Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[awm]

Okay, let's look at things Trump has actually done. I believe the following show a lack of basic ethics and/or governing competency, regardless of your opinion of his positions:

 

Appointed a national security advisor who was working as an agent of a foreign government, who then had to resign. Claimed he didn't even know about it (so much for "extreme vetting.")

Discussed a response to a North Korean missile test over dinner in his resort (so much for security).

Received a number of (weirdly expedited) trademarks from the Chinese government and suddenly changed his opinion on One China policy.

Spent taxpayers' money for vacations at a record-setting pace... and unlike Obama a lot of the taxpayer money for his security goes right into his pocket.

Rolled out his "Muslim ban" in a way that was so confusing that border agents did not know whether it applied to citizens, green-card holders, etc.

Still has a huge number of unfilled posts in his government, apparently because he can't find anyone loyal enough to him to fill the positions.

Appointed his son-in-law to a high position in government, has his daughter sit in on meetings with foreign leaders.

He's already being sued for using the presidency to financially benefit himself.

 

In terms of his campaign promises, he seems to be well on his way to fulfilling the worst of them:

 

His racist, anti-Latino approach to immigration is well underway, with parents being separated from children, pillars of their community being removed from the country, and DREAMers being rounded up.

His racist, anti-Muslim approach to entering the country has been ordered twice already.

Appointed a white-nationalist to the national security council.

His promise to create jobs has (so far) lead to a series of orders permitting oil, gas, and coal companies to pollute our environment.. as well as one month's job totals which were lauded by Republicans despite being exactly the same as Obama's job totals for the same month each of the last two years.

 

While the ones that potentially make some sense are pretty much nowhere:

 

His promise to "drain the swamp" has pretty much gone by the wayside, as he appointed a cabinet full of billionaires and Goldman-Sachs execs.

His promised infrastructure bill is nowhere to be seen.

His promise to replace Obamacare with "something great" where "everyone is covered" has become an endorsement of the House Republican plan which throws millions off their insurance in order to provide tax cuts to the 1%.

[ldrews]

Okay, let's look at things Trump has actually done. I believe the following show a lack of basic ethics and/or governing competency, regardless of your opinion of his positions:

 

Appointed a national security advisor who was working as an agent of a foreign government, who then had to resign. Claimed he didn't even know about it (so much for "extreme vetting.")

Discussed a response to a North Korean missile test over dinner in his resort (so much for security).

Received a number of (weirdly expedited) trademarks from the Chinese government and suddenly changed his opinion on One China policy.

Spent taxpayers' money for vacations at a record-setting pace... and unlike Obama a lot of the taxpayer money for his security goes right into his pocket.

Rolled out his "Muslim ban" in a way that was so confusing that border agents did not know whether it applied to citizens, green-card holders, etc.

Still has a huge number of unfilled posts in his government, apparently because he can't find anyone loyal enough to him to fill the positions.

Appointed his son-in-law to a high position in government, has his daughter sit in on meetings with foreign leaders.

He's already being sued for using the presidency to financially benefit himself.

 

In terms of his campaign promises, he seems to be well on his way to fulfilling the worst of them:

 

His racist, anti-Latino approach to immigration is well underway, with parents being separated from children, pillars of their community being removed from the country, and DREAMers being rounded up.

His racist, anti-Muslim approach to entering the country has been ordered twice already.

Appointed a white-nationalist to the national security council.

His promise to create jobs has (so far) lead to a series of orders permitting oil, gas, and coal companies to pollute our environment.. as well as one month's job totals which were lauded by Republicans despite being exactly the same as Obama's job totals for the same month each of the last two years.

 

While the ones that potentially make some sense are pretty much nowhere:

 

His promise to "drain the swamp" has pretty much gone by the wayside, as he appointed a cabinet full of billionaires and Goldman-Sachs execs.

His promised infrastructure bill is nowhere to be seen.

His promise to replace Obamacare with "something great" where "everyone is covered" has become an endorsement of the House Republican plan which throws millions off their insurance in order to provide tax cuts to the 1%.

