Thoughts on Trump's speech

[bullwinkle]

For those that missed the speech, Trump will increase Military Spending, and reduce Corporate and Middle Class taxes, and give women paid maternity leave, and provide cheaper health insurance with cheaper drugs, and initiate large infrastructure spending that will create jobs aplenty He will do all this and not massively increase the nations debt. Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?

I reckon it's official, Trump is now a democrat.

At least he gave a better speech than Obozo ever did. At least we don't have some idiot up there calling for a jihad against the police cuz they are all a bunch of racists.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Transcript of Trump's address to Congress
Video of Trump's address to Congress

I didn't watch the speech. I'm reading it and these are my initial thoughts/notes about it. (Apologies for the sub-standard grammar....) The emboldened text are my thoughts. For topics that I have a readily available reference point for why I say what I say, I've included links. I haven't bothered to look up stuff I don't know off the top of my head.

_____________________

• "For too long, we have watched our middle-class shrink as we have exported our jobs and wealth to foreign countries."
  • I am so sick and tired of this BS "dog whistle" pandering pablum! I'd be more amenable to it were it not so that the shrinking of the size of middle class due to more formerly middle-middle (MM) class folks moving into the upper middle (UM) class. But that is the case. The quantity of people is what it is, but overall, a larger share of the population is MM, UM or upper class (economically).
    
    Look at the chart below. Each row = 100% of the population. Between 1971 and 2015, the MM lost 11 points. Where did they go? Seven percent of the MM became UM and upper class and four percent went to the lowest income group. The working class (LM) didn't change.
    
    So 4% of the MM got screwed and 7% of them, nearly twice as many, are better off. I'm sorry, but that doesn't strike me as a calamitous happenstance. Were the percentages flipped, that would be very problematic.
    
    The rich got richer.....Fine. So did 7% of the middle-middle class!
    
    
    
• "We’ve defended the borders of other nations while leaving our own borders wide open for anyone to cross, and for drugs to pour in at a now unprecedented rate. And we’ve spent trillions and trillions of dollars overseas, while our infrastructure at home has so badly crumbled."
  
  "The stock market has gained almost $3 trillion in value since the election on Nov. 8, a record. "
  
  "We have cleared the way for the construction of the Keystone and Dakota Access Pipelines thereby creating tens of thousands of jobs."
  • I probably need to "fact check" these (italicized) statements, but not right now....I'm just going to keep reading. The Times has a FC link for one...will look at it later....doesn't matter right now.
  • What were the trillions spent on?
• "Then, in 2016, the earth shifted beneath our feet. The rebellion started ....[continuing through the next two paragraphs]"
  • Fluff - blah, blah, blah....You won the election...I know...That's why you are standing there....Stop blowing your own horn. JFC!
• "Dying industries will come roaring back to life. Heroic veterans will get the care they so desperately need. Our military will be given the resources its brave warriors so richly deserve."
  
