Why have Republicans stopped bragging about the stock market?

[Botanical11B]

LOL, where'd your cuck governor comment go? I assume you better understood what I was saying so removed it.

No I just didn't see the point in arguing with someone who thinks electing good leadership isn't the point.

Got to start somewhere.

Doesn't have to be one size fits all. There can be hybrid systems under which all citizens have healthcare.

Got to start somewhere, LIKE YOUR STATE. LOL and some details of what "universal healthcare" even means.

It doesn't have to be one size fits all? That's my whole argument, you should tell the (D)'z who seem to think it does have to be one size fits all.

Citizens are partisan lemmings, huh. Again, we'd have to decide healthcare coverage for all is a health right, not a political game. Once that's done the deets can get hammered out. I do get that there are government belief systems involved.

Some of them absolutely are.

It's not a right, it's goods and services.

You don't have a right to other peoples goods and services, because this is the USA not Soviet Russia or N. Korea.

You probably wouldn't have to pay or pay much under a UHC system to get the same care.

60-90 % of my income isn't much?

Are you in denial about how all these free goods and services will be paid for or just not aware?

What's wrong with coming together as a nation to decide it's the right thing to do to take care of all citizens healthcare? That's not happening under the current system and we are pretty much the only first world nation without UHC of some sort.

Nothing.

Problem is we are not a unitary state. There are a lot of states that are just too liberal to support UHC.

It's not just the left.

Who else is advocating nationwide Soviet Care and totally blowing off anything slightly less authoritarian??

What right wing parties/politicians are pushing for/campaigning nationwide right to the property/services/time of HC professionals?

None...not one. It is just the left.

In 2018 a hair under 50% of the right also support UHC, and maybe over 50% depending on the margin of error in a 2018 Reuters survey I saw.

And I'd bet the farm most of them do NOT support the 1 size fits all 50 state Soviet Care the progressives are pushing...a right to other peoples shit.

They would be quite happy with and almost certainly would prefer a socially liberal public service at the state level. No elimination of private services or "right" to other peoples shit needed.

Though a 10/19 CBS poll reported 61% of Repubs don't want a govt run universal HC, but that's a specifically targeted question rather than the broader one Reuters probably asked...and, I know.

Yea.....specifics is where it all starts falling apart and why for over half a century we have NEVER been able to pass anything worth a shit.

Again, 'universal healthcare' is a largely meaningless term without details.

 

[nerfvibrator]

tangerine spoke, futures down limit
could be a bloody Monday
Aussie market down over 8 percent

 

[jomar]

No I just didn't see the point in arguing with someone who thinks electing good leadership isn't the point.

This shows you missed my point.

Got to start somewhere, LIKE YOUR STATE. LOL and some details of what "universal healthcare" even means.

Again, once everyone agrees that it would be a good thing and commits to it then the details get hammered out.

It doesn't have to be one size fits all? That's my whole argument, you should tell the (D)'z who seem to think it does have to be one size fits all.

There's probably a common base policy, but that doesn't mean you can't have flavors.

Some of them absolutely are.

It's not a right, it's goods and services.

You don't have a right to other peoples goods and services, because this is the USA not Soviet Russia or N. Korea.

If we decide it's a right it become a right, right? And it doesn't have to be what you fear. Besides, what goods and services are you talking about...prescription medicine, physicals? The price of medicine would probably go down...would that offend you? You'd still get to go the doctor.

60-90 % of my income isn't much?

Are you in denial about how all these free goods and services will be paid for or just not aware?

You're going to have to show me where you're getting those % for projected US UHC rates. I found nothing proposed that remotely suggests that.

Nothing.

Problem is we are not a unitary state. There are a lot of states that are just too liberal to support UHC.

Got to get things teed up right for buy in. Doesn't mean it can't happen.

Who else is advocating nationwide Soviet Care and totally blowing off anything slightly less authoritarian??

What right wing parties/politicians are pushing for/campaigning nationwide right to the property/services/time of HC professionals?

None...not one. It is just the left.

LOL, soviet care. But you do have a point. It is more of a dem thing even though some repubs support it.