 

I think you have valid criticisms. Trump is obviously inexperienced as a politician. He has/is making a number of rookie mistakes.

 

That said, he is also addressing what I think are sorely needed changes:

 

• Limiting access to the US by potential terrorists
  
• Improving/enforcing immigration laws
  
• Renegotiating adverse trade agreements
  
• Appointing cabinet members whose job it is to reduce/improve agencies
  
• Initiate programs to reduce/eliminate regulations
  
• Modernize the military
  
• Replace a failing health care system
  
• Initiate new approaches to the educational systems
  
• etc.
  

 

As long as he continues to make these kinds of changes, I will continue to support him.

 

I would also be happy to support any other candidate who has a better persona and better political experience who will also address these issues in a strong manner. Do you have a prospect?

[Winstonm]

One thought on the market/private enterprise model verses government-intervention model is that markets and private enterprise have no power to compel compliance. It is problematic that the mentally ill cannot be compelled by markets or churches to take medicines, nor can churches or markets incarcerate the mentally ill for lengthy stays for their good and the good of societies.

 

There are some things markets do best and other things governments do better. The trick is figuring out which is which. To do so requires responding to data, facts, rather than reliance on intuition or ideology.

[Al_U_Card]

I misclicked the +1 button. What do you mean by "real pollution control"? And what do you mean by full "boutique" for the faithful? If anything, Obama was to the right of center on issues that mattered most to Dems until November 2014 when he finally woke up to the fact that this was a hopeless strategy. What you describe as vitriol pouring out looks like a lot of other people finally waking up to me.

CO2 is only a pollutant by EPA ruling. It is essential to life and beneficial at much greater concentrations than present levels. Obama committed large sums to "green" (feel good but do no good) projects that only enriched banks and investors. Bankruptcies (Solyndra) and wasteful "environmentally friendly" subsidized processes have destroyed lives and weakened the energy security of the nation. At least they are awake then....now if only they can pay attention.

And p.s. what do you mean by hopeless....it worked for Trump...lol

[barmar]

Replace a failing health care system

So all that matters is that he's replacing a system you don't like? It doesn't matter that the proposed replacement has extremely serious problems of its own, and doesn't actually fulfill his campaign promise of healthcare for everyone?

 

Is anything good as long as it's not Obamacare?

[Winstonm]

Here is a Republican I still find admirable: John Kasich

Asked how to get Democrats involved when the president is saying such things, Kasich lamented the politics of seemingly everything in Washington.

 

“Look, I believe the political parties are disintegrating before our very eyes. I think more and more people across this country see no purpose for political parties,” he said.

 

“There are more and more independents because of the squabbling,” he continued. “What's at risk here to Democrats is you can't turn your back on these people. And to Republicans, you need to invite Democrats in because we're talking about lives.”

 

Failing to work together to improve America’s health care system, Kasich added, could have dire consequences.

 

“All this consumption with who gains politically — you know, life is short,” Kasich said. “And if all you focus on in life is what's in it for me, you're a loser. You are a big-time loser. And this country better be careful we're not losing the soul of our country because we play politics and we forget people who are in need.”

[mike777]

One thought on the market/private enterprise model verses government-intervention model is that markets and private enterprise have no power to compel compliance. It is problematic that the mentally ill cannot be compelled by markets or churches to take medicines, nor can churches or markets incarcerate the mentally ill for lengthy stays for their good and the good of societies.

 

There are some things markets do best and other things governments do better. The trick is figuring out which is which. To do so requires responding to data, facts, rather than reliance on intuition or ideology.

 

You make an excellent point. In regards to this point one thing markets can provide is money, money to the government to pay for care. Another thing markets can provide are competing viewpoints and treatment options in this area. Governments tend to get locked into reliance on one set of ideas of treatment rather than let them compete against each other. Governments by their very nature tend to get locked into protection mode of what the are doing compared with markets who tend to be more open to destruction and replace.