  "Crumbling infrastructure will be replaced with new roads, bridges, tunnels, airports and railways, gleaming across our very, very beautiful land. Our terrible drug epidemic will slow down and ultimately stop. And our neglected inner cities will see a rebirth of hope, safety and opportunity."
  • I had better see some details about how you intend to do these things later in the speech.....
• "We’ve saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by bringing down the price of fantastic — and it is a fantastic — new F-35 jet fighter, and we’ll be saving billions more on contracts all across our government."
  • I've heard you say this. I have yet to see the numbers. Maybe I missed them....Note to self: Google to see if there are any that have been released quantifying the sum(s) saved and detailing the changes made.
• "We have begun to drain the swamp of government corruption by imposing a five-year ban on lobbying by executive branch officials — and a lifetime ban ..."
  • Yes, you did, but to what end? You've also put a bunch of billionaires in office, including a former Goldman exec, IIRC. Who pays for lobbyists? Billionaires, banks and bankers, and other large corporations. What need have those parties for lobbyists if they and "their boys" hold the appointed offices?
• "We have undertaken a historic effort to massively reduce job-crushing regulations, creating a deregulation task force inside of every government agency ..."
  • I need to look to see what regs you've rolled back....
• "I’ve issued a new directive that new American pipelines be made with American steel."
  • Can you actually do this? Isn't the pipeline owned and built by private enterprise? (TransCanada and Conoco, I thought...)
• "We have withdrawn the United States from the job-killing Trans-Pacific Partnership."
  • Yes, you did. Blunder, big time. Among the few things that conservative and liberal economists agree on -- that free trade is better overall than restricted trade -- and you go against it; moreover, having done so, you never identified any specific provisions of it that you didn't like and why.
• "with the help of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, we have formed a council with our neighbors in Canada to help ensure that women entrepreneurs have access to the networks, markets and capital they need to start a business and live out their financial dreams."
  • That seems like a good thing to do. What are the details? What's the name of the council? What are their measureable goals?
• Next few paragraphs all sounds good enough....Wish you actually bothered to share some details. Didn't you mention the drugs thing earlier in the speech?
• "By finally enforcing our immigration laws, we will raise wages, help the unemployed, save billions and billions of dollars, and make our communities safer for everyone.
  • I doubt it, but whatever....This is just more "talk" that you don't' explain or provide details for.
• "we are removing gang members, drug dealers and criminals that threaten our communities and prey on our very innocent citizens.
  • Fluff...It's not as though cops have been on hiatus.
• "What would you say to the American family that loses their jobs...because America refused to uphold its laws and defend its borders?"
  • I'd say that you should have been paying attention to what was going on in around the nation and the world and seeing those changes, used some of the money you earned when you had a good job to buy skills that would allow you to get a different and more highly skilled job that in high demand and that pays better and that is less susceptible to being taken by immigrants....But now you want the President/Congress to do something about the fact that you didn't, and you think the thing to do is to impose tariffs and constrain immigration and corporations' ability to continue growing while the rest of the country waits for you lame ass to catch up. I'd feel differently were you not to have had a good job before, but you did and you sat on your sorry ass and didn't pay attention, and now here you are looking for a savior....Well, I'm sorry, but no, just no. "Cry me a river." That's what I say.
• "According to data provided by the Department of Justice, the vast majority of individuals convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our country....It is not compassionate, but reckless to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting cannot occur."
  • Equivocal, semantic, and inflammatory, and you know it.
  • The vetting of entry applicants happens here. Just a few lines later, you even say as much.
• "We have seen the attacks in France, in Belgium, in Germany and all over the world."
  • Wait a minute....I thought your focus is supposed be on America....
• "I directed the Department of Defense to develop a plan to demolish and destroy ISIS..."
  • Oh great. Can't wait to see how you use bombs and bullets to eradicate an ideology/state of mind. I suppose it'll make for good theatre if nothing else.
• "He was confirmed unanimously by the Court of Appeals, and I am asking the Senate to swiftly approve his nomination."
  • What?!? The Court of Appeals did no such thing.
• "We’ve lost more than one-fourth of our manufacturing jobs since Nafta was approved..."
  • It's your making misleading statements like this, statements that pander to people whom you know won't check the details, that make me absolutely detest you! You know (or should) as well as I do that NAFTA isn't the cause of that. I could overlook a fair bit of the "little sh*t" if you didn't make paltering remarks like this on the "big stuff."
• "Solving these and so many other pressing problems will require us to work past the differences of party."
  • Actually, all you'd have to do is just tell people the truth. I know a lot of them aren't going to like the truth, at least as go economic realities and the impact on them, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve to hear it, plain and unvarnished.
• "My economic team is developing historic tax reform that will reduce the tax rate on our companies so they can compete and thrive anywhere and with anyone."
  • I don't think the rates need to increase, but they don't need to be lowered either. Even though the U.S. statutory rate is ten percentage points higher than the average corporate statutory rate in the European Union, the effective U.S. corporate tax rate is the same or lower than the effective EU corporate tax rate for the largest U.S. and EU multinationals.
  • Here again, you paint only part of the picture....That's disingenuous, and it's why I can't stand your ass. All you have to do is be clear about how U.S. marginal and effective rates compare with comparable economic competitors, I wouldn't be complaining.
  • To top it off, the rate adjustments you proposed on the campaign trail were for pass-through entities, not public corporations. Yet another distinction that most people don't know about and that you aren't being clear about.
• "Currently, when we ship products out of America, many other countries make us pay very high tariffs and taxes, but when foreign companies ship their products into America, we charge them nothing or almost nothing.....[Harley-Davidson] said that in the case of another country, they taxed their motorcycles at 100 percent. They weren’t even asking for a change."
  • Not so; it varies by product and by country. The U.S. imposes a 35% tariff on tuna. 40+% on sneakers. 40% on Japanese leather. 131% - 163% on peanuts. 30% on Chinese tires. (All U.S. import tariffs are found at the link.) Yes, see. I can identify high tariffs just as you can identify low ones. Tell the whole story!!!
  • Harley isn't asking for a change because the average wage in India is something around $5500. 100% tariff or not; Ain't nobody in India buyin' a damn Harley to begin with, and the people who will/can don't care about the tariff. (Harley Road King: ~$18K....If you earn $50K, would you buy a $150K car? I didn't think so....)
  • Could you not have identified what country taxes Harleys at 100%? It happens to be India. (Taxation in India is big mess in so many ways it'd take a literal book to even describe how it works, let alone what to about it.)
• [Blah, blah, blah....same stuff, same promises, same pablum we've been hearing for months, and still not any more detail on how you intend to do this.....
• "I believe that real and positive immigration reform is possible, as long as we focus on the following goals: to improve jobs and wages for Americans, to strengthen our nation’s security and to restore respect for our laws. If we are guided by the well-being of American citizens, then I believe Republicans and Democrats can work together to achieve an outcome that has eluded our country for decades."
  • Well, just what outcome would that be? Is it really asking too much that you would have in this speech told us?
• "Another Republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, initiated the last truly great national infrastructure program: the building of the interstate highway system. The time has come for a new program of national rebuilding. I will be asking Congress to approve legislation that produces a $1 trillion investment in infrastructure of the United States, financed through both public and private capital, creating millions of new jobs."
  • Standard Keynesian economics. You fucker! You've been "all over the map" in this speech. Damnit!!! Go with Keynes. Go with the Classicists. Go with the Austrian School. Go with a different one. I don't care, but implementing in accordance with (based on) the ideas from competing economic theories will be a disaster because each of the major theories is an integrated whole. They all "work," but they work as a whole; economics does not work like the buffet at Denny's. The minute you start cherry picking, all you do is create a situation that requires fixes here and fixes there to make up for the fact that you cherry picked instead of going "whole hog" with whichever one you happen to like best.
    