And I'd bet the farm most of them do NOT support the 1 size fits all 50 state Soviet Care the progressives are pushing...a right to other peoples shit.

They would be quite happy with and almost certainly would prefer a socially liberal public service at the state level. No elimination of private services or "right" to other peoples shit needed.

There are plenty of articles saying how UHC might cost far less than one would think. If they can be shown those projections, it might make sense to do things from a national level that has more clout than individual states to drive down healthcare costs. Hospitals don't charge you $12 for an aspirin for no reason.

Yea.....specifics is where it all starts falling apart and why for over half a century we have NEVER been able to pass anything worth a shit.

Again, 'universal healthcare' is a largely meaningless term without details.

The real issue there is that we, as a country, have never said we need to have universal healthcare for all citizens. If we, as a country, both left and right, made that commitment we'd certainly argue over the specifics, but it would get done.

 

[RoryN]

Dow is

 

[Pookie]

The news is going to get much worse throughout the week. Even with Congress's potentially 2 trillion dollar relief package on the horizon, I wouldn't be shocked to see the Dow go below 1700 for at least a brief time sometime between Wednesday and Friday.

I do believe it will recover, but it will be slow going for awhile.

 

[Botanical11B]

Again, once everyone agrees that it would be a good thing and commits to it then the details get hammered out.

1) without details how in the hell do you ever plan to get everyone to agree that it's good??

2) you're never going to get everyone to agree.

If we decide it's a right it become a right, right?

No. It's a good/service. We could decide everyone has RIGHT to a Lambo....doesn't make it so.

Besides, what goods and services are you talking about...prescription medicine, physicals?

The goods and services that medical suppliers and professionals provide in exchange for money.

Medicine, IV bags, tubing, dosing machines, x-ray machines, nurses, surgery, the operating rooms, the HR, legal and accounting departments and all the other teams of people it takes to maintain/operate the medical facility. Biohazard disposal, specialized janitorial services and on and on and on....all those goods and services. They cost money, they don't just happen by magic and the government isn't going to Harry Potter that shit into existence either.

The price of medicine would probably go down...would that offend you? You'd still get to go the doctor.

No. Would I? How can you be sure you don't have ANY details of any UHC systems in mind. How many Venezuelans are getting to their doctors?? They have UHC!!!!

Or are we talking more of a Scandinavian public option style UHC?? VASTLY different results wouldn't you agree that details make a drastic difference in results???

You're going to have to show me where you're getting those % for projected US UHC rates. I found nothing proposed that remotely suggests that.

Look at the tax rates.

What do you think will happen to them when we start giving away all that "Free" healthcare??

Hint: They won't be going down.

Got to get things teed up right for buy in. Doesn't mean it can't happen.

Again you're ignoring the fact that despite numerous attempts by both sides over the better part of a century (back to Eisenhower) and it failing every fucking time because when the details come out nobody agrees, not even within a party.

LOL, soviet care. But you do have a point. It is more of a dem thing even though some repubs support it.

What do you think the "progressives" were talking about when they were saying they're going to eliminate private HC and nationalize it?Why do you think social liberals like Obama and Bill Maher were asking the DNC leadership to condemn the crazy commie talk on the far left of the party??

Because when the government IS the HC industry that's Soviet Care.

No Republicans supports that shit. You can't name a single one.

Again the details behind what "UHC" means can be wildly differing and very polarizing things.

There are plenty of articles saying how UHC might cost far less than one would think. If they can be shown those projections, it might make sense to do things from a national level that has more clout than individual states to drive down healthcare costs. Hospitals don't charge you $12 for an aspirin for no reason.

Again...UHC means NOTHING without details. SO yea it "might" but without details there isn't even a way to even speculate on that

They charge a whole lot more than 12 bucks in some of the places I've been.

The real issue there is that we, as a country, have never said we need to have universal healthcare for all citizens. If we, as a country, both left and right, made that commitment we'd certainly argue over the specifics, but it would get done.

We already agree, super majority...70%....has been a major issue for as long as most of the people alive today can remember.

Why hasn't it happened??

Why have we all been bickering about it for decades???

