Home / General / Who Knew?

Who Knew?

Comments
/
/
/
637 Views

1f54d95ee73ccc3f2c45313d4f2e5e4aaf34b2871a14bf19f9427c15d91065a5_1

The last person to understand a basic fact is of course our president.

President Donald Trump told a bipartisan group of governors at a White House reception Monday morning that GOP tax reform would have to wait for lawmakers to move on repealing Obamacare, cautioning that, “Nobody knew that health care could be so complicated.”

“I have to tell you, it’s an unbelievably complex subject,” Trump said.

OK.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Derelict

    Some variation on this has been the rightwing response to everything for the last 16 year. From Condi Rice’s “Nobody could have known of al Qaeda’s plans to attack the US” to Trump’s pronouncement today, it’s like reality comes as a complete surprise to these people on a daily basis.

    • JustRuss

      My favorite: “I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today will last five days, five weeks or five months, but it won’t last any longer than that. ”

      -Donald Rumsfeld

      Because apparently no one could have predicted that shredding the power structure of an entire country might have long-lasting consequences.

      • Dennis Orphen

        The only consequences that mattered were the consequences to the GOP backer’s bank accounts . They did very well.

      • los

        so many wars are “just picnics”.

        /!?

        • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

          IIRC, people drove out with their picnic baskets to watch the first major battle of the Civil War, which they thought would be the end of the secession.

      • CrunchyFrog

        Because apparently no one could have predicted that shredding the power structure of an entire country might have long-lasting consequences.

        Per wingnut dogma, government just gets in the way of the Galtian makers creating jobs. So, all Paul Bremer had to do was wipe out the exiting Iraqi government, slash taxes, and sit back and let the boom begin. No, really, that was his strategy. And it would have worked, too, if it weren’t for the liberal media reporting all of that bad news about crime and government services collapsing and things.

        • Rob in CT

          That the GOP wasn’t thoroughly discredited on foreign policy due to Iraq!, The Sequel is immensely frustrating.

          Some people paid a political price for that shitshow. Arguably the politician who paid the highest price was Hillary Clinton. You could maybe argue John McCain but decent chance they lose that election anyway. Some of the GOP congresscritters who lose in the ’06 and ’08 Dem waves probably have decent claims (McCain got to keep his seat, at least).

        • Domino

          One of the first things Paul Bremmer did was massively slash the tax rate in Iraq from like 40% to 15%. Problem was, almost no one paid taxes anyway, so while it was a Republican wet dream to massively slash taxes, it affected your normal Iraq citizen hardly at all.

    • ChrisS

      Who could have known that it is so much easier to lob bombs on twitter against generic government programs and responsibilities than it is to actually govern …

      The GOP, ladies and gentlemen:
      “We’re going to cut spending, fraud waste and abuse and …”
      “Well, what do we cut?”
      “Can’t cut that, or that, or those. No shit, who knew that affected so many voters?”
      “How about we just cut taxes and then force the next Congress to cut spending?”
      “Great idea, drinks at my place!”

      • Derelict

        The last political client I had (the one that made me quit doing political consulting) was a guy running for a southwest Florida school board. When I asked him what he wanted to do if he got into office, he said cut property taxes and raise teachers’ pay. Neat trick, said I. How do you propose to do that?

        “The county currently has $22 million of unused borrowing authority and . . . “

        • Dennis Orphen

          How much property in the district did he (and /or his cronies) own, and how many of his extended family (and/or cronies) were employed by the school district?

        • Domino

          So, was the plan to run up as high a tab as possible and then dash before it came due?

          • Rob in CT

            I’ll be gone, you’ll be gone. Public sector edition.

      • Shantanu Saha

        What these people don’t seem to understand is that the majority of the “fraud, waste, and abuse” are the rent payments to their most ardent supporters. No matter what, they won’t turn off that money spigot.

        • busker type

          Meanwhile… what the republican base hears is “fraud waste and abuse Of social welfare programs by people who are black, poor, disabled or otherwise undesirable

    • John F

      it’s like reality comes as a complete surprise to these people on a daily basis.

      I wouldn’t say a “daily” basis, but I get the point.

      I think a major issue they have is a tendency to drink their own koolaid to the point that many actually believe the talking points. For instance each generation of conservatives actually has adherents who honestly believe that tax cuts mean growth which means both higher tax receipts/revenue (despite said cuts) and lower expenditures (since welfare type spending will go down- higher employment & wages doncha know)- so whenever they take over a State Government (or Federal Government) and they pass tax cuts, they* are actually unpleasantly surprised when no actual growth ensues and the Government deficit surges.

      *They = the koolaid drinkers, there are others who know damn well that tax cuts help basically no one except the party funders…

      • CP

        I think it’s also the fact that there’s really no way to look the reality of right wing economics in the face without acknowledging that it’s fundamentally about greedy shits trying to hoard money when they already have more than they can count, no matter what the consequences are for anyone else.

        Most people don’t like thinking of themselves as assholes, so they have to believe for their own psychological well being that the looting they’re doing will actually accomplish the greatest good for society.

        • I think that people like the Kochs and Waltons do understand that it’s all about greedy shits trying to hoard more money than they can count, and that they are in fact greedy shits. They’re fine with it because that’s the philosophy they believe in and they are winners. I can understand that. What I don’t understand is their enablers, the likes of Paul Ryan and Rand Paul, who won’t get rich off of this but somehow find succor in taking from Tiny Tim to give to Scrooge.

          • Mike G

            Repukes without real talent know there are comfortable and relatively lucrative political careers to be made in being a slavish tool of rich people. Smash any ethical constraints or sense of self respect and you’re off and running.

          • Dennis Orphen

            I think that people like the Kochs and Waltons do understand that it’s all about greedy shits trying to hoard more money than they can count, and that they are in fact greedy shits. They’re fine with it because that’s the philosophy they believe in and they are winners.

            The philosophy is transgenerational wealth in perpetuity. All your descendants must be as relatively wealthy as the first generation of ‘winners’ no matter how many exponentially, and to the nth generation.

            • StinkinBadger

              Soooooo…..

              Feudalism?

      • Jake the antisoshul soshulist

        Are there any non Koolaid drinkers?

        Whenever I question anyone about Brownbackism in Kansas, the answer I get is that it has not had enough time to work. And that the hole Obama dug in the economy is too big.

        • Dennis Orphen

          Barack “Backhoe” Obama.

        • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

          Yes, a hole that mysteriously only affects Kansas, proof that the Obama administration was secretly destroying Kansas’ economy because he was afraid that Brownback’s success would show that Brownback was the savior of the country.