    No matter which school one goes with, there will be winners and losers. Cherry picking policy actions doesn't change that and it lessens the wins of the winners and exacerbates the losses of the losers.
    
    
  • The roads and bridges in the U.S. need fixing. I'm fine with fixing them. I also know what you are doing. You're essentially using government spending to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor via construction projects. Great. I'm going to increase my positions in construction industry manufacturers and providers. Regardless of what I think about it, at least this is finally a piece of information I can actually use to my benefit.
  • Frankly, I don't see this creating the hundreds of thousands of jobs it needs to satisfy Trumpkins.
  • $1 trillion is about half of the U.S. federal income tax revenue for 2015.

That was as far as I could read sentence by sentence. I scanned from there out. I didn't see anything new. Was there something? Did he provide any details that he'd heretofore not shared? Nothing lept out, but as I said, I scanned after that....I saw a lot of "rah, rah, rah." That's nice. I'm sure it makes someone feel good. I don't care about feeling good.

Now, as before during the campaign, I want to see some specifics that I can get my mind around and know what I think about them, and what to do in light of their implications....Details like the construction money proposal and the increase in defense spending. I don't have to like or agree with those proposals; I know what they portend, and I know how to prepare to take advantage of them. And frankly, that's good enough. But he needs to provide more detail like that. That vague crap he filled the overwhelming majority of the speech with just isn't want I want to hear from a POTUS, or Congressional leaders, or my mayor, or any other decision makers in the public sector for that matter.

Didn't watch and don't care. But I am certain The MSM will shit all over him and dupes will buy the propaganda.

I don't care what the media say. I read the thing (as far as I read it before scanning) and offered my initial thoughts. I'll probably read it again to get a more integrated set of thoughts about it and to assess it holistically. Maybe I'll arrive at thoughts similar to what pundits have to share; maybe I won't.

You take this stuff seriously, don't you.

Why do Americans hang on a politicians every word even though we are continually lied to. It makes no sense!

You take this stuff seriously, don't you.

I do take it seriously. I think that running the U.S.of A is a serious thing.

What Presidents and Congress do matters. Who gets placed into high appointed office will tell you what company stocks to buy. Stated policy is good for the same thing. That is one of the reasons I say that while I may have a preference about who wins an election, ultimately I don't care because I'm going to pay attention to what they say and do and act accordingly to make the most of it. Simply put, I pay attention to what's going on in my world so I can not be on the "losing side" of things. That's what one is supposed to do in a capitalist society. It's how one gets ahead and stays ahead, or at least apace. So, yes, I take it seriously.

And if you had listened to Obama when he said he would give you affordable health care and you would not lose your coverage and believed him and acted accordingly, you would be out of luck.

It is same old story, more spending we can't afford and lower taxes cuz we don't like to pay for all the free goodies we can't afford.. Even Obozo did it.

It's the same old tune only in Orange.

And if you had listened to Obama when he said he would give you affordable health care and you would not lose your coverage and believed him and acted accordingly, you would be out of luck.

I did listen to him. The price of my health insurance hasn't hasn't changed any more than it typically did in years past; it's always gone up, but never by much. I still have the same insurance I had before. I don't feel out of luck at all.

I'm aware that estimates indicate that somewhere between 700K and 5M people who had non-group health insurance policies lost their coverage because the policy didn't conform to the ACA's requirements. As far as I'm concerned, those people have every right to be ticked off. The fact of the matter, however is that there are some 320M people in the U.S. Sure, even 5M seems like a "big number," but in the context of how many people there are insured, it's nothing if one is evaluating whether the ACA achieved what it sought to achieve.


I can't speak to what has happened with the cost of employer's group plans and how people's premiums have increased. I am aware that as go policies obtained via the O-care exchanges:

Most enrollees in the marketplaces receive a tax credit to lower their premium. In most parts of the country in 2016, a 40-year-old adult making $30,000 per year would pay about $208 per month for the second-lowest-silver plan. If this person is willing to switch to whatever the new second lowest-cost silver plan is in 2017, they will pay a similar amount (the after-tax credit payment for a similar person in 2017 is $207 per month or a change of 0%).
Source (There's a convenient table there that is worth checking out.)​

In light of the full facts of the matter, I consider the hoopla about premium increases to be pure sophistry and political posturing made by individuals who know many of their zealous devotees won't bother to look at the details beyond what they are told.

 

[boilermaker55]

Whiner!!

Transcript of Trump's address to Congress
Video of Trump's address to Congress

I didn't watch the speech. I'm reading it and these are my initial thoughts/notes about it. (Apologies for the sub-standard grammar....) The emboldened text are my thoughts. For topics that I have a readily available reference point for why I say what I say, I've included links. I haven't bothered to look up stuff I don't know off the top of my head.

