypocrites about it.

Oh, agreed.

I know it looks very confusing from the outside, but the Republican party is a coalition of a few groups:

A) Christians who believe a powerful secular government is a threat to the faith (ie, the church used to run education in this country and now the government does it);

B) Wealthy people who want to create a pro-business environment purely for personal gain;

C) Small government true believers who either have Libertarian core beliefs or just fear communism and want to make America the opposite of that;

D) Smart people who are absolutely right in saying that this rate of national debt isn't sustainable at some point, and that the left has no interest in controlling it.

So any legislation has to please all of those groups and the messaging makes them sound like a bunch of random crazy people ("Wait, do you want small government, or do you want the government controlling women's bodies?"). The tragedy is that group D has a point -- an insolvent system would hit the poor harder than anyone, just ask literally any country that has gone belly-up - but they seem to be a real minority among elected officials.

Exactly zero of them are in it because they love evil and suffering. You'll forever be confused if you're assuming that as their motivation. They are just as empathetic to their fellow humans as you are.

I'd say the bolded is kind of contradicted by your Group B.

 

[Future]

I know it looks very confusing from the outside, but the Republican party is a coalition of a few groups:

A) Christians who believe a powerful secular government is a threat to the faith (ie, the church used to run education in this country and now the government does it);

B) Wealthy people who want to create a pro-business environment purely for personal gain;

C) Small government true believers who either have Libertarian core beliefs or just fear communism and want to make America the opposite of that;

D) Smart people who are absolutely right in saying that this rate of national debt isn't sustainable at some point, and that the left has no interest in controlling it.

So any legislation has to please all of those groups and the messaging makes them sound like a bunch of random crazy people ("Wait, do you want small government, or do you want the government controlling women's bodies?"). The tragedy is that group D has a point -- an insolvent system would hit the poor harder than anyone, just ask literally any country that has gone belly-up - but they seem to be a real minority among elected officials.

Exactly zero of them are in it because they love evil and suffering. You'll forever be confused if you're assuming that as their motivation. They are just as empathetic to their fellow humans as you are.

There is an E I believe that actually does not value programs that benefit minorities or women, and will not vote liberal because of that alone

 

[Cabaratier]

I know it looks very confusing from the outside, but the Republican party is a coalition of a few groups:

A) Christians who believe a powerful secular government is a threat to the faith (ie, the church used to run education in this country and now the government does it);

B) Wealthy people who want to create a pro-business environment purely for personal gain;

C) Small government true believers who either have Libertarian core beliefs or just fear communism and want to make America the opposite of that;

D) Smart people who are absolutely right in saying that this rate of national debt isn't sustainable at some point, and that the left has no interest in controlling it.

So any legislation has to please all of those groups and the messaging makes them sound like a bunch of random crazy people ("Wait, do you want small government, or do you want the government controlling women's bodies?"). The tragedy is that group D has a point -- an insolvent system would hit the poor harder than anyone, just ask literally any country that has gone belly-up - but they seem to be a real minority among elected officials.

Exactly zero of them are in it because they love evil and suffering. You'll forever be confused if you're assuming that as their motivation. They are just as empathetic to their fellow humans as you are.

These groups aren't even consistent with their own beliefs when they affect them negatively personally, so that disproves your statement about their empathy.

 

[Tecnniqe]

I hope McConnell goes home and puts a bullet in his head. Suck shit turtleface.

Ah this is ok now on GAF

 

[Dash_Riprock]

D) Smart people who are absolutely right in saying that this rate of national debt isn't sustainable at some point, and that the left has no interest in controlling it.

Reading this made me literally laugh out loud.

Thanks, I needed some humor today.

 

[BrutishMrFish]

So any legislation has to please all of those groups and the messaging makes them sound like a bunch of random crazy people ("Wait, do you want small government, or do you want the government controlling women's bodies?").

You're acting like those two messages come from two different groups, but they're usually said by the same people (like generic Republican Mike Pence). The messaging makes them sound inconsistent because it accurately reflects their beliefs.

Also, their stance on LGBT rights alone means your last sentence is complete bullshit.

There is an E I believe that actually does not value programs that benefit minorities or women, and will not vote liberal because of that alone

Don't forget group F: gun weeaboos.

 

[EdibleKnife]

There is an E I believe that actually does not value programs that benefit minorities or women, and will not vote liberal because of that alone

Right? Empathetic is being generous as hell when the majority of hardline stances the party has are literally focused on punishing minorities of different walks. Just because they aren't giggling each time a black person is shot by the police or a poor woman is forced to carry her rapist's child doesn't mean they aren't supporting evil. If they had empathy they could show it but they don't. It's just that simple. I can't claim that I'm somehow working for the greater good while the club I volunteering my time, money and energy to goes on to ruin lives without regret.