          (I live in KS and I’ve heard actual Republicans saying that, though not so much lately. While the enthusiasm for Brownback has waned, they’re looking for the next conservative savior who will do the same things with different results. Conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed.)

      • CrunchyFrog

        a tendency to drink their own koolaid to the point that many actually believe the talking points.

        I know a guy who is convinced that the solution to health insurance is to remove all regulations and let them sell across state lines. “Just like selling toasters”. I really want people like him to have their own alternate reality where they have to live under the government that they imagine would be great. Unfortunately, we share a reality so we have to live with the nasty shit he and his fellow wingnuts do, while the Democrats (until now, anyway) keep him from suffering the worst consequences of the worst policies he advocates.

    • ScottK

      The standard right-wing rhetoric implies that they can fix problems not because they have good policies, but because they can stop the Bad Dudes who have been deliberately causing the problems.

      Terrorism? Stop letting the terrorists in! Need more jobs? Stop the people who are deliberately crippling capitalism with pointless regulations. Taxes too high? Stop the people who are taking money and… burying it in holes in the ground or something, I dunno, they’re just Bad Dudes who like taxing stuff.

      They see liberals as just screwing everything up because BWA HA HA, like some kind of Ayn Rand villain.

      So when they get in charge and have to actually fix something, they’re just mystified when it turns out not to have been caused by some kind of lurking Commie.

      • John F

        The standard right-wing rhetoric implies that they can fix problems not because they have good policies, but because they can stop the Bad Dudes who have been deliberately causing the problems.

        It’s fascinating to watch (in a sickening kind of way) how similar the RW in the US is to the Maduro regime in Venezuela in that regard…

        • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

          Hm, Trump = Maduro
          Christianists = ISIS

          It’s like for every reaction, there’s an equal but not opposite reaction.

      • Mike G

        And everything can be solved by “getting tough”.
        ISIS isn’t completely destroyed? All you need is a Repuke to “get tough” instead of pansy libs who don’t want to solve the problem. Everything can be fixed by the ruthless application of violence. Not fixed yet? You weren’t ruthless enough, or maybe you’re a secret Muslim who deep down doesn’t want to destroy ISIS. It’s the mentality of psychopaths and five-year olds.

        • Dennis Orphen

          And of course hire ‘Blackwater’ on a no bid contract to perpetrate the violence.

      • FlipYrWhig

        Taxes too high? Stop the people who are taking money and… burying it in holes in the ground or something, I dunno, they’re just Bad Dudes who like taxing stuff.

        What they think the people who are taking their money are doing with it is… giving it to black people and Spanish-speakers to bribe them into voting for them. They call this “welfare,” “the liberal plantation,” and “the deficit.”

    • Joe_JP

      Some variation on this has been the rightwing response to everything for the last 16 year.

      My thought as well.

      The “who would have known” shtick was annoying b.s. then too, maybe a bit worse since we expected a bit more from the like of Condi Rice. Figure “a bit more” might seem generous to some, but yeah, I’ll say that.

      • MyNameIsZweig

        we expected a bit more from the like of Condi Rice

        Did we, though?

        • LosGatosCA

          Not me. Not anyone I knew either.

          • Joe_JP

            I predicted such comments but yes — living thru the Bush presidency myself — I and others expected “a bit” more from Rice given her education, experience and so forth et. al. than Donald Trump. And, even people on this very blog was able to point to one or two things Dubya of all people did better than Trump.

            • LosGatosCA

              That’s not even a low bar.

              And the number of material things Bush did better than Trump at this point can be counted on one hand with a couple of fingers to spare.

              But if Trump does not enforce the country having the Iraq and Katrina experiences, he has a shot at a drawing ahead of Bush. But when you throw in squandering the budget surplus with useless tax cuts, I don’t see Trump squandering a generational opportunity like Bush did.

              Trump is capable, he’s evil enough, he’s lazy, too. But I just don’t see the dedication to indifference that Bush embodied.

    • DAS

      It’s just like drivers in Queens who get confused with rain, snow, pedestrians, other drivers parallel parking, pedestrians, stop lights and any other things you might regularly encounter in this part of the country.

  • Murc

    This photoshop is a grotesque insult to President Camacho, who was an infinitely more competent, self-aware, and policy-oriented President than Trump is.

    • Sly

      Camacho at least had the wherewithal to understand that people’s shit is all emotional right now.

      • bizarroMike

        And Camacho delegated power to someone smarter than him to solve a crisis. The comparison to Trump is really unfair.

        • John F

          This…

          Part of the issue with the movie was that so many people were literally drooling idiots, and yet some were obviously of at least normal innate intelligence (President Camacho for one, whoever decided to chain Not Sure to the boulder)

          I kept expecting a variation of The Marching Morons ending to play out (like it turning out there was a secret cabal of smart people pissed off at Not Sure for staving off the mass starvation of the idiocracy…)

        • sigaba

          Camacho was legitimately an idiot. The difference is that, despite being stupid, he was ethical and wise, and when someone showed workable solutions to his problems he paid attention, and didn’t run off in a prideful huff to complain about waste, fraud and abuse; nor did he weep the Hillbilly Elegy for Brawndo.

          Intelligence, amiability and thrill-seeking aren’t wisdom, love or courage. Theoretically eugenics/dysgenics can affect the first three, it has no effect whatsoever on the second three.

          • Q.E.Dumbass

            To this effect, Cracked’s Tom Reimann has argued the film’s subtly utopian, because the residents’s stupidity is absent both malice and arrogance.

          • dogboy

            I have come to think that instead of electing an 8-time Smackdown champion, we instead elected Beef Supreme.

    • DrDick

      The same comparison between Trump and a moldy turd.

      • At least a moldy turd will eventually become fertilizer.

        • Robespierre

          Won’t we all

          • Everything’s made of shit, & we’re all dying.

            • liberalrob

              Paging Captain Bringdown…

            • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

              No shit.

          • busker type

            Trump will be interred in a marble tomb the size of an average supermarket, so… not fertilizer. NOT. EVEN. FERTILIZER.

            • DrDick

              I certainly hope it is certified for hazmat disposal. We would not want any of that leaking back out.

            • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

              If the marble tomb keeps the thing on his head imprisoned, I’m all for it.

        • e.a.foster

          a slug will also eat a mouldy turd. hey lets feed it to Trump, he looks like a slug and may not notice what he is eating.

    • Nobdy

      Don’t you mean President Camacho WILL BE infinitely more competent, self aware etc….

      At this point Idiocracy is an inspiring tale of America’s glorious resurgence after the nadir of the Trump years.

