Donald Trump 2018

[SmokeyTheBear 5569]

Another day of him going off the rails. Can we have another infrastructure week already?!?!

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

10 hours ago, Message Board User said:

 

Women voted 4% more than men last election (self reported).   That scales to 52.8 to 41.2 total. 

[Pescado_Rojo 19452]

8 hours ago, bolverk said:

I guess here is where we come to a fundamental difference between you and me. I choose the annoying do-gooder trying to save lives. You choose to go smile and nod at the homeless lunatic who's hoping to stab them to death.

If the lunatic suggested the mama frog should be able to choose whether to have tadpoles or not, he wouldn't talk to him, either. 

[TahoeHorn 107]

2 hours ago, Grade of D as in David said:

To quote your orange god "wrong"

The GOP couldn't muster 63M votes in the 2016 general election, and even if they had gotten to 65M they would have still lost the popular vote by almost 1M votes.

Some of the people on the team didn't vote for Trump..  Actually a lot.  I was one. 

And some people not on the team did vote for Trump.  Actually a lot. Our GOP headquarters had Trump people show up who wanted to work there and tell everybody how great Trump was and how much the rest of the GOP sucked.

65MM is obviously a crude guess of people leaning GOP.

And I'm curious how you could think that I believe Trump is a god.

Edited May 8, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[SizzleChest 8284]

2 hours ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Another day of him going off the rails. Can we have another infrastructure week already?!?!

[SameSame 1707]

11 hours ago, Aqua Buddha said:

This is why I will never for as long as I breathe vote for the right again.  Not as long as they are aligned with these people.  And not that I auto vote left, the left has a shitload of problems themselves, but nothing bothers me more than the hypocritical religious folk who hide behind their bullshit and always act as if they're on a higher plane where reason doesn't matter, because you know that's the way God wants it and he told them personally.

[GSU&UT 1798]

#MAGA!!! I sure hope those olds have bootstraps they can pull themselves up by

 

The GOP is a fucking terrorist organization at this point

[SquishMitten 10451]

13 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

I believe the children are our future

teach them well and let them lead the way

They said that when I was a kid, too. Then I grew up, and now they're saying it's actually these new children.

I know a Ponzi scheme when I see one.

[SquishMitten 10451]

12 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

If he says "we'll see" one more time...

[Fozzz 152]

9 hours ago, bolverk said:

I'm pretty sure George Will, David Brooks, Bill Kristol, and even Krauthammer have been vocal in their rejection of Trumpism. Sure, they can all be partisan hacks to a certain extent, but they have all publicly decried Donald Trump.

What exactly is “Trumpism”?  Is it just the way he behaves?  W wasn’t always charming either.  When he mocked Karla Faye Tucker’s execution to Tucker Carlson, was that Trumpism? 

[retread 2951]

 

 

Edited May 8, 2018 by retread

[hayden_horn 11365]

it's like they are actively trying to do harm to the country. it's the strangest behavior

[NameAlreadyInUse 5132]

Tahoe Well, we like kids to have lunches and old people to have nursing homes, we just can't afford it.  Maybe we can in the future, but for right now, we shouldn't be spending money on that.  /Tahoe

[retread 2951]

But those tax cuts tho!

[Loco 3754]

Yeah and the White House is looking to remove $7 Billion from Children's health Services...   nice

[bolverk 29766]

 

59 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

What exactly is “Trumpism”?  Is it just the way he behaves?  W wasn’t always charming either.  When he mocked Karla Faye Tucker’s execution to Tucker Carlson, was that Trumpism? 

This is how I defined it on the previous page last night in an earlier post.

Quote

Trumpism isn't about being more conservative; it's a philosophy based on magical thinking with a bad attitude: intentional ignorance, brash b ullying, fantastical nostalgia, anti-intellectualism, and rabid populism.

I'd probably add in a few dashes of selfish greed as well.