_____________________

• "For too long, we have watched our middle-class shrink as we have exported our jobs and wealth to foreign countries."
  • I am so sick and tired of this BS "dog whistle" pandering pablum! I'd be more amenable to it were it not so that the shrinking of the size of middle class due to more formerly middle-middle (MM) class folks moving into the upper middle (UM) class. But that is the case. The quantity of people is what it is, but overall, a larger share of the population is MM, UM or upper class (economically).
    
    Look at the chart below. Each row = 100% of the population. Between 1971 and 2015, the MM lost 11 points. Where did they go? Seven percent of the MM became UM and upper class and four percent went to the lowest income group. The working class (LM) didn't change.
    
    So 4% of the MM got screwed and 7% of them, nearly twice as many, are better off. I'm sorry, but that doesn't strike me as a calamitous happenstance. Were the percentages flipped, that would be very problematic.
    
    The rich got richer.....Fine. So did 7% of the middle-middle class!
    
    
    
• "We’ve defended the borders of other nations while leaving our own borders wide open for anyone to cross, and for drugs to pour in at a now unprecedented rate. And we’ve spent trillions and trillions of dollars overseas, while our infrastructure at home has so badly crumbled."
  
  "The stock market has gained almost $3 trillion in value since the election on Nov. 8, a record. "
  
  "We have cleared the way for the construction of the Keystone and Dakota Access Pipelines thereby creating tens of thousands of jobs."
  • I probably need to "fact check" these (italicized) statements, but not right now....I'm just going to keep reading. The Times has a FC link for one...will look at it later....doesn't matter right now.
  • What were the trillions spent on?
• "Then, in 2016, the earth shifted beneath our feet. The rebellion started ....[continuing through the next two paragraphs]"
  • Fluff - blah, blah, blah....You won the election...I know...That's why you are standing there....Stop blowing your own horn. JFC!
• "Dying industries will come roaring back to life. Heroic veterans will get the care they so desperately need. Our military will be given the resources its brave warriors so richly deserve."
  