    • heckblazer

      OTOH, I believe the fact that Trump bodyslammed Vince McMahon at Wretlemania XXIII means technically the current president is a professional wrestler.

      • postmodulator

        Trump also technically is a porn star, as Camacho was.

  • JustRuss

    Ladies and gentlemen, the fucking President of the United States….

    • Hogan

      Ladies and gentlemen, the fucking President of the fucked United States

    • Nobdy

      Who is he fucking? His wife refuses to live in the same CITY he does.

      If he is out looking for pussy to grab we need to outfit him with some kind of cowbell or other alarm so women know he is entering their vicinity and can take defensive measures.

      Has the secret service ever had to protect someone else FROM the president before?

      • bizarroMike

        Q: Who is he fucking?

        A1: The ghost of Lincoln. Just when you thought the party had bottomed out…

        A2: The American people.

        A3: That chicken.

        • MurkaFkYeah

          All of them, Katie.

        • Q.E.Dumbass

          A3: Which he will then eat.

          • leftwingfox

            “The Aristocrats!”

          • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

            With a knife and a fork.

      • Warren Terra

        I’ve seen it seriously (more or less) suggested that it’s a real issue that his wife now lives hundreds of miles away and his life circumstances have greatly altered so that he cannot run around sleeping with models and starlets anymore – he’s under too much surveillance, and he can’t credibly offer to outbid the tabloids. The person making the argument basically suggested he was made especially unhappy by this change in circumstance.

        • deptfordx

          He’s an obese, 70 year old man, who takes an anti-hair loss drug that’s common side effect is sexual dysfunction.

          Good odds that Melania is untroubled at night even when they’re sharing a bed.

          Which might also explain his habit of rage tweeting in the early hours of the morning.

          • Solar System Wolf

            I’ve heard rumors that he’s also addicted to boner pills, so maybe not.

          • Warren Terra

            No-one wants to speculate about the functioning of Trump’s anatomy, and in any case nothing about a pattern of reveling in the attentions of attractive young women, or of flirting with them (for values of “flirting” that given Trump’s behavior might be rather vile) actually requires physical consummation.

          • He’s an obese, 70 year old man, who takes an anti-hair loss drug that’s common side effect is sexual dysfunction.

            Good odds that Melania is untroubled at night even when they’re sharing a bed.

            King Donald, when he waxed auld,
            An’s bluid ran thin, an’ a’ that,
            An’ fand his cods were growin’ cauld,
            Could not refrain, for a’ that.
            For a’ that an’ a’ that,
            To keep him warm an’ a’ that,
            The dochters o’ Jerusalem
            Were waled for him, an’ a’ that.

            Wha wadna pity thae sweet dames
            He fumbled at, an’ a’ that,
            An’ raised their bluid up tae the flames
            He couldna drown, for a’ that.
            For a’ that an’ a’ that,
            He wanted pith, an’ a’ that;
            For, as to what we shall not name,
            What could he do but claw that?

            • Dennis Orphen

              Robert Burns was my first guess. And only choice, I don’t know any other Scots Poets, other than maybe D.C. Thompson.

              (highlights, right clicks and googles with a trackball in one fluid motion)

              Yup.

              • Well, there’s William Dunbar, much earlier than Burs and much, much harder for me (a non-Scots speaker) to read:

                I that in heill was and gladnèss
                Am trublit now with great sickness
                And feblit with infirmitie:—
                Timor Mortis conturbat me.

                (and so on, and on…).

              • Vance Maverick

                What, no Dunbar? No MacDiarmid?

                • Warren Terra

                  No McGonagall?

  • Cheap Wino

    #StupidestPresidentEver

  • “Nobody knew that health care could be so complicated.”

    I was going to say something, but the stupidity of it all has just overwhelmed me for now. I think I’ll go sit in the corner and blow snot bubbles until my brain reboots.

    • John F

      Actually, we’ve all been imagining something dumber- Trump failing or refusing to notice/acknowledge the complexity and just blowing stuff up…

      • The administration is still young…

        • It’s still in its toddler stage. The adolescnt stage will be more fun.

          • Yeah, I can’t wait for those terrible twos.

            • FlipYrWhig

              Trump never really progressed from the I AM SO GREAT! I AM SO GREAT! EVERYBODY LOVES ME, I AM SO GREAT! stage. #bartesque

    • I guess what I find so depressing is that the revelation contained in that statement is so limited. When he says “nobody knew,” that’s what he actually means. He thinks this is knowledge that nobody, not just he, himself, possessed. And now that he know this, he’s ahead of all those other mooks, everybody else, who still don’t know this.

    • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

      If only the thoughts of the healthcare company CEOs who were there when he said that could be made public.

      Somehow I doubt it was, “Wow, we didn’t know that! Thank you, President Trump, for enlightening us.”

    • Breadbaker

      The statement is essentially true. He considers the 69 million people who voted for Hillary to be literally “nobody.”

    • Dagmar

      We just need a high tariff on health-care imports. That’ll fix it.

  • Murc

    President Donald Trump told a bipartisan group of governors at a White House reception Monday morning that GOP tax reform

    Tax reform worries me because Democrats haven’t had the balls to raise income taxes in a quarter-century and are very reluctant to raise other taxes, and so unless that changes any pruning they do is likely to be permanent.

    • Hogan

      When in the last twenty-five years would have been a good time for Democrats to do that, taking into account both economic conditions and control of government?

      • Murc

        There is never a bad time to tax capital gains the same as all other income and to really jack up rates on anyone making more than, say, a couple million a year, in my opinion. It would have been nice if our caucus weren’t riddled with traitors and traditionalists and we could have managed something like that in the first half of Obama’s first term.

        (The fact that we couldn’t muster the effort to go after the finance industry and income inequality more than we did still chaps my ass.)

        • mds

          we could have managed something like that in the first half of Obama’s first term.

          Jacking up taxes before we were recovered from a recession might not have been the best idea from a Keynesian standpoint. Maybe we could have pitched a “billionaire’s tax” or some such to target those for whom tax cuts had the least multiplier, but I don’t know how much that would have accomplished, or what sort of horse-trading would be required that would end up being counterproductive; as you note elsewhere, capital gains should be taxed the same as ordinary income. Yet Clinton’s income tax increase came at the expense of the capital gains tax rate.

          Also, it wasn’t just that our caucus was riddled with traitors and traditionalists. IIRC, the window where we actually had 60 Democrats present in the Senate, and hence even putative total control, was about four months.

          Now, one can argue that traitors and traditionalists were at fault because the filibuster wasn’t abolished in January 2009, but I don’t know if that’s what you were getting at.