[Hank Scorpio 17731]

One thing is for sure, cutting taxes for the uber wealthy, slashing social safety net programs, rabid hard-line immigration policies, and going to war with Iran are NOT and HAVE NOT ever been a part of the mainstream Republican platform. This is all new and comes from Trump because he is not a Republican. The GOP never advocated such extreme positions before Trump. Yep. All Trump. 

[Fozzz 152]

Outside of a populism that has failed to materialize in his admin, those seem like personality traits or things conservatives are already known for. Hell, they certainly do populism as well just not as effectively as he does. Really, the only thing beyond personality that distinguishes him from your typical never-Trumper is trade. 

[TornACL 7733]

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

What exactly is “Trumpism”?  Is it just the way he behaves?  W wasn’t always charming either.  When he mocked Karla Faye Tucker’s execution to Tucker Carlson, was that Trumpism? 

Trumpism is a rejection of intellectual curiosity and embraces the ignorant notion that being mean is being tough. And that being tough is brave. The only thing W had in common with Trumpism is his tendency to shoot from the hip and make gut decisions without facts. I think that was part of W's personality, while Trump does it because he simply has no interest in facts. It's much easier to just make a decision and then craft "facts" to deal with any opposition. Along with calling people childish names, of course.

It's pretty tone-deaf to think that this is about charm.

[BrickHorn 18298]

1 hour ago, GSU&UT said:

#MAGA!!! I sure hope those olds have bootstraps they can pull themselves up by

 

The GOP is a fucking terrorist organization at this point

Bodies in trees!

[retread 2951]

6 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

One thing is for sure, cutting taxes for the uber wealthy, slashing social safety net programs, rabid hard-line immigration policies, and going to war with Iran are NOT and HAVE NOT ever been a part of the mainstream Republican platform. This is all new and comes from Trump because he is not a Republican. The GOP never advocated such extreme positions before Trump. Yep. All Trump. 

Based on their recent performance, I'm not sure that exonerates them. They've never vocally advocated those things on the campaign trail, but their complicity with those policies suggests that they are pretty comfortable with them happening. Whatever it takes to acquire and maintain raw power. Really interesting to watch.

[Brisketexan 105478]

There was a time that the GOP espoused policies that were contrary to public largesse, etc. But the rationale and support was always based on a different take on what truly benefited the greater good. Remember Marvin Olasky and Compassionate Conservatism? (And yes, I know there were strong counterarguments).

Now, the rationale is “fuck you, suck it libs!” Full stop. There is open contempt for vast swaths of our population. There is naked “I got mine - and I’m getting more through shameless corruption and self dealing - tough shit! You shoulda figured out how to rip off the system!” It revels in cruelty and causing suffering. It takes pleasure in it.

Bill Maher said several months ago that the current GOP process seems to consist of just one question - “what would a dick do?” Then do that.

Naked corruption. Cruelty and contempt for everyone who doesn’t follow their mold/party line. Celebrating ignorance and demonizing knowledge and objective truth. What a platform.

[Biff Tannen 45751]

NYT reporting we are pulling out of Iran deal

[BrickHorn 18298]

1 hour ago, SameSame said:

This is why I will never for as long as I breathe vote for the right again.  Not as long as they are aligned with these people.  And not that I auto vote left, the left has a shitload of problems themselves, but nothing bothers me more than the hypocritical religious folk who hide behind their bullshit and always act as if they're on a higher plane where reason doesn't matter, because you know that's the way God wants it and he told them personally.

Religious belief is no different than love. It’s an emotion that encourages behavior that a purely rational actor would otherwise not engage in.  In the case of love, we care for our spouse and our young despite the sacrifices to our self-interest necessary to do so.  This behavior benefits our genes, so our genes carry it forward.

Same with religion.  It’s a short cut around logic and reason.  It’s a way to keep clans or tribes unified against enemies, even when logic screams “Hey, the other guy is right!”  In our modern world, such instincts are largely counterproductive.  

[Lagunamadre 1975]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

NYT reporting we are pulling out of Iran deal

But of course we are. Every intelligent observer warns of the dire consequences of pulling out. Trump's not going to do what those educated pussies advise. 