  "Crumbling infrastructure will be replaced with new roads, bridges, tunnels, airports and railways, gleaming across our very, very beautiful land. Our terrible drug epidemic will slow down and ultimately stop. And our neglected inner cities will see a rebirth of hope, safety and opportunity."
  • I had better see some details about how you intend to do these things later in the speech.....
• "We’ve saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by bringing down the price of fantastic — and it is a fantastic — new F-35 jet fighter, and we’ll be saving billions more on contracts all across our government."
  • I've heard you say this. I have yet to see the numbers. Maybe I missed them....Note to self: Google to see if there are any that have been released quantifying the sum(s) saved and detailing the changes made.
• "We have begun to drain the swamp of government corruption by imposing a five-year ban on lobbying by executive branch officials — and a lifetime ban ..."
  • Yes, you did, but to what end? You've also put a bunch of billionaires in office, including a former Goldman exec, IIRC. Who pays for lobbyists? Billionaires, banks and bankers, and other large corporations. What need have those parties for lobbyists if they and "their boys" hold the appointed offices?
• "We have undertaken a historic effort to massively reduce job-crushing regulations, creating a deregulation task force inside of every government agency ..."
  • I need to look to see what regs you've rolled back....
• "I’ve issued a new directive that new American pipelines be made with American steel."
  • Can you actually do this? Isn't the pipeline owned and built by private enterprise? (TransCanada and Conoco, I thought...)
• "We have withdrawn the United States from the job-killing Trans-Pacific Partnership."
  • Yes, you did. Blunder, big time. Among the few things that conservative and liberal economists agree on -- that free trade is better overall than restricted trade -- and you go against it; moreover, having done so, you never identified any specific provisions of it that you didn't like and why.
• "with the help of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, we have formed a council with our neighbors in Canada to help ensure that women entrepreneurs have access to the networks, markets and capital they need to start a business and live out their financial dreams."
  • That seems like a good thing to do. What are the details? What's the name of the council? What are their measureable goals?
• Next few paragraphs all sounds good enough....Wish you actually bothered to share some details. Didn't you mention the drugs thing earlier in the speech?
• "By finally enforcing our immigration laws, we will raise wages, help the unemployed, save billions and billions of dollars, and make our communities safer for everyone.
  • I doubt it, but whatever....This is just more "talk" that you don't' explain or provide details for.
• "we are removing gang members, drug dealers and criminals that threaten our communities and prey on our very innocent citizens.
  • Fluff...It's not as though cops have been on hiatus.
• "What would you say to the American family that loses their jobs...because America refused to uphold its laws and defend its borders?"
  • I'd say that you should have been paying attention to what was going on in around the nation and the world and seeing those changes, used some of the money you earned when you had a good job to buy skills that would allow you to get a different and more highly skilled job that in high demand and that pays better and that is less susceptible to being taken by immigrants....But now you want the President/Congress to do something about the fact that you didn't, and you think the thing to do is to impose tariffs and constrain immigration and corporations' ability to continue growing while the rest of the country waits for you lame ass to catch up. I'd feel differently were you not to have had a good job before, but you did and you sat on your sorry ass and didn't pay attention, and now here you are looking for a savior....Well, I'm sorry, but no, just no. "Cry me a river." That's what I say.
• "According to data provided by the Department of Justice, the vast majority of individuals convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our country....It is not compassionate, but reckless to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting cannot occur."
  • Equivocal, semantic, and inflammatory, and you know it.
  • The vetting of entry applicants happens here. Just a few lines later, you even say as much.
• "We have seen the attacks in France, in Belgium, in Germany and all over the world."
  • Wait a minute....I thought your focus is supposed be on America....
• "I directed the Department of Defense to develop a plan to demolish and destroy ISIS..."
  • Oh great. Can't wait to see how you use bombs and bullets to eradicate an ideology/state of mind. I suppose it'll make for good theatre if nothing else.
• "He was confirmed unanimously by the Court of Appeals, and I am asking the Senate to swiftly approve his nomination."
  • What?!? The Court of Appeals did no such thing.
• "We’ve lost more than one-fourth of our manufacturing jobs since Nafta was approved..."
  • It's your making misleading statements like this, statements that pander to people whom you know won't check the details, that make me absolutely detest you! You know (or should) as well as I do that NAFTA isn't the cause of that. I could overlook a fair bit of the "little sh*t" if you didn't make paltering remarks like this on the "big stuff."
• "Solving these and so many other pressing problems will require us to work past the differences of party."
  • Actually, all you'd have to do is just tell people the truth. I know a lot of them aren't going to like the truth, at least as go economic realities and the impact on them, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve to hear it, plain and unvarnished.
• "My economic team is developing historic tax reform that will reduce the tax rate on our companies so they can compete and thrive anywhere and with anyone."
  • I don't think the rates need to increase, but they don't need to be lowered either. Even though the U.S. statutory rate is ten percentage points higher than the average corporate statutory rate in the European Union, the effective U.S. corporate tax rate is the same or lower than the effective EU corporate tax rate for the largest U.S. and EU multinationals.
  • Here again, you paint only part of the picture....That's disingenuous, and it's why I can't stand your ass. All you have to do is be clear about how U.S. marginal and effective rates compare with comparable economic competitors, I wouldn't be complaining.
  • To top it off, the rate adjustments you proposed on the campaign trail were for pass-through entities, not public corporations. Yet another distinction that most people don't know about and that you aren't being clear about.
• "Currently, when we ship products out of America, many other countries make us pay very high tariffs and taxes, but when foreign companies ship their products into America, we charge them nothing or almost nothing.....[Harley-Davidson] said that in the case of another country, they taxed their motorcycles at 100 percent. They weren’t even asking for a change."
  • Not so; it varies by product and by country. The U.S. imposes a 35% tariff on tuna. 40+% on sneakers. 40% on Japanese leather. 131% - 163% on peanuts. 30% on Chinese tires. (All U.S. import tariffs are found at the link.) Yes, see. I can identify high tariffs just as you can identify low ones. Tell the whole story!!!
  • Harley isn't asking for a change because the average wage in India is something around $5500. 100% tariff or not; Ain't nobody in India buyin' a damn Harley to begin with, and the people who will/can don't care about the tariff. (Harley Road King: ~$18K....If you earn $50K, would you buy a $150K car? I didn't think so....)
  • Could you not have identified what country taxes Harleys at 100%? It happens to be India. (Taxation in India is big mess in so many ways it'd take a literal book to even describe how it works, let alone what to about it.)
• [Blah, blah, blah....same stuff, same promises, same pablum we've been hearing for months, and still not any more detail on how you intend to do this.....
• "I believe that real and positive immigration reform is possible, as long as we focus on the following goals: to improve jobs and wages for Americans, to strengthen our nation’s security and to restore respect for our laws. If we are guided by the well-being of American citizens, then I believe Republicans and Democrats can work together to achieve an outcome that has eluded our country for decades."
  • Well, just what outcome would that be? Is it really asking too much that you would have in this speech told us?
• "Another Republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, initiated the last truly great national infrastructure program: the building of the interstate highway system. The time has come for a new program of national rebuilding. I will be asking Congress to approve legislation that produces a $1 trillion investment in infrastructure of the United States, financed through both public and private capital, creating millions of new jobs."
  • Standard Keynesian economics. You fucker! You've been "all over the map" in this speech. Damnit!!! Go with Keynes. Go with the Classicists. Go with the Austrian School. Go with a different one. I don't care, but implementing in accordance with (based on) the ideas from competing economic theories will be a disaster because each of the major theories is an integrated whole. They all "work," but they work as a whole; economics does not work like the buffet at Denny's. The minute you start cherry picking, all you do is create a situation that requires fixes here and fixes there to make up for the fact that you cherry picked instead of going "whole hog" with whichever one you happen to like best.
    
    No matter which school one goes with, there will be winners and losers. Cherry picking policy actions doesn't change that and it lessens the wins of the winners and exacerbates the losses of the losers.
    
