How does the GOP, the Family Values party, defend this sort of fiscal thinking?
That such is not a proper function of the federal government. If there’s a need for the program, the states will take it up. As they should with school lunch programs as well.
I’m betting that will affect a great number of Trump’s supporters and/or their extended family members.
If it works out that way. The CBO screwed up the ACA scoring by massive numbers, and they haven’t learned their lesson. Do some reading outside your bubble. (Just as a general guideline, you might want to listen to the people who were right about the ACA all along (the GOP, Avik Roy, Megan McArdle, etc.) and not listen so much to the ones who were wrong about the ACA when they told you it was going to control costs and work out fine (the Dems)).
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 24 million fewer people will have health insurance by…www.forbes.com
I’d like to know how reducing the budget for the Food and Drug Administration is a good and wise choice.
Pretty simple. The FDA is going way beyond its food and drug safety charter. You can cut away a good quarter to a third of its budget without disturbing its primary mission.
Something to think about here: The federal government does not budget like normal organizations do. They automatically give each agency a budget increase each year based on the COLA, whether the agency needs more money or not. It is not controversial in the least to point out that this leads to imbalances, where some agencies have far more money than they need. But, if you know government thinking, you know that the agency heads will spend every penny on *something*, because the last thing a government agency head wants to do is show up with cash in his/her account at the end of the fiscal year.
Perhaps you can explain his proposed slashing of the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget, and how that will be good for all those of us who prefer our air to be non-toxic.
Same comment as above. Your air will still be non toxic. Take it to the bank.
You see where I’m going with this.
Yep. Sure do. You blindly assume that a cut to an agency must mean that some of the core mission of that agency will be lost. You don’t consider that (a) the agency might have gone BEYOND that core charter, and/or (b) there exists waste an inefficiency in the agency. value will be lost. Not only is the very notion of that belief is absurd, prima facie, but not even Hilary Clinton would agree with it. Back in a Dem Presidential debate, Clinton said this:
CLINTON: There are a number of programs that are redundant and not producing the results that people deserve. There are a lot of training programs and education programs that I think can be streamlined. I would like to take a hard look at every part of the federal government and do the kind of analysis that would rebuild some confidence that we’re taking a hard look about what we have and what we don’t need anymore.
So, I ask you: Clinton clearly is agreeing with Trump that there is nondefense waste in the government. Would you have disagreed as strenuously if it were she fulfilling this campaign pledge rather than Trump?
All so that we can increase our military budget. US military spending is already more than the combined annual military budgets of China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, United Kingdom, India, France and Japan.
I think it’s important to note here that one can agree with Trump slashing a quarter to a third out of these departments WITHOUT agreeing that we need a military buildup. I’d rather see any savings go to deficit reduction.
However, one must note: You cannot simultaneously believe that Russia is some enormous military threat to us, AND believe that no increase in military spending is justified. Those two beliefs don’t go together.
Trump’s budget would rather buy more missiles for our military than save Americans lives.
I’ve been thinking a lot about this question, lately.
You need to think again, and dig into what will actually get cut, rather than make worst case assumptions about what will get cut. You will lead a calmer and happier life.
How can anyone be that short-sighted and cold-hearted?
It would be horrible if anyone was, but nobody is. However, we’ve looked at the actual facts, while you’ve only looked at analyses from the lefty echo chamber, it seems.
I have come to the conclusion their rational arguments are justifications for how they feel. Which means how they feel trumps their thinking.
Just the opposite. We operate on data. Watch the mainstream news and what the Dems will say about the AHCA. They won’t fight with data, what they’ll do is trot up impoverished family after impoverished family who (according to them) will lose health coverage, to get people like you to feel sorry for them align with the Dems emotionally.
Don’t be manipulated. They will be manipulating you, big time. Remember this?
That’s a Dem ad that illustrated a Democrat talking point that Politifact rated as FALSE. Can you really look at that and with a straight face say that the Dems are not manipulating emotions?
Amid discussion of the Medicare overhaul proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., an ad created by the Agenda Project, a…www.politifact.com
Right now, I’m eager to argue, but I’m left to wonder: if I can’t sway my family and friends who support Trump by providing them with facts, statistics, and raw data, then what am I left with?
I haven’t seen a single FACT in your article. What FACTS are you referring to? The CBO? (chuckles) Economists don’t do facts; they do projections based on what they consider to be the most likely assumptions. If they’re good, the projections come out close to reality. If they’re not good (like the CBO assuming the individual mandate would drive ACA participation) they don’t mirror reality at all.
If a change to our beliefs requires personal experience, then that’s what we need to increase.
This “experience thing” works both ways. However, I find it highly unlikely that you’re about to sit down with some Trumpian religious conservatives and listen to them with an open mind. Find yourself a Trumpian with an equal or better education than yourself; if you majored in journalism or writing, that won’t be horribly difficult. At any rate, there are tens of millions of us who will be glad to give you a rational, fact based discussion on why we support (or do not support) policies that we do.
You must focus on what the other person believes. What motivates someone to support repealing healthcare for 24 million people, some of whom may be family members of the person who supports the repeal?
Well, the fact that the CBO number is bullshit, for one. The second point is that they perhaps understand the legislative process better than you do, meaning that they know that any bill is going to be amended to gain votes, therefore meaning that we really don’t know WHAT the final bill looks like yet (keep in mind that we didn’t see the final ACA until nearly a YEAR had passed!); this makes it premature to judge. The third point is that anyone who has ever negotiated anything knows you never start out with what you’ll accept, you start out with something you know your opponent will NOT accept. The fourth point here is that they already likely realize that the ACA is DEAD in 24 months or so even if nobody does anything to it, because all of the insurers will have dropped out, so comparing the AHCA to something that is a dead program walking is a bit silly. (BTW, if you think the ACA is can be saved, then you’re not really up on its structural problems.)
Ask that person to articulate their beliefs. Ask if starving grandmas and denying cancer patients healthcare squares with their beliefs.
Nope. That’s a straw man argument. How can you write all that prose about having a good and reasoned discussion, and then start out with a logically fallacious argument that presumes a hypothetical and unlikely result?
I conclude that you’re not looking for an honest discussion. All you’re looking for is validation.