 

[Isaac Otherworld]

Evidently by the article posted a few posts up, he's not really that smart. He made a lot of easily avoidable mistakes. How could he believe not including the GOP in the creation of their own bill was a good idea?

Being a conservative money grubbing monster is easy-mode in life. It's easy to be successful and live comfortably when destroying lives and robbing powerless people is your modus operandi. You have to be absurdly stupid to fail at that. Point in case; Louie Gohmert. I don't think I've ever seen a less intelligent human. Period. Still living it up as a representative.

McConnell can be as dumb as a bag of bricks and still be effect and still get what he wants.

And really, that's all the rich in this country are.

 

[a.wd]

Here is an Idea, increase taxes on the rich (by rich I mean top 5%) and massive corporations (anyone making supernormal profits).

Remove tax dodging rules.

Remove money movement capabilities, if you are making shit loads of profit give some of it back, don't leave it to stagnate in an offshore account, everyone contributes to society, make it easier for that society to advance.

Move to a medicaid for all model, reduce the amounts of costs for care and give the health insurance industries an assurance that they are guarenteed a set amount dependant on population.

Reduce the amount of corruption and money being faffed around in the health industry, there are people who are making out like bandits, regulate them.

Reduce spending on private prisons and reduce the amount of people who are jailed for minor non damaging offences (you want to smoke a spliff? Sweet, buy it from this legal dispensary and pay some money back into society).

increase education funding giving people skills and capabilities to manage their lives better and be in less debt.also smarter people make more cool shit, that could then be built in the country and would be better than anything you could import.

Can anyone find any logical flaws in my statements above?

Does anyone think this would lead to a reduction in the defecit?

If not why not?

 

[Angelus Errare]

I know it looks very confusing from the outside, but the Republican party is a coalition of a few groups:

A) Christians who believe a powerful secular government is a threat to the faith (ie, the church used to run education in this country and now the government does it);

B) Wealthy people who want to create a pro-business environment purely for personal gain;

C) Small government true believers who either have Libertarian core beliefs or just fear communism and want to make America the opposite of that;

D) Smart people who are absolutely right in saying that this rate of national debt isn't sustainable at some point, and that the left has no interest in controlling it.

So any legislation has to please all of those groups and the messaging makes them sound like a bunch of random crazy people ("Wait, do you want small government, or do you want the government controlling women's bodies?"). The tragedy is that group D has a point -- an insolvent system would hit the poor harder than anyone, just ask literally any country that has gone belly-up - but they seem to be a real minority among elected officials.

Exactly zero of them are in it because they love evil and suffering. You'll forever be confused if you're assuming that as their motivation. They are just as empathetic to their fellow humans as you are.

They can't be too smart if they fail to realize the idea of blowing up the national debt was a conservative idea to make Democrats look like the bad guy when they had to raise taxes.

 

[IggyChooChoo]

Exactly zero of them are in it because they love evil and suffering. You'll forever be confused if you're assuming that as their motivation. They are just as empathetic to their fellow humans as you are.

Reword this to "in it to punish the unworthy" and you have a majority of GOP voters IMO. The idea that a program might benefit a single lazy person is an injustice worth ending the program over entirely.

 

[Measley]

The GOP concerns about the deficit are absolute bullshit. Cutting taxes and increasing military spending balloons the deficit more than any social program proposed by the left. Trumps goons are already considering starting another war in the middle East while also cutting taxes to the bare-bones.

Instead of saying that those tax cuts and wars are draining the economy, they'll blame it on the poor and brown people and start cutting essential social programs.

 

[RPGCrazied]

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account
@realDonaldTrump

Some of the Fake News Media likes to say that I am not totally engaged in healthcare. Wrong, I know the subject well & want victory for U.S.

Does this guy ever sleep? Its like he might sleep for a couple hours, then has his phone and starts tweeting shit.

 

[Maiden Voyage]

Does this guy ever sleep? Its like he might sleep for a couple hours, then has his phone and starts tweeting shit.

He says he only sleeps 3-4 hours a night.

 

[Tovarisc]

He says he only sleeps 4-5 hours a night.

And it shows now that he has very high stress job.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

So if Heller and Collins are hard nos, whose only path to yes is a total redo of the bill, where is McConnell getting the votes to pass this, even if he waits a few weeks?

They're asking for more medicaid funding, and Collins wants more Planned Parenthood funding. There's no money to find to do that via reconciliation, since those cuts were the cuts that were offsetting the tax cuts. Maybe they could increase the taxes, but at that point, they'd lose more senators than they'd gain.