Because the details. Montana and Idaho support "UHC"...but they want public options. No infringement on private care and to keep it for the citizens of their state. Gotta have ID....which as we all know by "progressive" standards is White Nationalist Nazism.

Moderate states are looking at more progressive ways of funding a public option but still aren't trying to eliminate private HC.

California and NY want to get rid of private HC, if you want HC in you have to ask the state and ask for it. They also seem to want to provide these goods and services to literally anyone who steps foot in the borders of California with their hands out will get it. No ID or anything needed and the CA taxpayers will foot the bill.


All 3 are "UHC" but wildly different and highly polarizing methods on how to provide it.

There are no unifying principles nationwide. State level is the only level you're going to get things passed. It's also the only way for everyone to get what they want.

 

[RoryN]

Close to 1,000 down.

Will it recover before it closes?

 

[Pookie]

Up over 1000 at opening due to news of the stimulus bill being close to an agreement.

 

[dp4shelly]

Lets wait and see...

Before November this fake news generated hysteria over the China Virus will have likely cooled down. The POTUS excellent response to the China Virus will likely end up showcasing his skill as a leader. Polls show that people are already impressed. I know I am. As the tide begins to turn on the rise of the China Virus the stock market will likely roar back at a record rate. So, lets wait and see. But I think it is very likely that the stock market will be just one of many factors that sweeps Trump to a historic landslide victory.

 

[jomar]

I'm going to rearrange some of this for a particular point at the end.

No. It's a good/service. We could decide everyone has RIGHT to a Lambo....doesn't make it so.

No, health care for all could be a right for citizens, like the right to bear arms or free speech.

The goods and services that medical suppliers and professionals provide in exchange for money.

Medicine, IV bags, tubing, dosing machines, x-ray machines, nurses, surgery, the operating rooms, the HR, legal and accounting departments and all the other teams of people it takes to maintain/operate the medical facility. Biohazard disposal, specialized janitorial services and on and on and on....all those goods and services. They cost money, they don't just happen by magic and the government isn't going to Harry Potter that shit into existence either.

This stuff would still exist and get made and paid for. Don't know what you're thinking here.

Look at the tax rates.

What do you think will happen to them when we start giving away all that "Free" healthcare??

Hint: They won't be going down.

Who says it's 100% free?

Yeah, still not seeing 90%, but am seeing articles talking about higher taxes and lower healthcare costs so it's basically a wash...but there is a lot of discussion all over the map.

Besides, what a tax rate is and what you pay are two different things. I'm in a certain tax bracket, but when it's all said and done my effective tax rate is 3.79%

The rearranged part about details is below...

1) without details how in the hell do you ever plan to get everyone to agree that it's good??

2) you're never going to get everyone to agree.

...
No. Would I? How can you be sure you don't have ANY details of any UHC systems in mind. How many Venezuelans are getting to their doctors?? They have UHC!!!!

Or are we talking more of a Scandinavian public option style UHC?? VASTLY different results wouldn't you agree that details make a drastic difference in results???

...
Again you're ignoring the fact that despite numerous attempts by both sides over the better part of a century (back to Eisenhower) and it failing every fucking time because when the details come out nobody agrees, not even within a party.

...
What do you think the "progressives" were talking about when they were saying they're going to eliminate private HC and nationalize it?Why do you think social liberals like Obama and Bill Maher were asking the DNC leadership to condemn the crazy commie talk on the far left of the party??

Because when the government IS the HC industry that's Soviet Care.

No Republicans supports that shit. You can't name a single one.

Again the details behind what "UHC" means can be wildly differing and very polarizing things.

...
Again...UHC means NOTHING without details. SO yea it "might" but without details there isn't even a way to even speculate on that

They charge a whole lot more than 12 bucks in some of the places I've been. [/color]

...
We already agree, super majority...70%....has been a major issue for as long as most of the people alive today can remember.

Why hasn't it happened??

Why have we all been bickering about it for decades???

Because the details. Montana and Idaho support "UHC"...but they want public options. No infringement on private care and to keep it for the citizens of their state. Gotta have ID....which as we all know by "progressive" standards is White Nationalist Nazism.