[Fozzz 152]

Trump’s not the only one that wants out of the JCPOA.  Whole think tanks have been formed in the effort to kill Iranians en masse. 

[kevwun 15938]

A war with Iran will make us remember Vietnam fondly.  I guess the midterm prospects for Republicans weren't quite terrible enough. 

Edited May 8, 2018 by kevwun

[achooloco 1086]

33 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I'd probably add in a few dashes of selfish greed   "i'm not racist" racism as well.

fify.

[Fozzz 152]

Is the US going to sanction the European countries that continue to business with Iran?  That would be insane, but then again, here we are. 

Edited May 8, 2018 by Fozzz

[Ghost of LL 15559]

6 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Outside of a populism that has failed to materialize in his admin, those seem like personality traits or things conservatives are already known for. Hell, they certainly do populism as well just not as effectively as he does. Really, the only thing beyond personality that distinguishes him from your typical never-Trumper is trade. 

I don't think I agree with this.  

I say this as a former conservative myself--and I say "former" only because I don't think conservatism in any coherent form exists anymore--conservatives never adhered to the nihilism that  distinguishes Trumpism.  And I think it is rooted in the newfound and astonishing rapaciousness of many of the very rich in this country.  That's a new development; it's a characteristic unique to the baby-boomer generation.  This concept of "I'm going to get everything I can and fuck everyone else"--we haven't seen that before.

It used to be that there was a sense of noblesse oblige among the insanely rich.  Sure--to some degree it was patronizing and patriarchal.  But at the same time, it resulted in private philanthropy that built hospitals and schools.  It resulted in a governmental structure that funded the government from the people with sufficient funds for the purpose.  There's still some of that around with people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, but they're outnumbered now by the likes of the Mercers and most of the Waltons.

And I'm not going to tell you that it was purely a noblesse oblige brought of altruism.  It came from a peculiarly American idea that people of merit could rise above the station of their birth through talent and hard work.  And that through the rise of such people, the entire society is benefited--especially the rich who might benefit from their talent and hard work in the course of their rise.  

That sense informed conservatism for more than a century.  Conservatives supported policies that encouraged work and furthered a meritocracy, and they disapproved of policies that disincentivized work (e.g., certain welfare programs) and undermined merit-based advancement (e.g., certain affirmative-action programs).  Yeah--there was the support of "liberty" that is peculiar to that class that has the time and money to enjoy the fruits of "liberty" if the government would just ignore your eccentric behavior.  And yeah--there was a loathing of anything that had the whiff of socialism.  But there was also a recognition that society had to be governed by certain norms, and that the poor needed a hand up from the government in order to be in a position to advance (though programs such as public education).

What's unique and different about Trumpism is that all of that is gone.  It has been replaced with a morality of absolute solipsism among our upper class.  Steal everything you can now before you die, because who cares what happens after that?  And to get away with that, they have imbued the society with a sort of nihilism that tells people that nothing is really true; nothing is really right; nothing is really false; nothing is really wrong; nothing is really real.

And ultimately, there is a real and abiding loathing of the poor.  Real, deep-seeded hatred.  I don't get it.  I'll never understand it.  But it's there.

And somehow, notwithstanding that, they've gotten people who they would regard as "poor" to adopt their nihilism, to their own detriment.  So yeah--cancel all the programs that keep you from crippling poverty, all so that a rich guy in Manhattan can have a few million more.  And don't worry about the debt--that rich guy will be dead long before it's a real problem.

Yeah--none of that is consistent with conservatism; at least not the conservatism I grew up with under Reagan and Bush.  It's more the conservatism of the early 20th Century Russian aristocracy.

[Mapache 1117]

Trump quietly proposes slashing billions from children’s health care

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-quietly-proposes-slashing-billions-from-childrens-health-care-86300b9989c6/

Because ...we need to figure out a way to fuck over those poor sick kids

This is Trump's response to a deficit he exploded with massive corporate tax cuts. 