    
  • The roads and bridges in the U.S. need fixing. I'm fine with fixing them. I also know what you are doing. You're essentially using government spending to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor via construction projects. Great. I'm going to increase my positions in construction industry manufacturers and providers. Regardless of what I think about it, at least this is finally a piece of information I can actually use to my benefit.
  • Frankly, I don't see this creating the hundreds of thousands of jobs it needs to satisfy Trumpkins.
  • $1 trillion is about half of the U.S. federal income tax revenue for 2015.

That was as far as I could read sentence by sentence. I scanned from there out. I didn't see anything new. Was there something? Did he provide any details that he'd heretofore not shared? Nothing lept out, but as I said, I scanned after that....I saw a lot of "rah, rah, rah." That's nice. I'm sure it makes someone feel good. I don't care about feeling good.

Now, as before during the campaign, I want to see some specifics that I can get my mind around and know what I think about them, and what to do in light of their implications....Details like the construction money proposal and the increase in defense spending. I don't have to like or agree with those proposals; I know what they portend, and I know how to prepare to take advantage of them. And frankly, that's good enough. But he needs to provide more detail like that. That vague crap he filled the overwhelming majority of the speech with just isn't want I want to hear from a POTUS, or Congressional leaders, or my mayor, or any other decision makers in the public sector for that matter.

Didn't watch and don't care. But I am certain The MSM will shit all over him and dupes will buy the propaganda.

 

[bullwinkle]

Didn't watch and don't care. But I am certain The MSM will shit all over him and dupes will buy the propaganda.

I don't care what the media say. I read the thing (as far as I read it before scanning) and offered my initial thoughts. I'll probably read it again to get a more integrated set of thoughts about it and to assess it holistically. Maybe I'll arrive at thoughts similar to what pundits have to share; maybe I won't.

You take this stuff seriously, don't you.

Why do Americans hang on a politicians every word even though we are continually lied to. It makes no sense!

You take this stuff seriously, don't you.

I do take it seriously. I think that running the U.S.of A is a serious thing.

What Presidents and Congress do matters. Who gets placed into high appointed office will tell you what company stocks to buy. Stated policy is good for the same thing. That is one of the reasons I say that while I may have a preference about who wins an election, ultimately I don't care because I'm going to pay attention to what they say and do and act accordingly to make the most of it. Simply put, I pay attention to what's going on in my world so I can not be on the "losing side" of things. That's what one is supposed to do in a capitalist society. It's how one gets ahead and stays ahead, or at least apace. So, yes, I take it seriously.

And if you had listened to Obama when he said he would give you affordable health care and you would not lose your coverage and believed him and acted accordingly, you would be out of luck.

It is same old story, more spending we can't afford and lower taxes cuz we don't like to pay for all the free goodies we can't afford.. Even Obozo did it.

It's the same old tune only in Orange.

And if you had listened to Obama when he said he would give you affordable health care and you would not lose your coverage and believed him and acted accordingly, you would be out of luck.

I did listen to him. The price of my health insurance hasn't hasn't changed any more than it typically did in years past; it's always gone up, but never by much. I still have the same insurance I had before. I don't feel out of luck at all.

I'm aware that estimates indicate that somewhere between 700K and 5M people who had non-group health insurance policies lost their coverage because the policy didn't conform to the ACA's requirements. As far as I'm concerned, those people have every right to be ticked off. The fact of the matter, however is that there are some 320M people in the U.S. Sure, even 5M seems like a "big number," but in the context of how many people there are insured, it's nothing if one is evaluating whether the ACA achieved what it sought to achieve.


I can't speak to what has happened with the cost of employer's group plans and how people's premiums have increased. I am aware that as go policies obtained via the O-care exchanges:

Most enrollees in the marketplaces receive a tax credit to lower their premium. In most parts of the country in 2016, a 40-year-old adult making $30,000 per year would pay about $208 per month for the second-lowest-silver plan. If this person is willing to switch to whatever the new second lowest-cost silver plan is in 2017, they will pay a similar amount (the after-tax credit payment for a similar person in 2017 is $207 per month or a change of 0%).
Source (There's a convenient table there that is worth checking out.)​

In light of the full facts of the matter, I consider the hoopla about premium increases to be pure sophistry and political posturing made by individuals who know many of their zealous devotees won't bother to look at the details beyond what they are told.

Xelor, my costs didn't change either. Matter of fact, my COB did NOT rise this year for the first time ever. I am not affected by Obamacare, except in principle. I understand that the requirements of Obamacare coverage made some policies with less coverage inadequate and therefore obsolete. But what I do not understand is why some States ACA client's are burdened with massive rising premiums and others are not. What's the cause for the difference?

 

[usmbguest5318]

I don't care what the media say. I read the thing (as far as I read it before scanning) and offered my initial thoughts. I'll probably read it again to get a more integrated set of thoughts about it and to assess it holistically. Maybe I'll arrive at thoughts similar to what pundits have to share; maybe I won't.

You take this stuff seriously, don't you.

Why do Americans hang on a politicians every word even though we are continually lied to. It makes no sense!

You take this stuff seriously, don't you.

I do take it seriously. I think that running the U.S.of A is a serious thing.