[ldrews]

So all that matters is that he's replacing a system you don't like? It doesn't matter that the proposed replacement has extremely serious problems of its own, and doesn't actually fulfill his campaign promise of healthcare for everyone?

 

Is anything good as long as it's not Obamacare?

 

At this time it would appear so. But as you point out, the problem is coming up with an improved version. Given the ideological imperatives at work the definition of "better" is suspect. Depends on the ideology of the definer.

 

The current system seems to be imploding. The question becomes do you stick with the known but deteriorating system or do you take the gamble of trying a new system. The new system is not guaranteed to be "better" and given political realities can probably never be guaranteed to be "better".

 

To me it is similar to the recent election choice: stick with the status quo candidate or gamble with the change candidate. Depends on how much you think change is needed.

[Vampyr]

At least one study points to Comey as the reason for President Trump.

 

I thought this was known by pretty much everyone already.

 

 

Of course there are some campaign promises he has not kept, most notably to put Clinton in jail. Are you complaining that he has not fulfilled that campaign promise?

 

In jail for what?

 

Believe me, I wish we had a better person for President, but Trump was the only one promising the changes that I think are sorely needed. Since he seems to be following through on those promises, I continue to support him while cringing all of the time.

 

What changes?

[ldrews]

 

What changes?

 

You have got to be kidding!

[jogs]

Has anyone on the left noticed that the U.S. stock markets are up $4T? World markets are up trillions. If Trump is half as bad as the left claims, markets would be down.

[y66]

From 2017 Geneva Auto Show: Fast Cars and Diamond Dust

 

Ferraris that zoom to 211 mph. Royce-Royces with diamond-dusted paint. Dan Neil ponders the bubble economy as he tours the 2017 Geneva Auto Show.

 

STANDING AT THE TOP of the escalator between the two floors of Palexpo Hall 7, amid the crashing thunder and carbon-fiber lightning of the 87th Geneva International Motor Show, all I could see were bubbles, bubbles everywhere: delicate, iridescent, aching to pop.

 

The biggest is floating just across the ocean. The U.S. car market—upon whose riches these splendid European luxury brands now heavily depend—has grown steadily for seven years, with a record 17.5 million light-vehicle sales in 2016. In that time, low gas prices and low interest rates have combined to ease Americans into progressively larger, more expensive crossovers, trucks and SUVs, which also happen to be the vehicles most profitable to manufacturers.

 

GM sold 3 million vehicles in the U.S. in 2016 (10 million world-wide), had record earnings per share, and returned $4.8 billion to shareholders.

 

But there’s a lot of paper out—over $1 trillion in outstanding automotive loans in 2016, according to the credit-score company Equifax. About 20% of auto loan originations are subprime and delinquency rates have climbed steadily. And just like risky mortgages, delinquency-prone car loans are securitized, bundled and sold as asset-backed securities (ABS), which never worked out badly for anyone, ever.

 

Quietly, auto execs are worried sick about any contraction in auto-loan credit, but they would tear their tongue out before saying so on the record.

 

The Trump administration would like to keep the bubble floating, if possible.

 

The EPA is expected to undo future fuel-economy standards locked in during the last days of the Obama administration, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard, pegged to a nominal 54.5-mpg by model year 2025. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt hasn’t committed to continuing the waiver by which California fuel-economy rules supersede the federal standards.

 

In force, such policies would act like automotive growth hormone, incentivizing sales of larger, thirstier vehicles by lowering the relative cost of compliance. That would help the domestic auto makers, certainly; it would also encourage European premium/luxury marques— Audi, Bentley, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Land Rover and Volvo—to design and sell bigger vehicles in the States. Not that they need much encouragement. Each of these brands introduced new or enhanced crossover/SUV products at Geneva.

 

You may wonder what happens in the case of a sustained increase in the cost of gasoline, as occurred in the mid-2000s, when the average price of gas rose to more than $4 per gallon and people were literally trading Hummer H2s for Toyota Priuses. It was precisely GM’s wrongheaded product mix of big SUVs and trucks that popped its bubble and sent it fluttering into bankruptcy.