The Trump administration is set to ask Congress to claw back $15 billion in federal spending. If passed, it would be the largest “rescission” package passed in American history. 

Nearly half of the cuts — roughly $7 billion — would come from the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), a program many low-income families depend on for coverage. The White House claims the cuts will not have an impact on the program, which currently has an enrollment of about 9 million. 

The administration, however, doesn’t appear to believe their own talking point. Notably absent from White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ explainer on the rescission package is any mention of the CHIP cuts. 

Once the White House requests the cuts, Congress will have 45 days to act before it expires. During that time, the funding is automatically frozen. The package only requires a simple majority to pass..

Edited May 8, 2018 by Mapache

[Homercles 10206]

Yeah and the White House is looking to remove $7 Billion from Children's health Services...   nice

“No one is tougher on kids. Ask anybody. That was a bad deal. Obama let those kids walk all over us, feeding and changing those little boys and girls.”

[hayden_horn 11365]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't think I agree with this.  

I say this as a former conservative myself--and I say "former" only because I don't think conservatism in any coherent form exists anymore--conservatives never adhered to the nihilism that  distinguishes Trumpism.  And I think it is rooted in the newfound and astonishing rapaciousness of many of the very rich in this country.  That's a new development; it's a characteristic unique to the baby-boomer generation.  This concept of "I'm going to get everything I can and fuck everyone else"--we haven't seen that before.

It used to be that there was a sense of noblesse oblige among the insanely rich.  Sure--to some degree it was patronizing and patriarchal.  But at the same time, it resulted in private philanthropy that built hospitals and schools.  It resulted in a governmental structure that funded the government from the people with sufficient funds for the purpose.  There's still some of that around with people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, but they're outnumbered now by the likes of the Mercers and most of the Waltons.

And I'm not going to tell you that it was purely a noblesse oblige brought of altruism.  It came from a peculiarly American idea that people of merit could rise above the station of their birth through talent and hard work.  And that through the rise of such people, the entire society is benefited--especially the rich who might benefit from their talent and hard work in the course of their rise.  

That sense informed conservatism for more than a century.  Conservatives supported policies that encouraged work and furthered a meritocracy, and they disapproved of policies that disincentivized work (e.g., certain welfare programs) and undermined merit-based advancement (e.g., certain affirmative-action programs).  Yeah--there was the support of "liberty" that is peculiar to that class that has the time and money to enjoy the fruits of "liberty" if the government would just ignore your eccentric behavior.  And yeah--there was a loathing of anything that had the whiff of socialism.  But there was also a recognition that society had to be governed by certain norms, and that the poor needed a hand up from the government in order to be in a position to advance (though programs such as public education).

What's unique and different about Trumpism is that all of that is gone.  It has been replaced with a morality of absolute solipsism among our upper class.  Steal everything you can now before you die, because who cares what happens after that?  And to get away with that, they have imbued the society with a sort of nihilism that tells people that nothing is really true; nothing is really right; nothing is really false; nothing is really wrong; nothing is really real.

And ultimately, there is a real and abiding loathing of the poor.  Real, deep-seeded hatred.  I don't get it.  I'll never understand it.  But it's there.

And somehow, notwithstanding that, they've gotten people who they would regard as "poor" to adopt their nihilism, to their own detriment.  So yeah--cancel all the programs that keep you from crippling poverty, all so that a rich guy in Manhattan can have a few million more.  And don't worry about the debt--that rich guy will be dead long before it's a real problem.

Yeah--none of that is consistent with conservatism; at least not the conservatism I grew up with under Reagan and Bush.  It's more the conservatism of the early 20th Century Russian aristocracy.

this is an extremely thoughtful post, and underlines sort of where i am at with republicans. the old saying goes "the older you get, the more conservative positions you'll take." i've found the opposite, as i used to identify far more with republicans. 

but nihilism is a good way to point out what's going on with the power structure in this country. as well as the "real, deep-seeded hatred" of the poor. being poor sucks. people act like it's lobster and iphones. it's not. it sucks.