With Collins and Heller taking the "heat" of not voting for the bill, it gives cover for Murkowski and others to go against it, and McConnell is back to square one. Kasich is going to be riding Portman to vote no all week, as well. As are quite a few other governors with their senators.

Then you have the senators like Johnson (and Collins, again) who are mad at McConnell for rushing a bill with no input from the majority of Republican senators, who very well may never be yeses because they want to teach a lesson about including them in future bills.

And also McConnell wants to fix all of these problems in three days without re-writing the bill.

 

[RPGCrazied]

He says he only sleeps 3-4 hours a night.

The nightmares must be really something.

And it shows now that he has very high stress job.

And not even 6 months in. Can you imagine year 2, if we even get that far? We think he is bad now.... but, damn.

 

[Maiden Voyage]

And it shows now that he has very high stress job.

The nightmares must be really something.



And not even 6 months in. Can you imagine year 2, if we even get that far? We think he is bad now.... but, damn.

I might be remembering incorrectly, as I can't seem to find an article, but he did state, the the linked article, what his sleep schedule was before he became President. He did not clarify how long it's been that way.

 

[BatDan]

Does this guy ever sleep? Its like he might sleep for a couple hours, then has his phone and starts tweeting shit.

"Who knew health care could be so complicated?"
You're not even putting effort into your lies Trump. There's no way you could learn healthcare details in the time since you said that.

 

[Tovarisc]

I might be remembering incorrectly, as I can't seem to find an article, but he did state, the the linked article, what his sleep schedule was before he became President. He did not clarify how long it's been that way.

Ye, according him he has always slept so little. Just that sleeping so little in job that must be far more stress inducing than anything else he has done before can't be good for health.

According some articles WH insiders have already noted that president already is noticeable more tired than at start of his term, gained weight etc.

 

[FrenchMovieTheme]

I know it looks very confusing from the outside, but the Republican party is a coalition of a few groups:

A) Christians who believe a powerful secular government is a threat to the faith (ie, the church used to run education in this country and now the government does it);

B) Wealthy people who want to create a pro-business environment purely for personal gain;

C) Small government true believers who either have Libertarian core beliefs or just fear communism and want to make America the opposite of that;

D) Smart people who are absolutely right in saying that this rate of national debt isn't sustainable at some point, and that the left has no interest in controlling it.

So any legislation has to please all of those groups and the messaging makes them sound like a bunch of random crazy people ("Wait, do you want small government, or do you want the government controlling women's bodies?"). The tragedy is that group D has a point -- an insolvent system would hit the poor harder than anyone, just ask literally any country that has gone belly-up - but they seem to be a real minority among elected officials.

Exactly zero of them are in it because they love evil and suffering. You'll forever be confused if you're assuming that as their motivation. They are just as empathetic to their fellow humans as you are.

Lol

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

https://twitter.com/Lawrence/status/879873257251495938

Lawrence O'Donnell ✔ @Lawrence
How many votes did McConnell really have for his Obamacare repeal? Answer @TheLastWord 10pm. (Hint: single digit)

They only had 5 yeses.

This is why MSNBC can't be taken seriously

 

[BlackLagoon]

They can't be too smart if they fail to realize the idea of blowing up the national debt was a conservative idea to make Democrats look like the bad guy when they had to raise taxes.

Starve the beast anyone?

In any case, it's not like there aren't alternatives to reducing healthcare costs by just reducing eligibility. Negotiating down drug prices, focus on preventative care, promoting and enabling healthy life-style choices - all options that work in other countries. It's just that the Republicans don't like these options because they're Big Government/Nanny State/Anti-business.

 

[Ithil]

Does this guy ever sleep? Its like he might sleep for a couple hours, then has his phone and starts tweeting shit.

Wow, he said he knows it well. I guess he must be an expert.

Twit couldn't name even three details about the bill.

 

[boiled goose]

I know it looks very confusing from the outside, but the Republican party is a coalition of a few groups:

A) Christians who believe a powerful secular government is a threat to the faith (ie, the church used to run education in this country and now the government does it);

B) Wealthy people who want to create a pro-business environment purely for personal gain;

C) Small government true believers who either have Libertarian core beliefs or just fear communism and want to make America the opposite of that;

D) Smart people who are absolutely right in saying that this rate of national debt isn't sustainable at some point, and that the left has no interest in controlling it.

So any legislation has to please all of those groups and the messaging makes them sound like a bunch of random crazy people ("Wait, do you want small government, or do you want the government controlling women's bodies?"). The tragedy is that group D has a point -- an insolvent system would hit the poor harder than anyone, just ask literally any country that has gone belly-up - but they seem to be a real minority among elected officials.

Exactly zero of them are in it because they love evil and suffering. You'll forever be confused if you're assuming that as their motivation. They are just as empathetic to their fellow humans as you are.