 

When the music of cheap gas stops, as it inevitably will, many of these fine, fat fellows will have nowhere to sit.

 

The U.S.’s reverse course on vehicle emissions reflects another sort of bubble. No other industrialized nation is considering looser standards on carbon emissions. In fact, fuel-economy and emissions rules in the European Union are getting tougher, with real-world driving tests and not simulated models. Cities from London to Paris to Beijing are preparing for low-emission and no-emission zones, which will be accessible only to battery-electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids.

Wrongheaded? A McLaren 650S and 4 rare steaks please.

[Winstonm]

Has anyone on the left noticed that the U.S. stock markets are up $4T? World markets are up trillions. If Trump is half as bad as the left claims, markets would be down.

 

Great for the oligarchs. Meaningless for the millions of poor and working poor. Nearly meaningless for what is left of the middle class.

 

And according to your analysis, George Bush was one of the worst presidents of all time as he was in office when the stock market collapsed.

[jogs]

So all that matters is that he's replacing a system you don't like? It doesn't matter that the proposed replacement has extremely serious problems of its own, and doesn't actually fulfill his campaign promise of healthcare for everyone?

 

Is anything good as long as it's not Obamacare?

Obamacare rates a F.

The current GOP plan is a D-.

[PassedOut]

One of the complaints of the Trumpkins is that "political correctness" makes contemporary life too bland. And it's true that you just don't see products advertised like these anymore:

 

http://cdn.frank151.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/16194240/VA1.jpg

 

I'm old enough to remember some of these, and happy that we've moved on.

[kenberg]

What changes?

 

Certainly there are many, and it would be good to discuss them as objectively as possible.

 

Here is an article about the impact of the change in immigration policy.

 

https://www.washingt...m=.7fafba06b2ce

 

The first thing I noticed, although unimportant, is that the returnees were flown from El Paso to Mexico City. I have been in El Paso, and I have walked across the bridge into Juarez.Cheaper and easier if the idea is to end up in Mexico. But I suppose the return point has to be Mexico City so that's where it is.

 

I also noted:

"Since President Trump took office in January, the number of U.S. government flights landing in Mexico City loaded with deportees has jumped from two a week under President Barack Obama to three, Mexican officials said. "

 

One could say that"Oh, it's just a minor change in the Obama policy. Two planes, three planes, what does it matter?" But it's a fifty percent increase in the number of returnees. And presumably will get larger. Much more importantly, I think it changes expectations.

 

What will be the effect?

"A lot of these people ran businesses in the U.S. and did well," said Andrew Selee, vice president of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. "In the same way that in the United States we saw a wave of Mexicans who became part of the American culture and changed it, we're now seeing a wave of Mexicans moving back who are integrating American culture into Mexico."

 

Is "integrating American culture into Mexico" a good thing or a bad thing? Views differ. But for the people being sent back, they are not happy about it.

 

 

For the U.S. I think the fundamental change is the rejection of the view that people who have crossed the border illegally are being mistreated when they are sent back.

 

 

Immigration has always been a complex issue. My father was an immigrant but I had to work at it to think of him as one. In high school I knew a kid who came from Latvia as a DP (displaced person) after WWII but I did not much think about that either. When I wen to college (the Univ of Minnesota) my horizons broadened considerably. The "brain drani" became a big issue. Young people came to the U.S. to study and often did not want to go back. I see an echo of that in the comments about how sending the undocumented immigrants back might, in the long run, be good for Mexico:

At the same time, though, there will be more English-speaking Mexicans entering the workforce who've honed their skills in the United States, a development that in the long run could position Mexico to be a stronger player in the global economy, analysts say.

 

Good for Mexico, at least maybe so, but not something that the returnees want. .

 

Here is another thing I have noticed. We act as if the alternatives are to let the illegal immigrants stay or else to shut off Mexican immigration. Wait. We could return illegal immigrants but increase our willingness to accept legal immigrants, could we not? We no longer seem to be capable f finding a sensible middle policy on things.