[kevwun 15938]

Kicking old people out of nursing homes and taking away children's healthcare.  Happy Tuesday!

Edited May 8, 2018 by kevwun

[Anastasis 23471]

Should we wait for the actual rescission package proposal, or do we just start screaming "what about the children" now?

Edited May 8, 2018 by Anastasis

[Fozzz 152]

I think there is something to be said about how the post-WWII era confiscatory tax rates helped shape cultural norms that stigmatized extreme wealth, but the rich being rapacious being a new thing?  When you take the shackles off, that’s what they do - the more they get the wetter their appetite becomes.  Look at the gilded age and the Victorian era. We’ve seen this shit before. 

[Longhorn94 2458]

two thoughts:

 

1. The GOP has now fully embraced Trump. It is truly his party now. That means that 2018 is going to be really good or REALLY BAD for our country. If we reject Trumpism, the sun will come out and there will be brighter days ahead. If we embrace it as a nation, we will look back at the first two year as the glory days. It can and will get worse. The pre-Trump GOP has largely kept Trump in check. He really hasnt been able to do much. But those guys are all getting out. They dont want to be a part of Trump's Republican party. They see the shit show coming even if they wont say so publicly. Their actions speak louder than their silence. And they are all silently screaming by electing not to run again. IF Trumpism wins in November, the changes to this country will be staggering. As someone said above, the blatant rejection of knowledge, science, environmentalism, protecting endangered species, fraud, banking, regulations of any kind, imposing religious views, the rule of law, racism, sexism, and Trump as figurative king doing whatever he wants whenever he wants without any check or balance as there will be none in Congress. They will impeach and remove everyone in the DOJ that dares to oppose them. More and more judges will be Trump appointees. The judicial branch will fall in line with Congress and will serve Trump and protect him. In short, we will be fucked. And it will only get worse in 2020 as there will be no way to stop him and his party. Hopefully, we stop all of this stupid shit in November. Trump is put in check by a Democratically controlled Congress and he slinks off a battered and defeated man in 2020.

 

2. Iran is a great country full of great people. Seriously, they are amazing. They are and have been what we will become if Trumpism wins in the Fall. The government is not representative of their people. I do not want to do anything to Iran other than find a way to help their people overthrow their leaders. It is truly one of the great groups of people in the world. Smart, hard working, family oriented. They are amazing in every way. I have been fortunate enough to travel there for work several times and come away every time more and more impressed. Whatever our plan is, it should be to help the people liberate themselves from a stupid regime that rejects knowledge, science, and everything else that Trump does. 

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

IMO Trumpism is basically nihilism/postmodernism.  

Facts don't matter.  Truth doesn't matter. Vote for me because I'm against the other guy. The system is rigged and corrupt. All politicians lie. Tear it all down. 

The support for such a candidate stems for being more against something than actually being for anything. 

This acts as a substitute for moral values.  

"I'll vote for the biggest piece of shit as long as he's against the democrats. I don't care what his policy is or if he's a treasonous scumbag as long as he hurts the other team."

Trumpism101
 

 

[Fozzz 152]

tbh i kinda doubt Trump reads much Derrida. 

[Longhorn94 2458]

14 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't think I agree with this.  

I say this as a former conservative myself--and I say "former" only because I don't think conservatism in any coherent form exists anymore--conservatives never adhered to the nihilism that  distinguishes Trumpism.  And I think it is rooted in the newfound and astonishing rapaciousness of many of the very rich in this country.  That's a new development; it's a characteristic unique to the baby-boomer generation.  This concept of "I'm going to get everything I can and fuck everyone else"--we haven't seen that before.

It used to be that there was a sense of noblesse oblige among the insanely rich.  Sure--to some degree it was patronizing and patriarchal.  But at the same time, it resulted in private philanthropy that built hospitals and schools.  It resulted in a governmental structure that funded the government from the people with sufficient funds for the purpose.  There's still some of that around with people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, but they're outnumbered now by the likes of the Mercers and most of the Waltons.