          • Murc

            Maybe we could have pitched a “billionaire’s tax” or some such to target those for whom tax cuts had the least multiplier, but I don’t know how much that would have accomplished, or what sort of horse-trading would be required that would end up being counterproductive; as you note elsewhere, capital gains should be taxed the same as ordinary income.

            The fact that horse trading would have been required, with enormous Democratic majorities in both houses, for something like taxing multi-millionaires and taxing capital gains the same as regular ones says very uncharitable things about the ideological makeup of our caucus.

            Now, one can argue that traitors and traditionalists were at fault because the filibuster wasn’t abolished in January 2009, but I don’t know if that’s what you were getting at.

            That’s part of it, yes. There were far too many Senators who, when faced with the choice between “lets do some stuff” or “let’s let the Republicans trash the place, which they’ve admitted in word and demonstrated in deed they’re committed to doing,” chose the later. Because tradition! Comity!

            • FlipYrWhig

              The fact that horse trading would have been required, with enormous Democratic majorities in both houses, for something like taxing multi-millionaires and taxing capital gains the same as regular ones says very uncharitable things about the ideological makeup of our caucus.

              Among the Senators who pleaded with Obama not to let the upper-income tax cuts lapse in 2010: Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold. So maybe not so much the ideological makeup.

            • Michael Cain

              The fact that horse trading would have been required, with enormous Democratic majorities in both houses, for something like taxing multi-millionaires and taxing capital gains the same as regular ones…

              Isn’t the median member of each chamber in fact a multi-millionaire with substantial capital gains income?

              • BiloSagdiyev

                And making more year upon year in ways that, compared to other investors, indicate some level of insider intel being passed their way.

        • lunaticllama

          The ACA was financed in part by tax hikes that only hit people making a lot of money (I believe they kick in on incomes somewhere between $500K and $1 million a year.) This was a significant tax hike on upper-income earners and is one of the primary forces driving Republicans to continue to seek a way to repeal the law (and its tax hikes.)

          • Downpuppy

            $200,000 for the big one, the 3.8% surtax on investment income

            For that, they want to dismantle everything

      • njorl

        When they had control of congress and the presidency, and when there was no serious recession – so, 1993-1994.
        Looks like their 1 for 1.

        • Murc

          When they had control of congress and the presidency, and when there was no serious recession

          What’s wrong with raising taxes in a recession, especially on those who are still making seven or eight figures a year? Indeed, this would seem to be a great tool for fighting a recession; you take money from the rich and give it to the poor.

          FDR raised taxes during the Great Depression. How d’you think Social Security got started?

          • mds

            When FDR raised income taxes in 1937, he almost immediately threw the recovery off the rails.

            • Woodrowfan

              he also cut spending, which hurt more

            • BiloSagdiyev

              And you’ll never guess which political groups he was trying to appease, who were howling about deficits and big gummint and tyranny.

          • Rob in CT

            What’s wrong with raising taxes in a recession…

            It’s pro-cyclical policy. Keynes would be appalled.

            …especially on those who are still making seven or eight figures a year?

            This does make it slightly better – obviously the most stimulative tax cut possible is a tax cut for all or nearly all (e.g., the FICA tax cut 2009-2011) and the least stimulative is a cut that goes only to a few people whose consumption isn’t constrained anyway. Therefore, yes, if you are to raise taxes during a time of economic weakness, targeting a few rich people is the least worst choice.

            Re: FDR, well that was hardly the only thing he did. Also, just looking at the timeline, it looks like the taxes kicked in in 1937. Wasn’t there a bad economic setback in 1937 (which I thought was attributable to Roosevelt pulling back on deficit spending generally, not necessarily to adding a payroll tax, but…)? That actually may have been a significant factor that did economic harm.

            • sonamib

              I’d say there’s nothing wrong with raising income taxes in a recession if you commit to spending the amount you raise. Raising taxes on the rich has a low multiplier, spending money on the poor has a large multiplier, so this still nets out as a positive.

              And on top of that, you can also borrow money for a temporary stimulus!

              • Rob in CT

                Yes – the key point is that there needs to be more money in people’s pockets to spend, rather than less. If it nets out positive, fine.

                If you raised taxes on rich people and also borrowed and took all that money and spent it such that you put a bunch of unemployed people to work, yeah, that’ll do just fine.

                Even better would be straight up deficit spending (at least in times like the recent past, when borrowing costs were ridiculously low), albeit not MUCH better and you could argue that the political benefits outweigh the marginal economic benefit (if you raise taxes on the rich and spend a bunch of money employing people/building infrastructure/etc and produce prosperity, you discredit the GOP on taxes/spending… oh, fuck who am I kidding?).

                • sonamib

                  To clarify, I think it’s important to separate temporary from long-term fiscal policy. Stimulus is temporary, to get the country out of a recession. That’s why it’s fine to borrow. But raising income taxes, capital gains taxes and such (and spending more on social services) is a more long-term, “structural” change.

                  I don’t think we should forgo making structural changes just because we’re in a recession. The right certainly doesn’t do that.

                  (I think we agree, I just need to think out loud).

                • Murc

                  I don’t think we should forgo making structural changes just because we’re in a recession.

                  This. This this this. We get a bit at the apple like once every twenty, twenty-five years. Unless that changes, we have got to eventually develop a way to deal with the repairing the damage from Republicans fuckups AND push forward a robust agenda of our own simultaneously.

            • tsam

              It’s pro-cyclical policy. Keynes would be appalled.

              I’m not sure he’d be so appalled at raising the top marginal rates to fund stimulus efforts.

      • JKTH

        The one Congress they did have unified control they raised taxes via the ACA. There was also letting part of the Bush tax cuts expire when the GOP had the House.

        • Rob in CT

          Yes. And the ACA taxes are on investment income, no? Murc, rejoice!

    • jam

      It seems to me that the top rate of marginal income tax was 35% for tax year 2012 and then it was 39.6% for 2013. Is this mistaken?

      • Murc

        Letting one part of the Bush tax cuts passively expire (while at the same time locking in the other parts of them) isn’t the same as affirmatively raising them.

        • jam

          To expand on that further, what was the top marginal income tax rate 25 years ago (that’s 1992, if my math is right)?

          • Murc

            35%. Bill Clinton was the one who raised it to 39.6; Bush lowered it again.

            Having said that, Clinton also slashed capital gains taxes. There is never, ever a good reason to tax capital gains differently from other income.

            • jam

              Seems it was 31%. And as I read it, that means that Democrats did raise top income taxes in the past 25 years and did defend that rate increase (though not perfectly).

              It’s pretty easy to criticize someone for not having the balls to do something when you also don’t give them credit for having done so.

