7 minutes ago, rhinohide said:

Interesting take on how much people who earn more than $75,000 a year cost taxpayers (in subsidized healthcare, mortgaged subsidies, etc.)

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/03/13/unspeakable-realities-block-universal-health-coverage-in-the-us/amp/

This is an excellent article. Thanks for sharing. I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion, because the wage gap is still growing, the upper 1% have seem their incomes increase by something like 400% while wages for these folks really haven't budged. A more progressive tax plan(which we actually had during the 50's, 60's, and 70's) yes even under Eisenhower and Nixon, would IMO help that. But Eisenhower and Nixon would both be considered Democrats today.

Reading posts about pre-existing conditions and this one made me so sad to read. A lot of people feel particularly vulnerable right at this moment in a way that many cannot understand. I'm out of words reading this one in particular.  Let's hope that this clusterf*ck AHCA dies completely on the Senate floor.

 

This thread ain't going to be pleasant FYI.

— Linda Tirado (@KillerMartinis) May 5, 2017

I'm reading the Senate is drafting their own bill

6 minutes ago, dragonflies said:

I'm reading the Senate is drafting their own bill

 

Yes, because the House version won't pass muster in the Senate.

57 minutes ago, JaneAusten said:

 Eisenhower and Nixon would both be considered Democrats today.

 

Aint that the truth?!

 

I've reluctantly admitted that I voted Republican most of my life. I'm ashamed of that in part because the destruction of the party and its transition to some Christian variation of the Taliban began with Reagan and the Moral Majority and although I voted for Ford in my first presidential election, I voted for Reagan twice,  and H. W. Bush twice. It really wasn't until W ran for President that I finally couldn't do it anymore. That tipped the balance. In hindsight I do realize white privilege played a huge role in my resistance to accepting how much the party had changed. Oddly, when I first became politically aware, most people in my circle were Democrats, but they were that "good ol'" southern democrat variety.  

 

Anyway, back to your original point, my positions have definitely shifted significantly since I turned 18. But not nearly as dramatically as the GOP. If Newt Gingrich and the Tea Party and now The Freedom Caucus had not shifted the party so vehemently to the right I might still be a "moderate" Republican. There is no moderation in the GOP anymore. They're soulless bastards lacking any shred of human decency and apparently incapable of informed decision making. 

 

The healthcare industry is 1/6 of the U.S. Economy. These wastes of human flesh just passed bill that the CBO had not reviewed, and that most members of the House admit they did not read!  And on closer inspection is so much worse than most people could imagine. 

 

While the opoid epidemic rages,particularly in the Midwest and the suburbs nationally, the Trump WH has decided to eliminate the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

1 hour ago, DramatistDreamer said:

 

Yes, because the House version won't pass muster in the Senate.

 

This is why gerrymandering has to die. The House passed this garbage because most of them are in safe districts. Fixing gerrymandering is the only way they will ever be held accountable but even then I believe that a lot of reps are going to lose their jobs in 2018. Issa's a dead man walking, Nunes will probably be in jail and if not he's shown himself to be to incompetent even for the GOP, Chaffetz is gone by "choice," etc...There's a reason McConnell has stated they won't get rid of the legislative filibuster.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/05/08/how-trump-could-get-fired/amp

 

Haven't read this but listened to an interview with the author on NPR. My take is if we want a real investigation into Mike Flynn and Paul Manefort's Russia connections, or anything else, we have to take back the House. Need 23 seats. Historically, in an election following a term where one party controls all branches of government, the incumbent party has lost 30+ seats in the House. So it can be done. 

53 minutes ago, rhinohide said:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/05/08/how-trump-could-get-fired/amp

 

Haven't read this but listened to an interview with the author on NPR. My take is if we want a real investigation into Mike Flynn and Paul Manefort's Russia connections, or anything else, we have to take back the House. Need 23 seats. Historically, in an election following a term where one party controls all branches of government, the incumbent party has lost 30+ seats in the House. So it can be done. 

 

Most of that history was before the gerrymander of 2010. It's going to be a lot harder now. It CAN be done but it's going to be one hell of an uphill climb.

There were a lot of gerrymandered seats that fell in 2006. Granted, that map was less gerrymandered, there were still plenty of surprise wins in places no one would have ever expected. There are 7 Republicans holding districts that Clinton won in California and picking up all of those will be a top priority. Overall, there are 24 Republicans in Clinton districts across the country and one has already declared retirement.

Another pick for Army Secretary withdraws. I think these people were unprepared for the heat they were going to face. 

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/05/mark-green-trump-army-secretary-withdraws-238048

4 hours ago, rhinohide said:

In hindsight I do realize white privilege played a huge role in my resistance to accepting how much the party had changed. Oddly, when I first became politically aware, most people in my circle were Democrats, but they were that "good ol'" southern democrat variety. 

I hope you won't feel as if this is putting you on the spot but I've come to realize that people don't always mean the same thing when using the same phrases/terms, and I am really curious what "white privilege" means to people. I know that some people take it literally and refute having any sort of advantage at all.

 

One of our family friends was born and raised in Compton, CA and she happens to be white. She is annoyed by people claiming she had any sort of advantages growing up since her family was poor and struggled. She's probably in her late fifties-early sixties and still doesn't see herself as having any sort of a racial advantage. It wouldn't be her fault if someone favored her over another person because of some sort of racial bias. That's not something over which she has control. What she can control are her own biases and whether or not she is complicit in the unfair treatment of other people.

Edited May 5, 20178 yr by Wales2004

So the FCC is actually devoting time to investigate Stephen Colbert's on air anti-Trump rant?  That's a worthwhile use of government resources. 

 

FCC to investigate, 'take appropriate action' on Colbert’s Trump rant

Sounds like the poor woman who's going to jail for laughing at Jeff Sessions