 

 

I favor not jumping, or at least not jumping too quickly, to conclusions about motives. I can recall when Americans of Italian descent were strongly asserting that the Mafia did not exist, that any reference to the Mafia was simply an expression of American bigotry. Well, no. I can simultaneously believe that The Godfather had some basis in fact, still believe that immigration from Italy to the US is a good thing, and still believe that the immigration should be through the legal channels. We need a rational immigration policy that serves our needs, the needs of the "poor and huddled masses yearning to be free", and one that treats legal immigration differently from illegal immigration. If someone comes here illegally, we get to send them back. Yes we can make exceptions, but the idea that being able to get here illegally confers a right to stay here is an odd notion.

 

At any rate, this is one change. I will probably comment on others later. Time now to play a few hands.

[y66]

We act as if the alternatives are to let the illegal immigrants stay or else to shut off Mexican immigration. Wait. We could return illegal immigrants but increase our willingness to accept legal immigrants, could we not?

I wonder why we don't make academic or technical credentials an explicit requirement for immigration and just say something like: anyone who can credibly show they are strongly motivated to succeed is welcome here up to some reasonable annual limit. That would provide a strong incentive for acquiring useful skills that benefits everyone regardless of whether or not they emigrate.

[Zelandakh]

I also noted:

"Since President Trump took office in January, the number of U.S. government flights landing in Mexico City loaded with deportees has jumped from two a week under President Barack Obama to three, Mexican officials said. "

 

One could say that"Oh, it's just a minor change in the Obama policy. Two planes, three planes, what does it matter?" But it's a fifty percent increase in the number of returnees. And presumably will get larger. Much more importantly, I think it changes expectations.

This might be the case. On the other hand it might be that twice as many Mexicans are trying to cross the border before "the wall" goes up and only half of the extra people are being caught, meaning a 50% increase in returnees and a 100% increase in illegal immigrants. Or it could be that Obama's administration efficiently booked 2 planes that exactly covered the demand and a small (say 5%) increase was enough to exceed capacity, with Trump's administration not being organised enough to adjust and instead ordering a whole extra plane (that is mostly empty). Without more statistics than this it is impossible to say precisely what is going on.

[jogs]

 

His promised infrastructure bill is nowhere to be seen.

 

Obama made no effort to fix the infrastructure in 8 years.

Democrats are blocking Trump's cabinet appointments.

 

If the democrats ever wins back the White House, they better also win a majority in the Senate.

A republican majority would be able block every appointment.

[PassedOut]

Obama made no effort to fix the infrastructure in 8 years.

Democrats are blocking Trump's cabinet appointments.

 

If the democrats ever wins back the White House, they better also win a majority in the Senate.

A lot of highways here were upgraded by the stimulus money used in 2009 and 2010 to get the economy back on track. The lift bridge here was upgraded in winter of 2014-2015.

 

The reason that none of the Trump appointments have been blocked by democrats is because of the changes to Senate rules in 2013 preventing filibusters of presidential appointments (except for appointments to the Supreme Court). The democrats changed the filibuster rule (with 3 democrats joining the republicans in voting against the change) because of the extreme blocking tactics used by McConnell and the republicans against Obama's appointments.

 

If you'll check, you'll see that the republicans do hold a 52-48 majority now, so have clear sailing on presidential appointments. The reason that Trump has fallen so far behind Obama in getting this done is his tardiness in vetting and putting forward nominees for approval.

[cherdano]

So, the Congressional Budget Office expects that AHCA would lead to 24 million more uninsured; would raise premiums by 10-15% in 2018. It would also raise deductibles. Changes is what ldrews wanted, change is what he'll get.

 

Except...I doubt many Republicans up for reelection in 2018 (and not in a safe seat) will vote for this. They really should have held the vote before the CBO report came out.

[cherdano]

P.S.: Some have said it's impossible to make suggestions for how to improve Obamacare. That is not correct. Many people have proposed a Medicare buy-in option for people aged 55 or older. This would take some of the most expensive patients out of the individual market, thus making premiums cheaper. And it would be affordable insurance for those of age 55-65 since Medicare is much more cost efficient than private insurance.