              Honestly, I have a hard time believing it would have been better to use the time between 7 July 2009 (when Franken was seated) and 4 Feb 2010 (when Brown was seated) to push tax increases rather than the Affordable Care Act.

              • lunaticllama

                The ACA, in fact, included tax hikes on high-income earners.

              • Murc

                Seems it was 31%. And as I read it, that means that Democrats did raise top income taxes in the past 25 years

                I never said they didn’t.

                Honestly, I have a hard time believing it would have been better to use the time between 7 July 2009 (when Franken was seated) and 4 Feb 2010 (when Brown was seated) to push tax increases rather than the Affordable Care Act.

                How about we expect and demand our caucus be able to walk and chew gum at the same time?

                • jam

                  I thought that was the obvious interpretation of:

                  Tax reform worries me because Democrats haven’t had the balls to raise income taxes in a quarter-century

                  And a pro-cyclical tax rate increase in 2009/2010 (with near-zero borrowing costs for the federal government) wouldn’t have been good politics and only so-so policy.

                • sonamib

                  Presumably the point would be to spend the taxes on new social programs (the US social safety network desperately needs to be strengthened), and not use them to reduce the deficit. That wouldn’t be pro-cyclical. And it’s definitely good policy : welfare isn’t funded by stimulus, it’s funded by taxes.

                • jam

                  Presumably the point would be to spend the taxes on new social programs (the US social safety network desperately needs to be strengthened)

                  Borrowing to fund new social programs would work for the short term. And the social programs themselves would seem to be more desirable than the taxes (from the perspectives of both policy and politics).

              • Thrax

                Let’s not forget that Kennedy was dying–pretty sure he was already too sick to carry out his duties by the time Franken was seated (and his replacement wasn’t put in place until September or October or so)–and no one knew that Coakley would blow the election. So let’s not Monday-morning-quarterback this too much.

                • jam

                  Kennedy was dead very shortly after Franken was seated, they had to bring Byrd (sick and frail as he was) in to break the filibuster on the ACA.

              • los

                better to use the time between

                … to restore some voting rights.
                BTW, I read that this will be one of Perez’s priorities.

            • Dave W.

              There is never, ever a good reason to tax capital gains differently from other income.

              Sure there is, although it’s been so long since we had significant inflation that many people may have forgotten. In an era of high inflation, a lot of a nominal long-term capital gain is just return of the original capital. Taxing LTCGs at a lower rate is an imperfect but administratively simple way to compensate for that. It does introduce a number of distortions into the tax incentives, though – a lot of tax shelters are attempts to turn ordinary income into LTCGs.

              • John Revolta

                Okay, that’s a good point. Personally, I feel that capital gains should be taxed MORE than regular income- but perhaps this could be indexed to inflation. Nobody knew taxes could be so complicated.

                • Rob in CT

                  That would be my plan: tax inflation-adjusted capital gains as income (and make the income tax rates more progressive).

            • e.a.foster

              It isn’t the tax rate, its all the deductibles and ways of avoiding paying taxes when your very rich. Trusts, moving money off shore, etc. Fix that and the government might take in more money and be able to afford health care for its citizens.

              Being able to use your interest on mortgages is one thing which might be eliminated as a tax deduction. All people do is use their houses/mortgages as credit cards. Then when the interest rates go up, they can’t afford their mortgagtes and/or homes. Might have been a good idea back in the day, but now, its just a waste of deductions.

      • howard

        i’m not going to double-check the numbers, but in short, yes: but the mechanics were the bush 43 tax cuts on the high end were allowed to sunset.

        the last actual democratic income tax increased was under clinton in ’93.

        in further response to hogan, you could argue that president gore might have considered an increase at the high end in conjunction with cuts at the lower end in 2001 and that would have made sense (in a world were president gore’s maintenance of focus on extra-state terrorist threats resulted in the 9/11 attack being detected in advance) then.

        but i also think dems should be pushing all the time for what right-wingers accuse them of anyhow, which is redistributing the burden of taxation upwards by raising high end rates and lowering rates and increasing the standard deduction to benefit median households.

      • Thom

        I think this leaves out the extra 3+% on investment income for those with incomes above, I think, $250k.

    • mds

      Dems allowed some of the Bush tax cuts to sunset, so there’s that. But the main problem is the catch-22. If they raise taxes enough to pay for all the nice things we could have, they’ll just be voted out again for doing it. And as we’re about to experience yet again, any temporary gains in our fiscal position will just be blown away the next time the GOP controls the White House and Congress.

      So I think an essential earlier step is Democrats having the balls to push back against the “all taxation is theft” mindset that conservatives have so successfully inculcated into the American public. I mean, we get tagged as tax-and-spend wastrels no matter what (just ask Dan Malloy), so why not start making the case more forcefully?

      • Murc

        Part of the problem is that it seems like there are, in fact, plenty of Democrats who just don’t want taxes to be too high as an actual ideological sticking point.

        • mds

          Well, but it’s often difficult to separate “I am ideologically opposed to significantly higher taxes” from “I am frightened that voters will punish me for significantly higher taxes, regardless of whether they actually pay them.” And there seems some support for holding the latter view. Which is where getting the messaging on our side somehow comes in. Change the genuine mainstream view of voters about taxation, and ideological sticking points have a way of becoming unstuck. And I mean genuine view: people may tell posters ad nauseam how much they support taxing the rich, yet actually support politicians who demagogue taxes at the polls. CT has gone from a definite Democratic legislative majority to a tied upper chamber and a six-seat edge in the lower chamber because Republicans have howled endlessly about blocking Democrats’ endless tax increases. Because they voted to raise taxes once. Insufficiently. In 2011.

          • David Allan Poe

            I think this is essentially correct. Anti-tax ideology is a very strong current in the American political ocean, and fighting it should be, IMO, near the center of left-liberal political efforts.

            It’s obvious that this nation, the richest in history, could have things like excellent health care, incomparable schools, employment for anybody who wanted it, and all sorts of other great things, if we were committed to paying for it. Reflexive anti-taxation is one of the principal emotions that drives the right-wing opposition to civilization.

        • tsam

          don’t want taxes to be too high as an actual ideological sticking point.

          Maybe more of a talking point for campaign season? I’m sure your assessment stands as well.

          It’s hard to do this when Fox looks right into the camera and says YOUR taxes are going up! Other news media seems to conveniently leave out the definition of marginal rates.

        • njorl

          We have an interesting situation with respect to taxes here. Tax hikes on the wealthy are extremely popular with the voters, but if you increase taxes on the wealthy, you will be thrown out of office by voters who believe that you raised their taxes.