Moderate states are looking at more progressive ways of funding a public option but still aren't trying to eliminate private HC.

California and NY want to get rid of private HC, if you want HC in you have to ask the state and ask for it. They also seem to want to provide these goods and services to literally anyone who steps foot in the borders of California with their hands out will get it. No ID or anything needed and the CA taxpayers will foot the bill.

All 3 are "UHC" but wildly different and highly polarizing methods on how to provide it.

There are no unifying principles nationwide. State level is the only level you're going to get things passed. It's also the only way for everyone to get what they want.

The majority of citizens want UHC, but the leadership in DC does not. Republicans tried to stop ACA initially, then repeal and replace under Trump, which failed. So maybe the majority of citizens who want it, including republicans, need to vote differently.

The rearrange is because we are talking about this from opposite ends. You say we can't move forward on UHC without knowing the details first. And that when they start getting into the weeds things fall apart as they have for decades because nobody can agree.

I'm saying that if our leadership in DC, both republican and democrat, decide that UHC is in the best interest of the US and commit to that, they have a starting point. Their commitment to UHC puts them on the same team with the same goal. From there they come together and make sausage of the details until the job's done. And it would get done if the commitment was there. We've done hard stuff before.

So no worries you have an opinion it can't get done and things should remain the same. My opinion is that if DC leadership commits to it, UHC can be implemented in a way best for the US.

 

[jomar]

Before November this fake news generated hysteria over the China Virus will have likely cooled down. The POTUS excellent response to the China Virus will likely end up showcasing his skill as a leader. Polls show that people are already impressed. I know I am. As the tide begins to turn on the rise of the China Virus the stock market will likely roar back at a record rate. So, lets wait and see. But I think it is very likely that the stock market will be just one of many factors that sweeps Trump to a historic landslide victory.

да, товарищ!

 

[hogjack]

...the stock market will likely roar back at a record rate.

Smart money is buying targeted companies and sectors in the market with precision. When the market does recover - and it will - that's where fortunes are made. Opportunities abound.

However, uncontrollable variables like Communist China allowing a second wave of virus to break out or an untimely disaster (earthquake, terrorist act, etc) could well push recovery out further.

No one knows what globalists have planned to keep up the disruption.

 

[Botanical11B]

No, health care for all could be a right for citizens, like the right to bear arms or free speech.

No....it couldn't be.

Neither the right to bear arms or free speech isn't a right to someone else's time/labor/services/property. You don't have to pay for my guns, ammo, day off to go protest, which has never happened because I'm not dumb, but you get the point.

The government is not putting a gun to anyones head and threatening to end their lives either effectively through legal means or literally by cops to provide goods and services for others.

HC for all in most cases, and especially the plans the lefties talk about are exactly that. Even Obamacare....was that, if you don't buy then they sick the IRS on you and end your life. BOOM, like a gun to the head.

This stuff would still exist and get made and paid for. Don't know what you're thinking here.

Depends!! Back to UHC being a functionally useless term...just look a N. Korea. Under Soviet Care, that shit all goes bye bye. And I'm more likely to wind up being starved to death or slaved to death in Gulag than get any benefit from the most "progressive" system possible.

Yeah, still not seeing 90%, but am seeing articles talking about higher taxes and lower healthcare costs so it's basically a wash...but there is a lot of discussion all over the map.

A wash? Depends on who you are and how much you make. It's very unlikely that it will be a wash. Nearly everyone will either be getting handouts or paying for them.

The majority of citizens want UHC, but the leadership in DC does not. Republicans tried to stop ACA initially, then repeal and replace under Trump, which failed. So maybe the majority of citizens who want it, including republicans, need to vote differently.

DC does....DC does want it, they've been bickering about it for almost 70 years.

Vote differently for what? That "majority" means nothing....because none of them agree on what "uhc" means. Again, it's a meaningless term not even you can define.

As soon as any questions about details come out you recoil and deflect.

So I ask again, what UHC are we talking about???

Classical liberal UHC? Soviet Care UHC? Fascist care UHC? The UK's Social Democracy UHC?? These are all wildly different systems that provide "UHC"??