And I'm not going to tell you that it was purely a noblesse oblige brought of altruism.  It came from a peculiarly American idea that people of merit could rise above the station of their birth through talent and hard work.  And that through the rise of such people, the entire society is benefited--especially the rich who might benefit from their talent and hard work in the course of their rise.  

That sense informed conservatism for more than a century.  Conservatives supported policies that encouraged work and furthered a meritocracy, and they disapproved of policies that disincentivized work (e.g., certain welfare programs) and undermined merit-based advancement (e.g., certain affirmative-action programs).  Yeah--there was the support of "liberty" that is peculiar to that class that has the time and money to enjoy the fruits of "liberty" if the government would just ignore your eccentric behavior.  And yeah--there was a loathing of anything that had the whiff of socialism.  But there was also a recognition that society had to be governed by certain norms, and that the poor needed a hand up from the government in order to be in a position to advance (though programs such as public education).

What's unique and different about Trumpism is that all of that is gone.  It has been replaced with a morality of absolute solipsism among our upper class.  Steal everything you can now before you die, because who cares what happens after that?  And to get away with that, they have imbued the society with a sort of nihilism that tells people that nothing is really true; nothing is really right; nothing is really false; nothing is really wrong; nothing is really real.

And ultimately, there is a real and abiding loathing of the poor.  Real, deep-seeded hatred.  I don't get it.  I'll never understand it.  But it's there.

And somehow, notwithstanding that, they've gotten people who they would regard as "poor" to adopt their nihilism, to their own detriment.  So yeah--cancel all the programs that keep you from crippling poverty, all so that a rich guy in Manhattan can have a few million more.  And don't worry about the debt--that rich guy will be dead long before it's a real problem.

Yeah--none of that is consistent with conservatism; at least not the conservatism I grew up with under Reagan and Bush.  It's more the conservatism of the early 20th Century Russian aristocracy.

the white poor adopt it because it makes them feel like they are part of the club even to their own detriment. it makes them feel superior to vote like a rich guy and it will help stick it to the brown and black people, ya know the REAL poor people. if they were to vote democrat, to their advantage, it would be admitting they are poor AND it would be agreeing to help those brown and black people, ya know the REAL poor people who are too lazy to help themselves!

Edited May 8, 2018 by Longhorn94

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

Trump had his predecessors. Here's Mark Twain on Gilded Age robber baron Jay Gould:

 

Quote

“Jay Gould was the mightiest disaster which has ever befallen this country. The people had desired money before his day, but he taught them to fall down and worship it. They had respected men of means before his day, but along with this respect was joined the respect due to the character and industry which had accumulated it. But Jay Gould taught the entire nation to make a god of the money and the man, no matter how the money might have been acquired.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

tbh i kinda doubt Trump reads much Derrida. 

Trump is no mastermind for sure and his playbook is about as simple as it gets.

Just like everything with Trump, you know he ripped it off from somewhere else.

[wildcat09 29447]

28 minutes ago, kevwun said:

A war with Iran will make us remember Vietnam fondly.  I guess the midterm prospects for Republicans weren't quite terrible enough. 

I really think Trump has been told that a war with Iran wouldn't as bad as a war with North Korea would be, so now thinks that a war with Iran will go well.

[BrickHorn 18298]

12 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Kicking old people out of nursing homes and taking away children's healthcare.  Happy Tuesday!

Oh and don’t forget to Be Best!

[Anastasis 23471]

Here is the rescission proposal, and the CHIP portion specifically:https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/POTUS-Rescission-Transmittal-Package-5.8.2018.pdf 

Question.  What typically happens to unobligated balances for appropriations?