You missed the fact that most of them work for their donors (wealthy individuals, big oil, finance industry, prison industrial complex, military industrial complex, etc) and that they vote in line with those interests, not the best interests of constituents.

It's been proven. Legislation passed has near zero correlation with constituent opinion.

There is no Empathy

On national Dept, isn't it the result of gop wars and tax cuts?

 

[IggyChooChoo]

So if Heller and Collins are hard nos, whose only path to yes is a total redo of the bill, where is McConnell getting the votes to pass this, even if he waits a few weeks?

They're asking for more medicaid funding, and Collins wants more Planned Parenthood funding. There's no money to find to do that via reconciliation, since those cuts were the cuts that were offsetting the tax cuts. Maybe they could increase the taxes, but at that point, they'd lose more senators than they'd gain.

With Collins and Heller taking the "heat" of not voting for the bill, it gives cover for Murkowski and others to go against it, and McConnell is back to square one. Kasich is going to be riding Portman to vote no all week, as well. As are quite a few other governors with their senators.

Then you have the senators like Johnson (and Collins, again) who are mad at McConnell for rushing a bill with no input from the majority of Republican senators, who very well may never be yeses because they want to teach a lesson about including them in future bills.

And also McConnell wants to fix all of these problems in three days without re-writing the bill.

When the House bill failed the first time, I think members took a lot of heat from their base, and they got a sense of how bad it would be for then in terms of angering their base if they passed nothing. And so they were able to go back and push their bill over the hump on the basis of that fear. But given the narrowness of GOP control of the senate, combined with the fact that senators aren't gerrymandered, that that force isn't as strong.

 

[Tovarisc]

This is why MSNBC can't be taken seriously

Because they promote their channel and segments?

Umm... what?

If you next pull Maddow and her stunt with Trump's tax returns out of your hat this tweet from Lawrence isn't even remotely same.

 

[Shiggy]

He says he only sleeps 3-4 hours a night.

He looks kinda tired:

 

[HylianTom]

He says he only sleeps 3-4 hours a night.

Wowza, add that to his eating habits and.. yikes.

 

[RPGCrazied]

At least he does exercise some right? Swinging that golf club has to be exercise! /s

 

[Beartruck]

This is why MSNBC can't be taken seriously

I could believe that. Im sure there were 40Ish yes' Initially, but once there were eough no's to stop it from going forward, I could see everyone else playing follow the leader and pretending they were against it all along. Politicians are primarily concerned with saving their skin above all else and will act accordingly.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Wowza, add that to his eating habits and.. yikes.

More like hooray.


It's a race between Mueller and a heart attack.

 

[Pai Pai Master]

At least he does exercise some right? Swinging that golf club has to be exercise! /s

 

[Steel]

You missed the fact that most of them work for their donors (wealthy individuals, big oil, finance industry, prison industrial complex, military industrial complex, etc) and that they vote in line with those interests, not the best interests of constituents.

It's been proven. Legislation passed has near zero correlation with constituent opinion.

There is no Empathy

On national Dept, isn't it the result of gop wars and tax cuts?

The wars put a dent but it's mostly the tax cuts. Something like 80% of the current deficit wouldn't exist if those tax cuts never happened.

 

[TheOMan]

They are just as empathetic to their fellow humans as you are.

There was a lot in that post, but this is simply untrue and if you don't know that, I feel sorry for you.

 

[Aaron]

This is why MSNBC can't be taken seriously

I'm sure it was true, but more posturing for an unpopular bill than an actual lack of votes.

 

[jay]

The wars put a dent but it's mostly the tax cuts. Something like 80% of the current deficit wouldn't exist if those tax cuts never happened.

That deficit is ok though because it lines up with my conservative ideology of paying less taxes. When I say cut debt I mean cut programs for the poor.

There was a lot in that post, but this is simply untrue and if you don't know that, I feel sorry for you.

He is a big defender of some people deserving far more than others. So his premise that he is as empathetic as people on the left is easily proven simply untrue.

 

[Lowmelody]

They are just as empathetic to their fellow humans as you are.

*cackling*

 

[Bisnic]

He looks kinda tired:

What's with the sex toy behind him? Nice photoshop.

 

[Rubenov]

So athletic.

 

[RPGCrazied]

https://i.imgur.com/VT3oprI.jpg[img][/QUOTE]

That's real? I thought it was a photoshop.

 

[Sweeney Tom]

They are just as empathetic to their fellow humans as you are.

This is why Cracked has gone downhill tbh. Yall are terrified afraid to lose the Tea Party audience, not noticing it's affecting absolutely every other community and their safety by enabling them

 

[Kusagari]

*cackling*

Come on guys, when I think of empathy I think of Mitch McConnell.