Are you starting to see the problem with the term UHC yet?? It doesn't really mean much, it describes an end result without any way to achieve it.

The rearrange is because we are talking about this from opposite ends. You say we can't move forward on UHC without knowing the details first. And that when they start getting into the weeds things fall apart as they have for decades because nobody can agree.

Given our long history of trying to make it happen without reaching consensus on how to do so, that's the observable and objective reality as I see it. Yes.

I'm saying that if our leadership in DC, both republican and democrat, decide that UHC is in the best interest of the US and commit to that, they have a starting point.

Their commitment to UHC puts them on the same team with the same goal. From there they come together and make sausage of the details until the job's done. And it would get done if the commitment was there.

They've been at that starting point since the late 50's.......it's been an on and off rage inducing political fight that's been going on longer than most of us have been alive and still hasn't happened. The fundamental differences between the Soviet care, social democracy care, liberal care and corporate care crowds that make up that 70% who support "UHC" are so fundamentally different and opposed to one another they aren't actually 70%....25-30% at best.

So no worries you have an opinion it can't get done and things should remain the same.

That is not my opinion.

My opinion is to get is to give the totalitarian control freak act a rest and get it done by different means.

Because for some of us almost 70 years of not being able to get that 70% who support UHC on the same page is strong evidence that we are not all on the same page about how to do it.

It's strong evidence that 70% is actually a bunch of separate groups that want an end result but refuse to compromise on how to get it.

It's strong evidence that the 1 size for all 50 states plan you are dreaming of is probably not going to happen.

My opinion is that if DC leadership commits to it, UHC can be implemented in a way best for the US.

Then why wasn't this issue resolved back in the late 50's early 60's??

Carter??? Clinton??? Even Reagan tried and it got butchered into a flop....Clinton????

Why wasn't it resolved under Obama when (D)'s had total control over the government and unanimous support for "UHC"??

Why don't we have a federal UHC system of some kind? Despite decades and decades of both sides well documented efforts???

HINT: It's not the lack of commitment or desire.....the devil is in the details.

 

[jomar]

No....it couldn't be.

Neither the right to bear arms or free speech isn't a right to someone else's time/labor/services/property. You don't have to pay for my guns, ammo, day off to go protest, which has never happened because I'm not dumb, but you get the point.

Fair point on buying/selling. But goods and services would still be needed under UHC, so buying and selling would still go on even if UHC was seen as a right.

The government is not putting a gun to anyones head and threatening to end their lives either effectively through legal means or literally by cops to provide goods and services for others.

HC for all in most cases, and especially the plans the lefties talk about are exactly that. Even Obamacare....was that, if you don't buy then they sick the IRS on you and end your life. BOOM, like a gun to the head.

Obamacare most definitely had problems. And yes, that necessary element did stick in peoples' craw.

Depends!! Back to UHC being a functionally useless term...just look a N. Korea. Under Soviet Care, that shit all goes bye bye. And I'm more likely to wind up being starved to death or slaved to death in Gulag than get any benefit from the most "progressive" system possible.

You keep citing worst case scenarios we wouldn't do.

A wash? Depends on who you are and how much you make. It's very unlikely that it will be a wash. Nearly everyone will either be getting handouts or paying for them.

Not an even wash no, but a fair bit of cancelling out. Probably also depends if you're married or not as well.

DC does....DC does want it, they've been bickering about it for almost 70 years.

Republicans fought tooth and nail against ACA. And Ryan gave it fuck you wave by holding back promised funding as it left the building.

Vote differently for what? That "majority" means nothing....because none of them agree on what "uhc" means. Again, it's a meaningless term not even you can define.

As soon as any questions about details come out you recoil and deflect.

So I ask again, what UHC are we talking about???

Classical liberal UHC? Soviet Care UHC? Fascist care UHC? The UK's Social Democracy UHC?? These are all wildly different systems that provide "UHC"??

What you see as me recoiling and deflecting is simply me not defining or advocating for any particular flavor of UHC. I fully expect that those tasked with coming up with a rough draft would compare and contrast all UHC systems across the globe present and past.

Vote differently for those you want in office, like politicians who are in favor of UHC.