PROPOSED RESCISSION OF BUDGET AUTHORITY

Report Pursuant to Section 1012 of Public Law 93-344

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Children's Health Insurance Fund (075-0515 IX)

Amount proposed for rescission: $5,149,512,000

Proposed rescission appropriations language: Of the unobligated balances available from section 30l(b)(3) of Public Law 114-10 and pursuant to section 2104(m)(2)(B)(iv) of the Social Security Act. $5.149.512.000 are rescinded. Justification: This proposal would rescind $5. I billion in amounts made available by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 to supplement the 2017 national allotments to States, including $3.1 billion in unobligated balances available on October I, 2017, and $2 billion in recoveries as ofMay 7, 2018. The 2017 one-time appropriation was made available in addition to the annual Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) appropriation to reimburse states for eligible CHIP expenses. Authority to obligate these funds to States expired on September 30, 2017, and the remaining funding is no longer needed. Enacting the rescission would have no programmatic impact. The proposed rescission would have no effect on outlays.

 

PROPOSED RESCISSION OF BUDGET AUTHORITY

Report Pursuant to Section 1012 of Public Law 93-344

Agency: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Bureau: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Account: Child Enrollment Contingency Fund (075-5551 IX)

Amount proposed for rescission: $1,865,000,000

Proposed rescission appropriations language: Of the amounts deposited in the Child Enrollment Contingencv Fund for fiscal year 2018 under section 2104(n)(2) of the Social Security Act. $1.865.000.000 are permanentlv rescinded. Justification: This proposal would rescind $1.9 billion in amounts available for the Children's Health Insurance Program Contingency Fund, of which there were $2.4 billion available as of March 23, 2018. The Contingency Fund provides payments to States that experience funding shortfalls due to higher than expected enrollment. At this time, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services does not expect that any State would require a Contingency Fund payment in FY 2018; therefore, this funding is not needed. Enacting this rescission would have no programmatic impact. The proposed rescission would have no effect on outlays.

 

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

22 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't think I agree with this.  

I say this as a former conservative myself--and I say "former" only because I don't think conservatism in any coherent form exists anymore--conservatives never adhered to the nihilism that  distinguishes Trumpism.  And I think it is rooted in the newfound and astonishing rapaciousness of many of the very rich in this country.  That's a new development; it's a characteristic unique to the baby-boomer generation.  This concept of "I'm going to get everything I can and fuck everyone else"--we haven't seen that before.

It used to be that there was a sense of noblesse oblige among the insanely rich.  Sure--to some degree it was patronizing and patriarchal.  But at the same time, it resulted in private philanthropy that built hospitals and schools.  It resulted in a governmental structure that funded the government from the people with sufficient funds for the purpose.  There's still some of that around with people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, but they're outnumbered now by the likes of the Mercers and most of the Waltons.

And I'm not going to tell you that it was purely a noblesse oblige brought of altruism.  It came from a peculiarly American idea that people of merit could rise above the station of their birth through talent and hard work.  And that through the rise of such people, the entire society is benefited--especially the rich who might benefit from their talent and hard work in the course of their rise.  

That sense informed conservatism for more than a century.  Conservatives supported policies that encouraged work and furthered a meritocracy, and they disapproved of policies that disincentivized work (e.g., certain welfare programs) and undermined merit-based advancement (e.g., certain affirmative-action programs).  Yeah--there was the support of "liberty" that is peculiar to that class that has the time and money to enjoy the fruits of "liberty" if the government would just ignore your eccentric behavior.  And yeah--there was a loathing of anything that had the whiff of socialism.  But there was also a recognition that society had to be governed by certain norms, and that the poor needed a hand up from the government in order to be in a position to advance (though programs such as public education).

What's unique and different about Trumpism is that all of that is gone.  It has been replaced with a morality of absolute solipsism among our upper class.  Steal everything you can now before you die, because who cares what happens after that?  And to get away with that, they have imbued the society with a sort of nihilism that tells people that nothing is really true; nothing is really right; nothing is really false; nothing is really wrong; nothing is really real.

And ultimately, there is a real and abiding loathing of the poor.  Real, deep-seeded hatred.  I don't get it.  I'll never understand it.  But it's there.

And somehow, notwithstanding that, they've gotten people who they would regard as "poor" to adopt their nihilism, to their own detriment.  So yeah--cancel all the programs that keep you from crippling poverty, all so that a rich guy in Manhattan can have a few million more.  And don't worry about the debt--that rich guy will be dead long before it's a real problem.