        • FlipYrWhig

          And some of them are liberals staring down the barrel of a contentious reelection race, like onetime progressive hero Russ Feingold. See link above.

    • malraux

      Nit pick: the ACA raised taxes on income (FICA) on rich people. In addition, it increased taxes on unearned income. Yeah, more would be good, but still, be accurate.

    • humanoid.panda

      Shorter Murc (who is usually smarter about stuff like this): besides Clinton in 1993 and Obama in 2009,and then again in 2013, when did Democrats raise taxes?

      • Murc

        I specified income taxes in my original post, and also specified “since” 1993, which was a quarter century ago. And 2013 doesn’t fucking count; letting part of the Bush tax cuts expire while permanently ensconcing the rest of them into the tax code isn’t meaningful.

        You are gratuitously misrepresenting a qualified position on my part as an absolutist one. And that’s while completely ignoring other things, like how Clinton offset his income tax hike by slashing capital gains taxes.

        The ACA stuff is debatable; to me, that’s a little bit like how state governments levy increasingly byzantine arrangements of fees and surcharges as revenue enhancers rather than actually raising income taxes for-real.

        Basically: if we’re serious about funding a robust welfare state and serious about reducing income inequality, that’s going to require both more tax revenue and confiscatory taxation after a certain level. The Democrats have had a marked reluctance to go the mat on both fronts.

        • Hob

          If you’re going to get snippy about details of wording, it would be a good idea to avoid misquoting yourself. Your original post didn’t say “since 1993”; it said “in a quarter-century.” So it’s pretty silly to get annoyed at people for thinking you had overlooked 1993, which is within a quarter-century… and for thinking that “Democrats haven’t had the balls to raise income taxes in a quarter-century” was as absolutist a statement as it looks.

    • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

      ISTR that Obama did raise taxes- both the maximum rate went up, plus the ACA tax on high incomes.

  • mds

    “I have to tell you, it’s an unbelievably complex subject,” Trump said.

    Dear LGM BLog, I never thought this would happen to me, but … I’m actually slightly taken aback that he would admit this. To hear most of his party tell it, health care reform is easily accomplished by (1) more tax breaks for rich people; (2) selling health insurance across state lines; and (3) tort reform. So we might scoff (rightly) at President Clueless going “Duh healthcare hard duh” but what’s Paul “Wonkiest Wonk Who’s Ever Wonked” Ryan’s excuse for pretending any actual legislation would be a few bullet points on a single sheet of paper? Trump should tell Congress what he told the governors, is what I’m saying.

    • JustRuss

      I hate to say it, but that’s actually a good point. I mean, it’s a glaringly obvious observation, but it’s beyond what 99% of GOPers are willing to admit, so….yay Trump?

      • John F

        I mean, it’s a glaringly obvious observation, but it’s beyond what 99% of GOPers are willing to admit, so….yay Trump?

        He’ll state the glaringly obvious every now and then due to his ignorance of established political norms- case in point was when he said women who seek abortions should be punished- he was merely stating the glaringly obvious and logical end point of GOP efforts to criminalize abortion, which of course had the pro-Lifers in a tizzy falling all over themselves to deny that.

        • addicted44

          This is a good point. Sometimes something is so obvious that even a 4 year old would deduce it, but it’s established Republican policy to not admit it, which means they deny it. However, Trump is too stupid and/or uninterested to remember what Republican propaganda regarding an issue is, and blurts out the stuff that is obvious to his inner 8 year old.

    • los

      health care reform is easily accomplished by (1)

      tweeting about “winning the popular vote, if…”

  • Crusty

    Man, I hate both the substance of this comment, and the fact that he made it. And that brings me to a significant gripe I have about this president.

    I’m sick of the way he talks. First, its always just slightly angry. Second, it always has just a tinge of arrogance. But way more significantly, it isn’t presidential. He doesn’t seem to have grasped that when the president speaks, the world listens. His words carry weight. Businesses listen, us regular people listen, foreign leaders listen, policy analysts listen, etc. And he doesn’t grasp this, which in turn should bring about the notion that a president should speak carefully. He should have a policy or ideas about governance (yes, I realize the problem here is that he has none of his own other than self-aggrandizement) and he should speak in furtherance of those ideas. He shouldn’t be angry, he shouldn’t personalize things, he should be measured and precise. I realize this is all beyond his desires and aptitudes, but this will have the effect of lowering standards on the president, members of congress and government officials everywhere. He says stupid crap all the time- like this, like one state/two state solution, like, there are a lot of killers, our country’s so innocent? Do the rubes realize that even their beloved St. Ronnie didn’t talk like this? Hell, the near illiterate George W. Bush looks like Cicero compared to Donald, no puppet, you’re the puppet Trump.

    • Frank Wilhoit

      The nearest single-word match for what happens when Donald Trump opens his mouth is “banter”. “…the world listens”? For Trump, “the world” in your sense does not exist. He is addressing his world, who consist of a smaller and a larger concentric circle. The smaller circle is the people he deals with every day and whom he has to make an effort to impress. The larger circle is his voters; he doesn’t feel like he has to impress them, but he understands that he has to keep the banter going to keep them on side.

      In this case, however, he actually has a point. The Republican members of Congress (either house) did NOT know that health care was “complicated”. A lot of them still don’t. Others only know (as yet) that is “complicated” in a political sense, not in any other way.

    • Joe_JP

      He won doing something and doesn’t look like he’s going change much any time soon especially when “smart people” told him he wouldn’t win because of his inabilities. Changing would in effect say they were right. Small men don’t do that.

      Reagan, Bush, Obama etc. from what I can tell didn’t change much in this fashion when they became President either. This hits to why it was so horrible to contemplate Trump winning.

    • I haven’t been able to put it into words, but this.

      GWB could be pretty annoying though.

    • Colin Day

      Here’s a scary thought: What if the American people want a President who speaks like Trump? It’s not as though he didn’t speak that way during the campaign.

    • John Revolta

      the way he talks. First, its always just slightly angry. Second, it always has just a tinge of arrogance.

      It’s almost as if the guy was born and raised in New Yawk fuckin’ City!

      (Full disclosure: I lived in NYC for 22 years. You gotta problem witdat?)

    • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

      As the saying goes, when you only have a hammer . . .

      Trump only has BS, that’s his only tool. He’s so disinterested in even what he’s saying when he’s talking, so he can’t finish most sentences and keeps uttering random phrases that he thinks might “close the deal” with whatever audience he’s talking to at the moment.

  • He is the epitome of white supremacy.