Are you starting to see the problem with the term UHC yet?? It doesn't really mean much, it describes an end result without any way to achieve it.

That's what I've been talking about...coming together in a bipartisan way and committing to UHC...in essence, defining an end result then hammering out the details towards a committed to common goal.

They've been at that starting point since the late 50's.......it's been an on and off rage inducing political fight that's been going on longer than most of us have been alive and still hasn't happened. The fundamental differences between the Soviet care, social democracy care, liberal care and corporate care crowds that make up that 70% who support "UHC" are so fundamentally different and opposed to one another they aren't actually 70%....25-30% at best.

You said it...a political fight. There has not been a united effort to get it done. And it is hindered by anti-socialist rhetoric - you get a yes or no answer to "are you in favor of" depending on the words you use. You also touch on other factors in the way, all those interest groups that are pushing hard against it.

That is not my opinion.

My opinion is to get is to give the totalitarian control freak act a rest and get it done by different means.

Because for some of us almost 70 years of not being able to get that 70% who support UHC on the same page is strong evidence that we are not all on the same page about how to do it.

It's strong evidence that 70% is actually a bunch of separate groups that want an end result but refuse to compromise on how to get it.

It's strong evidence that the 1 size for all 50 states plan you are dreaming of is probably not going to happen.

LOL.

I think you're closer to the answer of why we don't have it is your sentence in bold. There are a number of strong outside forces working against it. If congress didn't have lobbyists from big pharma, for profit insurance companies, even physician groups all throwing big money around they could come up with something.

I don't know that it would be one size fits all rammed down your throat. Might be a basic service and you could choose to enhance that in different ways.

Then why wasn't this issue resolved back in the late 50's early 60's??

Carter??? Clinton??? Even Reagan tried and it got butchered into a flop....Clinton????

Why wasn't it resolved under Obama when (D)'s had total control over the government and unanimous support for "UHC"??

Why don't we have a federal UHC system of some kind? Despite decades and decades of both sides well documented efforts???

HINT: It's not the lack of commitment or desire.....the devil is in the details.

If you go back and check on those you mentioned I bet you'll find a lack of strong bipartisan support, in addition to those interest groups influencing politicians. Like I said, even when Obama had congress, republicans did every thing they could to derail it and Obama had to do some appeasing and compromising and even then Ryan gave it a final fuck you. And Trump ran on repeal and replace of ACA instead of fix the problems and patch the holes. So yeah, it is a lack of united commitment and desire.

 

[bodysong]

Who cares about corpses ? Money is back on the table, boys!

March 25, 2020

Wednesday, investors celebrated the biggest government intervention
in the U.S. economy with the first back-to-back days of stock gains
in more than a month.

After falling 10,000 points in two months, the Dow Jones industrial average
regained more than 2,500 points on Tuesday and Wednesday amid optimism
about the recovery package.

Tuesday, Wall Street staged a massive rally in anticipation of an agreement,
with the Dow climbing 11.4 percent for its best day since 1933

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...ate-coronavirus-economic-stimulus-2-trillion/

 

[Botanical11B]

Fair point on buying/selling. But goods and services would still be needed under UHC, so buying and selling would still go on even if UHC was seen as a right.

Depends on the UHC...what kinda UHC are you talking about??

You keep citing worst case scenarios we wouldn't do.

Some 30+% of the DNC wants Soviet Care man....that's what the "progressives" are talking about when they say they support nationalizing HC, eliminating the private sector.

Do you support that??

What you see as me recoiling and deflecting is simply me not defining or advocating for any particular flavor of UHC.

Yea, because they you'd have to admit that 70% ain't unified on how to do UHC and if you admit that you might have to see the point in letting HC be a state issue instead of forcing a 1 size fits all 50 states system.

Vote differently for those you want in office, like politicians who are in favor of UHC.

That's what I've been talking about...coming together in a bipartisan way and committing to UHC.

Again with "UHC" that means nothing....we already do vote for the pols we want and most of them support "UHC" but they don't agree on how, no matter how badly you want to ignore that fact.

People in Florida want to do things differently from Montana, Texas and California want their own kinds of "UHC" ......this makes federal UHC very unlikely.

