From Laurie:
Based on my reading the past few days it seems the following could be on the GOP / Trump agenda:
Back to what I see as the Trump/ GOP legislative agenda, pretend my list is actually what they intend to do, which parts of this agenda would you object to, if any?
Right now I am still anticipating Trump will be every bit as horrendous as president that I have predicted, and worse (what adjective is worse than horrendous?)"
Based on my reading the past few days it seems the following could be on the GOP / Trump agenda:
- repeal the affordable care act
- privatize medicare
- slash SS benefits
- gut environmental regulation
- pull out of climate agreement and attack scientists who help to create it
- sell off public lands
- start to privatise education
Back to what I see as the Trump/ GOP legislative agenda, pretend my list is actually what they intend to do, which parts of this agenda would you object to, if any?
Right now I am still anticipating Trump will be every bit as horrendous as president that I have predicted, and worse (what adjective is worse than horrendous?)"
11 comments:
From an Anon:
What adjective is worse than horrendous? Clintonesque
Path to Properity
Forbes Privatize Medicare
Paul Ryan A Better Way
Unfortunately I think I am doomed as an unrepentant capitalist...
There are a lot of details missing, but overall "A Better Way" makes sense to me. Especially compared to the Democrats plan of Americans continuing to have more and more of their money taken, just so the politicians and bureaucrats can determine how much to keep, how much to distribute, who it should be distributed to, and when they should get it.
Now if communal living was a good thing, I would think more of us would join a commune. The reality is that most of us realize that we are individuals, with our own preferences, passions and desires for control. That is likely why communes are not ever mentioned in America. Well except for that crazy cult type.
So let's prevent the USA from turning into a crazy cult type commune.
Laurie,
To answer your question, I disagree with pulling out of the Climate agreement. I was a Boy Scout and believe in the old "leave it nicer than you found it" policy. I agree that humans using 94 million barrels a day of oil can not be good for the Earth. That is a WHOLE LOT of campfires... And potential / stored energy being turned into kinetic / heat energy...
Selling public lands... We probably should not sell the National Parks. But does the government really need to own this much land? Especially when they are carrying $20 TRILLION in debt?
As for changing healthcare, social security, education, welfare, deporting ILLEGAL aliens, trade deals, etc. I am interested to see what they have in mind.
The current policies seem to be heading us in the wrong direction.
- healthcare costs keep going up
- social security, medicare, SS Disability are all on a path to wiping out their trust funds
- single parent families just keep increasing, which leads to more challenged/ challenging/ poor kids
- low end jobs don't pay enough in part because we have ~11 million illegal worker undercutting American citizens.
Change may bring better results. Of course it could also bring Armageddon... Time will tell. :-)
One last thought.
People tend to think harder before taking actions if they know that they will bear the negative consequences that occur if they screw up.
The Democrats seem to want the tax payers to bear everyone's negative consequences for them. Unfortunately many people now understand that and it is promoting their irresponsible behavior. And if not promoting, it is definitely lessening their fear of the risk.
If I sleep around, I may get pregnant... Well I'll get financial help.
If I spend and have fun instead of work hard, save, invest. Unemployment, food stamps, etc will get me by. Or SS / Medicare will take care of me.
Just to name 2 of them. A safety net is meant to catch you if you fall and spring you back into the working world. Not supposed to be a crutch that enables poor choices.
Laurie, can I reassure you any? I think your fears arise entirely from "your place in the theater." From where I sit and aside from the alarmist language you use, I see nothing but good things there. And let me be specific, since I have a little time:
--"repeal the affordable care act" Absolutely. It is anything but affordable, and the number of people "covered" by new insurance is barely more than the number who lost insurance because of the new rules. It's unaffordable and needs to be repealed. Everything else can be done at less cost and intrusion.
--"privatize medicare" [Trump is resistant but] Since the Medicare trust fund is essentially broke, government would do well to turn that into a "premium support" program where people could buy insurance on the private market, subsidized by federal cash and without all the mandates and price controls. Just like ACA, getting government out would reduce costs all around. Same with Medicaid by the way, and that could and should be done sooner as part of ACA replacement.
--"slash SS benefits"-- Actually, Trump is resisting what is necessary, here, which is to convert SS, over the next 40 years, to a system of private, tax-free accounts. Nobody loses a penny they were promised, which is what will happen if SS is NOT fixed in this way.
--"gut environmental regulation"-- I don't believe it for a minute. Both Trump and his EPA designate have said they are going to insist on "clean air and clean water." Everything else the EPA does has to show some cost-benefit analysis or it gets yanked; there seems little doubt that Obama's EPA is guilty of a vast and unnecessary overreach. And I am very pleased with the extremely thorough and business-like approach of Trump's DOE transition team, asking some 65 very detailed and knowledgeable questions of the current DOE. Nothing radical in there whatsoever.
--"pull out of climate agreement and attack scientists who help to create it" Well, sorry to disappoint you, but the climate agreement was put together by politicians, not scientists, and the underlying science simply does not support doing ANYTHING. I've proposed taking the money the government now spends on worthless "climate change" and spending it on the National Parks.
--"sell off public lands"-- I don't expect much of that. What I do expect (and generally expected or already announced) is that there will be a lot more "multi use" of the public lands, (except for the Parks) as was originally intended by law, rather than locking these areas away in some pristine state forbidden to humans.
--"start to privatise education"-- This one I know worries you but let me ask: does it really matter to you for whom you work? If you are getting paid better, have better supplies and facilities, have more control of your work process and the kids that come to you are better able to learn what you can teach them? To me the important result in public education is the education of the public, and nothing in that requires it to be done in government buildings by government employees, managed by a government bureaucracy.
On a lighter note ...
MSN also had some that pick on others...
Nope, nothing to be worried about.
China Warns Trump With Nuclear Fly-by
CIA Judgment on Russia Built on Swell of Evidence
Potential SoS Nominee Tillerson has an SEC Problem
Sorry, Sean, but I think this "SEC problem" is, as you (no doubt sarcastically) say, "nothing to be worried about." It is all predicated on the notion that government is going to force fossil fuel companies to keep their reserves in the ground rather than sell them, which in turn is predicated on the notion that we are headed for a man-made global warming catastrophe. So the "SEC problem" is a conclusion based on an entirely false premise.
Post a Comment