    • John not McCain

      He is undeniable proof that straight white men are playing life on the “so easy the game practically plays itself” setting.

      • Trump wants infinite Attaboys for watching the demo.

      • humanoid.panda

        He is undeniable proof that straight white men are playing life on the “so easy the game practically plays itself” setting.

        White men born to rich real estate developers, yes. But you know, that’s a fairly negiligible proportion of white men.

          • Warren Terra

            Yes, though it’s fair to note that Scalzi grew up as a scholarship student sometimes receiving food stamps. Scalzi is making a very good point about difficulty and advantage but isn’t saying “the game practically plays itself” or that rich-vs-poor isn’t also relevant.

          • John F

            I thought it was a decent piece (though I don’t think it’s an effective way to reach blokes who simply do not believe minorities have an advantage due to affirmative action/special rights etc).

            I also disagree with him on his follow up post, where he says:

            3. Your description should have put wealth/class as part of the difficulty setting.

            Nope. Money and class are both hugely important and can definitely compensate for quite a lot, which I have of course noted in the entry itself. But they belong in the stats category because wealth and class are not an inherent part of one’s personal nature

            There’s a tendency of some on the left to think class overrides everything, and for some others to think race overrides everything…

            I think being born white to a hedge fund manager in NYC is fundamentally different enough to being born white to two meth heads in Appalachia that we are in fact talking about a different difficulty setting.

            • David Allan Poe

              Obviously the hedge-funder’s son starts with nearly infinite advantages over the methheads’ son, and in fact the son of a black hedge fund manager will have many of those same advantages as well. No one disputes this.

              But there is a whole host of things that the black child of a hedge-fund manager will have to deal with throughout his life that the methhead kid won’t, merely because of the color of his skin, and that he would have to deal with whether he was the son of a dirt farmer or a doctor.

              The comparison doesn’t mean “All white people have it equally easy.” It means that being a person of color adds another layer of difficulty to whatever strengths and weaknesses any given person started out with.

              As for this:

              I don’t think it’s an effective way to reach blokes who simply do not believe minorities have an advantage due to affirmative action/special rights etc

              all I can say is that, having been surrounded by them my whole life, those people are basically unreachable anyway. It takes actual life experience to draw people out of bigotry, not arguments. I don’t believe catering to bigots is an effective use of resources.

              • Lurking Canadian

                But there is a whole host of things that the black child of a hedge-fund manager will have to deal with throughout his life that the methhead kid won’t, merely because of the color of his skin, and that he would have to deal with whether he was the son of a dirt farmer or a doctor.

                But there are also a whole host of things the methheads’ kid will have to deal with that the black hedge fund kid won’t. Hedge fund kid doesnMt have to worry about bad developmental nutrition, shitty schools, no doctor, can’t afford tuition…I don’t think it’s obvious who has it better. All else equal. the white kid has it better. On average, randomly selected white kid is definitely likely to have it better than randomly selected black kid.

                But basically this is intersectionality, isn’t it? Being black leads to disadvantage. Being poor leads to disadvantage. Being black and poor leads to more than the sum of the disadvantages. But black and rich vs white and poor? That’s oppression olympics, right?

                • David Allan Poe

                  But there are also a whole host of things the methheads’ kid will have to deal with that the black hedge fund kid won’t.

                  Yeah, I said that in the first paragraph, that nobody disputes there are plenty of advantages to being rich, whatever your color.

                  Another way to put it is that class can change or be disguised. That poor Kentucky kid can move to Chicago, do well for himself, and transform himself in the eyes of society. Hell, he can go anywhere in America with clean clothes and a halfway presentable appearance and be taken pretty much as an equal by just about everybody. The black kid will always be Black, everywhere he goes. It’s independent of any other peculiarity of his life.

                  I don’t really think it’s some kind of contest, just that a lot of white people have a hard time acknowledging or fully comprehending it. I know I did.

        • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

          I believe it was Jack Chalker who had a character in a book say that he discovered he was right, the world was run by white men, but unfortunately he wasn’t going to be one of those men.

      • Lit3Bolt

        “I just like playing the Game of Life for the story, but everyone else should play on Hardcore No-Save mode to prove they appreciate the game.”

        – Republicans

  • Rob in CT

    Christ, what an asshole.

  • Aaron Morrow

    Across the world, writers are dusting off their “Nobody Could Have Predicted” macros.

  • NewishLawyer

    Semi-OT but it looks like Trump’s proposed budget is going to be a Reagan-esque budget of lots of military spending and cuts for everything else.

    I heard the 1980s were coming back this year but this is absurd….

    • Crusty

      I wonder if this is the chicken or the egg in terms of Trump being surrounded by lots and lots of former military. That might be a factor, but more military spending and cuts for everything else is also just a dimwitted doofus move that is bound to be lapped up by his base, including the man I saw in the grocery store on Friday night wearing a sweatshirt that said Donald Trump, President of the United States, had the date of the inauguration and some presidential seal. That guy gets to vote just like the rest of us.

      • NewishLawyer

        Hard to say with Trump and in the end irrelevant except for the fact that you said it will be lapped up by his base and others who don’t pay attention to policy and budget that will.

        I don’t know if the left can or should learn anything from the GOP playbook on these. Not in a move to the right kind of way but in a how does the GOP just get away with this kind of stuff again and again? What tactics can we learn to get the budgets we want?

        • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

          First, we get a TV network and AM talk shows across the country and indoctrinate people for a couple of decades. Coordinate what we say with our political party so the phrasing is almost seamless.

          Second, we start a bunch of non-profits, PACs, and political groups to pass out lots of cash to candidates at the local and state level, in addition to the federal level. Do that for about 50 years.

          • NewishLawyer

            So I’ll be 86 by the time things work out.

            Great!

      • randy khan

        It’s always surprised me how little top generals (and, often, the Pentagon bureaucracy generally) want to increase military spending. They’ve often had to fight against Congress about things like appropriations for weapons they don’t want, for instance, and the military generally has been fine with BRAC.

        • busker type

          Yeah… it’s almost as if career military officers are pragmatists (with exceptions) and not one-note ideologues.

      • Redwood Rhiadra

        He’s been promising to increase military spending (to keep America “safe”) from the very beginning. *Somebody’s* got to carry out his campaign promises to bomb Iran and ISIS, and it’s not the Social Security Administration.

        Not to mention “at gunpoint” is probably how Mexico pays for The Wall.

    • bender

      Oh dear, I threw out all my shoulder pads.

    • addicted44

      But Trump would be way better than Killary in reducing Foreign Interventions, because he Once claimed that he was against the Iraq War and BENGHAZI.