Yeah--none of that is consistent with conservatism; at least not the conservatism I grew up with under Reagan and Bush.  It's more the conservatism of the early 20th Century Russian aristocracy.

And the men who hold high places
Must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality
Closer to the heart

[Ghost of LL 15559]

13 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I think there is something to be said about how the post-WWII era confiscatory tax rates helped shape cultural norms that stigmatized extreme wealth, but the rich being rapacious being a new thing?  When you take the shackles off, that’s what they do - the more they get the wetter their appetite becomes.  Look at the gilded age and the Victorian era. We’ve seen this shit before. 

From what I understand we're now approaching (and may have exceeded) Gilded Age levels of wealth inequality.  

But regardless, I disagree with your conclusion.  The robber barons were indeed rapacious.  But there is are two critical differences:

1) The Gilded Age rich used their enterprises to feed their greed.  The desperately wanted the government not to interfere with their fleecing of the masses (whether it be by breaking up trusts or imposing safety/workplace standards or permitting labor organization).  

In contrast, the rich today use the government directly to increase their wealth by transferring it from the poor, instituting subsidies (both direct and indirect), and regulating out competition.  

2) Both out of a belief in American meritocracy and out of a sense of self-preservation, the robber barons spent more on philanthropic endeavors and supported some limited progressive public policies.  For the most part, we don't see that today.  

Instead, the very rich today are dead set against any change.  They act as though they can keep a hold of this pressure cooker by just tightening down the clamps further.  It's the same thing the Russian aristocracy thought in 1910.  They were wrong.

[Brisketexan 105478]

the white poor adopt it because it makes them feel like they are part of the club even to their own detriment. it makes them feel superior to vote like a rich guy and it will help stick it to the brown and black people, ya know the REAL poor people. if they were to vote democrat, to their advantage, it would be admitting they are poor AND it would be agreeing to help those brown and black people, ya know the REAL poor people who are too lazy to help themselves!

Spot on.

For an analogy we can all understand, the white poor are the aggies joining the SEC. They walk into a room with the REAL big boys, and say “hey guys, ain’t it great to be one of the SEC cool kids like us? Sucks to be one of those other losers, like the Big XII or the Big 10! Hurr durr!” Meanwhile, to the rest of the successful SEC...the Aggies are just useful idiots.

We are governed by the aggy ethos now. Seriously, it’s the dominant political philosophy in our country.

[hayden_horn 11365]

1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

From what I understand we're now approaching (and may have exceeded) Gilded Age levels of wealth inequality.  

But regardless, I disagree with your conclusion.  The robber barons were indeed rapacious.  But there is are two critical differences:

1) The Gilded Age rich used their enterprises to feed their greed.  The desperately wanted the government not to interfere with their fleecing of the masses (whether it be by breaking up trusts or imposing safety/workplace standards or permitting labor organization).  

In contrast, the rich today use the government directly to increase their wealth by transferring it from the poor, instituting subsidies (both direct and indirect), and regulating out competition.  

2) Both out of a belief in American meritocracy and out of a sense of self-preservation, the robber barons spent more on philanthropic endeavors and supported some limited progressive public policies.  For the most part, we don't see that today.  

Instead, the very rich today are dead set against any change.  They act as though they can keep a hold of this pressure cooker by just tightening down the clamps further.  It's the same thing the Russian aristocracy thought in 1910.  They were wrong.

used to be we got institutions like vanderbilt university. now we get trump university.

[Ghost of LL 15559]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

used to be we got institutions like vanderbilt university. now we get trump university.

Or Carnegie Mellon University or Stanford University.  Or for that matter any number of hospitals, libraries, and parks.

When was the last time you heard of that kind of philanthropy?

 

 

 

And no--paying the difference between a utilitarian TXDOT-funded bridge over the Trinity River and one designed by an overrated Spaniard doesn't count.