 

In fact, there was a candidate in the 2016 presidential election who supported this proposal. She lost, but I think the benefits are so overwhelming that it's still possible that at some point in the future (not 2017 or 2018, and not with Paul Ryan as speaker) Republicans will grudgingly agree that it is a good idea.

[Winstonm]

Sean Spicer today and Paul Ryan previously have both argued for market driven healthcare. I disagree.

 

Let's take a useful public need comparison - transportation. With transportation, the market provides a solution based on income levels, i.e., the wealthy can afford to drive Mercedes and own their own airplanes while the middle class can get a less costly car and lower classes get by with used clunkers and still lower classes with motorbikes, bicycles, the city bus, or their own feet. While this is not ideal for the lower classes, it has a degree of fairness if one is considering nothing but income levels.

 

But to adopt that same market-driven model to healthcare means that the city bus riders have no way to get healthcare other than city hospital emergency room charity. Medicaid, remember, is a government program. Everyone else gets to buy what they can afford from whomever is willing to provide a cheap healthcare insurance policy that covers only what the insurance company is willing to risk. The higher incomes get to buy the best policies and get the best care.

 

Here is the rub: when that used Ford driver needs an emergency appendectomy, he can't settle for cast on his arm or a box of aspirin. When healthcare is needed, it is as necessary to the poor, lower middle class, upper middle class, and the wealthy. The need is universal. Markets cannot address this equality of need combined with an inability to pay. That is because healthcare is not a commodity. Everyone has an equal need for protection.

 

And because everyone has an equal need, a basic level of healthcare should be considered a right - because it's right.

[ldrews]

So, the Congressional Budget Office expects that AHCA would lead to 24 million more uninsured; would raise premiums by 10-15% in 2018. It would also raise deductibles. Changes is what ldrews wanted, change is what he'll get.

 

Except...I doubt many Republicans up for reelection in 2018 (and not in a safe seat) will vote for this. They really should have held the vote before the CBO report came out.

 

So, the Republican plan, which is known as "Obamacare Lite", and is basically a continuation of the ACA with some modifications, is not good. Surprise, surprise! We are in a mess that appears to be unfixable.

 

How about actually fixing the health care situation. Of course that would require a consensus about what is the proper approach. Not likely to happen.

[ldrews]

Sean Spicer today and Paul Ryan previously have both argued for market driven healthcare. I disagree.

 

Let's take a useful public need comparison - transportation. With transportation, the market provides a solution based on income levels, i.e., the wealthy can afford to drive Mercedes and own their own airplanes while the middle class can get a less costly car and lower classes get by with used clunkers and still lower classes with motorbikes, bicycles, the city bus, or their own feet. While this is not ideal for the lower classes, it has a degree of fairness if one is considering nothing but income levels.

 

But to adopt that same market-driven model to healthcare means that the city bus riders have no way to get healthcare other than city hospital emergency room charity. Medicaid, remember, is a government program. Everyone else gets to buy what they can afford from whomever is willing to provide a cheap healthcare insurance policy that covers only what the insurance company is willing to risk. The higher incomes get to buy the best policies and get the best care.

 

Here is the rub: when that used Ford driver needs an emergency appendectomy, he can't settle for cast on his arm or a box of aspirin. When healthcare is needed, it is as necessary to the poor, lower middle class, upper middle class, and the wealthy. The need is universal. Markets cannot address this equality of need combined with an inability to pay. That is because healthcare is not a commodity. Everyone has an equal need for protection.

 

And because everyone has an equal need, a basic level of healthcare should be considered a right - because it's right.

 

Your entire approach is based on the assumption that health care is a "right" that the Federal government must satisfy. I strongly disagree. Not with my taxes! I have no objection to you banding together with like-minded people and providing such health care to whomever you want. Just don't require the people who do not want to join to help pay for it. And you may exclude such people from your services as well. We will wish you good luck.