What Presidents and Congress do matters. Who gets placed into high appointed office will tell you what company stocks to buy. Stated policy is good for the same thing. That is one of the reasons I say that while I may have a preference about who wins an election, ultimately I don't care because I'm going to pay attention to what they say and do and act accordingly to make the most of it. Simply put, I pay attention to what's going on in my world so I can not be on the "losing side" of things. That's what one is supposed to do in a capitalist society. It's how one gets ahead and stays ahead, or at least apace. So, yes, I take it seriously.

And if you had listened to Obama when he said he would give you affordable health care and you would not lose your coverage and believed him and acted accordingly, you would be out of luck.

It is same old story, more spending we can't afford and lower taxes cuz we don't like to pay for all the free goodies we can't afford.. Even Obozo did it.

It's the same old tune only in Orange.

And if you had listened to Obama when he said he would give you affordable health care and you would not lose your coverage and believed him and acted accordingly, you would be out of luck.

I did listen to him. The price of my health insurance hasn't hasn't changed any more than it typically did in years past; it's always gone up, but never by much. I still have the same insurance I had before. I don't feel out of luck at all.

I'm aware that estimates indicate that somewhere between 700K and 5M people who had non-group health insurance policies lost their coverage because the policy didn't conform to the ACA's requirements. As far as I'm concerned, those people have every right to be ticked off. The fact of the matter, however is that there are some 320M people in the U.S. Sure, even 5M seems like a "big number," but in the context of how many people there are insured, it's nothing if one is evaluating whether the ACA achieved what it sought to achieve.


I can't speak to what has happened with the cost of employer's group plans and how people's premiums have increased. I am aware that as go policies obtained via the O-care exchanges:

Most enrollees in the marketplaces receive a tax credit to lower their premium. In most parts of the country in 2016, a 40-year-old adult making $30,000 per year would pay about $208 per month for the second-lowest-silver plan. If this person is willing to switch to whatever the new second lowest-cost silver plan is in 2017, they will pay a similar amount (the after-tax credit payment for a similar person in 2017 is $207 per month or a change of 0%).
Source (There's a convenient table there that is worth checking out.)​

In light of the full facts of the matter, I consider the hoopla about premium increases to be pure sophistry and political posturing made by individuals who know many of their zealous devotees won't bother to look at the details beyond what they are told.

Xelor, my costs didn't change either. Matter of fact, my COB did NOT rise this year for the first time ever. I am not affected by Obamacare, except in principle. I understand that the requirements of Obamacare coverage made some policies with less coverage inadequate and therefore obsolete. But what I do not understand is why some States ACA client's are burdened with massive rising premiums and others are not. What's the cause for the difference?

What's the cause for the difference?

Well, I can't claim right now to know on a state by state basis. My instincts tell me the issue -- beyond simplistically saying it's a business decision and ascribing the differences to the obvious profit-motive causes -- is one of demographics and lifestyles in the states that don't have the variety of exchange participants (insurers) that some other states do. Another factor outside of simple business calculus may be the nature of work people perform in the state. It could be that there is materially more "dangerous" work in the states having few O-care exchange participants. Those are just two hunches, and I suspect they "play" together with other factors like age, gender, and so on rather than being determining "in isolation" factors.

To test that notion, I'd look first at what states have generally healthier and younger populations and which don't. I'd expect to see fewer exchange choices in less healthy states. Similarly, I'd expect to see a comparatively higher rate of physical labor in states with fewer offerings.

That'd be a starting point, however. Business exigencies cannot be ignored, but I'd at least look to see if there is soemthing besides merely that and which might explain the observed pattern of insurance product offerings by states. The nature of the fees insurers can charge and the actual revenue they realize in exchange for the risk they must assume also may be a factor.

Sure as I've said that, that's just 30 seconds worth of thinking about it. It could be that there are no material demographic/lifestyle differences among states/counties that have only one insurer available. If that's so, it really is just a matter of the insurance companies actuarial predictions and their profit expectations/needs. An article on Vox offers some reasons, but they all pragmatic -- business reasons -- rather than societal. I have no idea whether they or their information sources even attempted to look beyond the obvious business reasons. I would hope they did, but unless/until people explain that they did and what they found, I have no way to know. I do know that insurers are reticent to disclose their actuarial estimates and the assumptions, strategies and targets they pursue in response to them.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I do take it seriously. I think that running the U.S.of A is a serious thing..

1. Stats show that the Middle Class has not had a pay increase (adjusted for inflation and taxes) since 1973. And Oligarch apologists like you play statistical game sto pretend that everything is OK. Horse shit.

2. No one runs us, derp. We are a free people and we run our own selves, thank you very fucking much.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I do take it seriously. I think that running the U.S.of A is a serious thing..

1. Stats show that the Middle Class has not had a pay increase (adjusted for inflation and taxes) since 1973. And Oligarch apologists like you play statistical game sto pretend that everything is OK. Horse shit.

2. No one runs us, derp. We are a free people and we run our own selves, thank you very fucking much.

pretend that everything is OK

No one runs us, derp.

I was about to respond to you with something substantive. I've changed my mind.

 

[bullwinkle]

You take this stuff seriously, don't you.

Why do Americans hang on a politicians every word even though we are continually lied to. It makes no sense!

You take this stuff seriously, don't you.

I do take it seriously. I think that running the U.S.of A is a serious thing.