    • JKTH

      At least Trump isn’t a hack and slash Republican like Paul Ryan.

    • Dennis Orphen

      National Defense (and it’s brother law enforcement) are Pillars of a Kleptocracy. So easy to give n0thing for $omething, and transparency and accountability (pillars of Liberal Democratic Republics) go out the window, cuz national $ecurity, etc….

  • Joe_JP

    Trump supporter: well, you know, I didn’t take him literally. But, see, he understands complexity. Just give him a chance. He’s learning!

    • JR in WV

      Just wait until a Jewish Community Center really gets attacked, because all the vandalism and threats got no attention from “Who knew how complicated…” Trump.

      And then “Who knew how complicated…” Trump discovers that there were Christians and Muslims and so forth at the gym in the Jewish Community Center. Who knew the whole community used the Community Center?

  • Caepan

    Trump: “Hey, who’da thought that water was wet?”

    Followed by Kellyanne Conway claiming that there are many scienticians that say that water is really dry, but the liberal media won’t give them a platform.

    • Crusty

      Of course we all remember when the Atlantic Ocean dried up back from 73-74.

      • los

        alternatively arid

      • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

        After a terrorist attack.

        • Breadbaker

          The failing New York Times didn’t even report on it.

    • tsam

      IT’S CALLED ICE, LIBTARD. LOOK IT UP

      • Warren Terra

        What with climate change, may have to look “ocean ice” up.

      • Caepan

        Though I will always be a kind and generous enough libtard to offer a piece of dry ice to a Trump supporter, in the hope that they would pop it in their mouth.

        • tsam

          It’s just rock candy, but it’s vaping.

        • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

          Man, that’s just cold.

  • CP

    “I have to tell you, it’s an unbelievably complex subject,” Trump said.

    Ah, Donald Trump, the latest in a long line of twits born with a silver spoon in his mouth who discovers to his astonishment that all the problems that these grey, dour, boring, unglamorous bureaucrats in their cubicles have to deal with for a living are actually really hard work you guys.

    • Dagmar

      Really, you mean you have to shop for health insurance? I thought you just got it for free when you started working for your Daddy’s corporation.

  • tsam
    • Dennis Orphen

      Nice catch, Telegram. Watch it get shoved so far down the memory hole it pokes out in China.

    • Lurking Canadian

      Christ, what a fucking gong show.

      • Dennis Orphen

        Orange Fool-You-Ius ought to do a full on ‘Unknown President’ schtick, complete with a bag on his head.

    • los

      //
      A bit of info on urls. When not a search url, usually anything after the question mark is tracking junk. This is removable:
      ?sr=fbCNN022717fox-news-guest-sweden-bill-oreilly0731PMStoryLink&linkId=34939764
      //

    • los

      Bill O’Reilly has acknowledged that his show erred

      a retraction on faux! that’s impressive. the altcucks’ “fake news” fad may have instilled a little wariness in fauxnews.

  • randy khan

    While this is appalling, it’s also kind of encouraging in the sense that, if he’s figured out that it’s complicated, he might decide it’s too much effort to do anything.

    • tsam

      I think this is a signal that he’s going to leave it to Congress to figure it out. I don’t know what that means in the long run, probably the same as his incompetent ass putting together what he thinks is a plan and then getting into a fistfight with Congress because not enough people are going to lose their insurance to satisfy the Freedom Caucus.

      • randy khan

        At the moment, Congress (or, I should say, the Republican caucus) doesn’t seem to have a clue, either. I wonder how many of them are hearing from governors telling them how big a hole killing off the Medicaid expansion would blow in state budgets.

        • tsam

          I truly wonder how long it will be before the right wing media starts to get mad about it. Then the legions of dumbfucks won’t be getting that $30k tax cut they were promised when government run health care went away.

          • los

            randy khan says:

            too much effort to do anything

            I don’t think Bannon, Kushner, or Putin care much about ACA – dead or alive.

            tsam says:

            he’s going to leave it to Congress to figure it out

            yeah, I interpret Trump’s comment as officially tossing the hot potato into GOPe hands, “(ssssttss) ouch”.

            tsam says:

            wonder how long it will be before the right wing media starts to get mad about it.

            I expect the RWNJ MSM to go mute on the healthcare topic.

            • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

              What’s the over/under before Republicans start to say, “Obamacare- I’ve never heard of that word.”

    • LosGatosCA

      This what it means:

      McConnell: Republican Agenda ‘Is Exactly The Same As The Trump Agenda’

      In other words, we’ll pass it and he’ll sign it and unless you’re in the top 1% you are completely fucked – as designed.

      • los

        but now Republicans won’t neglect to keep aca running correctly.
        Maybe they’ll name it “romneycare”? No, probably they won’t.

      • Chetsky

        Is it just me, or do others also want every R to explicitly sign onto that pledge? Just so they’re all on the record?

  • LosGatosCA

    When I first read it I thought it said who knew HAIR care could be so complicated.

    Anyway, I’m sure everything is hurting his head right now.

  • los

    that lgm image http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/1f54d95ee73ccc3f2c45313d4f2e5e4aaf34b2871a14bf19f9427c15d91065a5_1.jpeg looks like the “gamer” image that i think roger stone first used (most likely the image was actually created by graphics-knowleadgeable hire or volunteer, since Stone seems like somebody who doesn’t have computing skills)

    • los

      (graphics-knowledgeable)

  • e.a.foster

    That is so funny. In more than one way.

    It may take a very long time for there to be changes to the American tax code. Changing/eliminating the ACA is going to be a long drawn out affair. It may be that not only those who benefit from the ACA are people who now have insurance, its for profit hospitals and civic governments.

    PBS had a lovely segment on Monday evening about the “benefits” of the ACA and people having insurance. Cook Country hospital is saving $300M because people have insurance. Many hospitals non profit and for profit made changes which cost money based on the ACA. One hospital corporation was clear they would have problems if they eliminated the ACA. Some of those Republican senators may have second thoughts about repealing the ACA. Some have to face voters next year. Some who may oppose them may be corporations who also benefit from the ACA. this ought to be good.

    Lets hope Trump meets the same problem when he decides to spend another $50 billion on killing people, some where in the world, but won’t spend it on making people’s lives better. Those in the rust belt may not be seeing any improvement in their lives and 4 years go by quickly.

    For some of us, this is ever so entertaining.

  • Richard Gadsden

    My response was simple.

    Healthcare is simple. Raise enough money in taxes, pay for all the healthcare everyone needs. #NHS https://t.co/wGTf8gmuYf— Richard Gadsden (@po8crg) February 28, 2017

It is main inner container footer text