What Presidents and Congress do matters. Who gets placed into high appointed office will tell you what company stocks to buy. Stated policy is good for the same thing. That is one of the reasons I say that while I may have a preference about who wins an election, ultimately I don't care because I'm going to pay attention to what they say and do and act accordingly to make the most of it. Simply put, I pay attention to what's going on in my world so I can not be on the "losing side" of things. That's what one is supposed to do in a capitalist society. It's how one gets ahead and stays ahead, or at least apace. So, yes, I take it seriously.

And if you had listened to Obama when he said he would give you affordable health care and you would not lose your coverage and believed him and acted accordingly, you would be out of luck.

It is same old story, more spending we can't afford and lower taxes cuz we don't like to pay for all the free goodies we can't afford.. Even Obozo did it.

It's the same old tune only in Orange.

And if you had listened to Obama when he said he would give you affordable health care and you would not lose your coverage and believed him and acted accordingly, you would be out of luck.

I did listen to him. The price of my health insurance hasn't hasn't changed any more than it typically did in years past; it's always gone up, but never by much. I still have the same insurance I had before. I don't feel out of luck at all.

I'm aware that estimates indicate that somewhere between 700K and 5M people who had non-group health insurance policies lost their coverage because the policy didn't conform to the ACA's requirements. As far as I'm concerned, those people have every right to be ticked off. The fact of the matter, however is that there are some 320M people in the U.S. Sure, even 5M seems like a "big number," but in the context of how many people there are insured, it's nothing if one is evaluating whether the ACA achieved what it sought to achieve.


I can't speak to what has happened with the cost of employer's group plans and how people's premiums have increased. I am aware that as go policies obtained via the O-care exchanges:

Most enrollees in the marketplaces receive a tax credit to lower their premium. In most parts of the country in 2016, a 40-year-old adult making $30,000 per year would pay about $208 per month for the second-lowest-silver plan. If this person is willing to switch to whatever the new second lowest-cost silver plan is in 2017, they will pay a similar amount (the after-tax credit payment for a similar person in 2017 is $207 per month or a change of 0%).
Source (There's a convenient table there that is worth checking out.)​

In light of the full facts of the matter, I consider the hoopla about premium increases to be pure sophistry and political posturing made by individuals who know many of their zealous devotees won't bother to look at the details beyond what they are told.

Xelor, my costs didn't change either. Matter of fact, my COB did NOT rise this year for the first time ever. I am not affected by Obamacare, except in principle. I understand that the requirements of Obamacare coverage made some policies with less coverage inadequate and therefore obsolete. But what I do not understand is why some States ACA client's are burdened with massive rising premiums and others are not. What's the cause for the difference?

What's the cause for the difference?

Well, I can't claim right now to know on a state by state basis. My instincts tell me the issue -- beyond simplistically saying it's a business decision and ascribing the differences to the obvious profit-motive causes -- is one of demographics and lifestyles in the states that don't have the variety of exchange participants (insurers) that some other states do. Another factor outside of simple business calculus may be the nature of work people perform in the state. It could be that there is materially more "dangerous" work in the states having few O-care exchange participants. Those are just two hunches, and I suspect they "play" together with other factors like age, gender, and so on rather than being determining "in isolation" factors.

To test that notion, I'd look first at what states have generally healthier and younger populations and which don't. I'd expect to see fewer exchange choices in less healthy states. Similarly, I'd expect to see a comparatively higher rate of physical labor in states with fewer offerings.

That'd be a starting point, however. Business exigencies cannot be ignored, but I'd at least look to see if there is soemthing besides merely that and which might explain the observed pattern of insurance product offerings by states. The nature of the fees insurers can charge and the actual revenue they realize in exchange for the risk they must assume also may be a factor.

Sure as I've said that, that's just 30 seconds worth of thinking about it. It could be that there are no material demographic/lifestyle differences among states/counties that have only one insurer available. If that's so, it really is just a matter of the insurance companies actuarial predictions and their profit expectations/needs. An article on Vox offers some reasons, but they all pragmatic -- business reasons -- rather than societal. I have no idea whether they or their information sources even attempted to look beyond the obvious business reasons. I would hope they did, but unless/until people explain that they did and what they found, I have no way to know. I do know that insurers are reticent to disclose their actuarial estimates and the assumptions, strategies and targets they pursue in response to them.

Thank you, Xelor. It still isn't clear, but I often rely on folks like you to help me muddle thru, and I especially thank you for sharing your educated opinion. The ACA must be tweaked and I need to learn what's good and what's not. For example, I don't like the idea of vouchers on the theory that coverage will run out before the illness does. As for tax credits, does that mean I pay the doc/hospital for my hip replacement or heart bypass and then claim it on my taxes? So you see, I have a lot to learn, and I appreciate your willingness to help. Thanks again

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Any speech I don't listen to...is a speech I like.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

 

[usmbguest5318]

Thank you, Xelor.

You're welcome.

As for tax credits, does that mean I pay the doc/hospital for my hip replacement or heart bypass and then claim it on my taxes?

My phone has been ringing off the hook. I guess that's what happens when "sh*t's goin' down" and people know you are likely awake. Lemme get back to you....