I don't know that it would be one size fits all rammed down your throat.

If it's federal that's exactly what it is...it means all the states on 1 system.

If you go back and check on those you mentioned I bet you'll find a lack of strong bipartisan support,

So yeah, it is a lack of united commitment and desire.

And again, why do you think this is despite wide support for "UHC"??

Do think the difference between the liberals, social liberals, social democrats and Soviet Care crowds might possibly be were that 70% who support "UHC" start breaking down into minority groups that aren't getting wide support??

 

[Dribble]

It is all just fake money. See, stocks SHOULD be an indication of how that company is expected to perform in the next 6 months. This is no longer true under the guidance of Trump. All they are doing is kicking the can down the road. It is impossible for ANY company to basically close down to minimal production for a month, and NOT have it affect their dividends. GDP will be down 20% in the next quarter. How can this positively reflect on stock price? Give it a week. When Donald says open the country back up, and the states and companies say, we will pass, they will over correct downward. These kinds of swings are not healthy for a stable market.

Why will companies pass? Lawsuits baby...Donald's pride and joy

 

[bodysong]

Colin Kalmbacher
Twitter › colinkalmbacher

Mitch McConnell's $2 trillion Coronavirus bill eviscerates one of the nation's
oldest transparency laws--giving the Federal Reserve the ability to meet in secret
as they dispense billions of dollars in cash to corporations.

My latest for @lawcrimenews

46 minutes ago

The House needs to kill this bill. Don't even take it up. Start over.
Clean slate. Just send checks. Nothing else for now.

9 hours ago

Senate Bill Lets the Federal Reserve Board Meet in Secret for Basically Any Reason

An additional section of the massive, 890-page rescue bill adds a further
layer of potential inscrutability when it comes to the release of those
corporate slush funds. The provision in question has also resulted in
several dozen additional decibels of outrage.

Titled “Temporary Government In The Sunshine Act Relief,” the provision
authorizes the Federal Reserve Board and other such officials to meet in
secret without any oversight constraints.

...this provision–controversial in and of itself for eviscerating the time-honored
transparency law on which all 50 states’s own open government laws are modeled–
stands to be doubly controversial for its relationship to the Senate’s corporate bail out.

https://lawandcrime.com/covid-19-pa...oard-meet-in-secret-for-basically-any-reason/

 

[jomar]

Depends on the UHC...what kinda UHC are you talking about??

Some 30+% of the DNC wants Soviet Care man....that's what the "progressives" are talking about when they say they support nationalizing HC, eliminating the private sector.

Do you support that??

Yea, because they you'd have to admit that 70% ain't unified on how to do UHC and if you admit that you might have to see the point in letting HC be a state issue instead of forcing a 1 size fits all 50 states system.

Again with "UHC" that means nothing....we already do vote for the pols we want and most of them support "UHC" but they don't agree on how, no matter how badly you want to ignore that fact.

Yeah, I don't think the progressives have their head on straight about it.

I'm not ignoring anything. I get that folk have different ideas about how to do it. I'm saying we haven't had a unified committed effort to see it through.

People in Florida want to do things differently from Montana, Texas and California want their own kinds of "UHC" ......this makes federal UHC very unlikely.

Maybe.

If it's federal that's exactly what it is...it means all the states on 1 system.

So let's say there is a basic one size fits all system. Why couldn't medical boutiques spring up to offer things to enhance and fill in the gaps, so to speak.

And again, why do you think this is despite wide support for "UHC"??

Do think the difference between the liberals, social liberals, social democrats and Soviet Care crowds might possibly be were that 70% who support "UHC" start breaking down into minority groups that aren't getting wide support??

We're talking in circles now. You're saying it can't get done because people disagree on what it should look like and things fall apart. I'm not saying it would be easy. But I am saying that if both parties got serious about it solutions could be found that work in the US. Let's agree to disagree and move on to something else.

 

[Botanical11B]

I'm not ignoring anything. I get that folk have different ideas about how to do it. I'm saying we haven't had a unified committed effort to see it through.

How could we??

We don't have a unified agreement on what "it" is.

70% have a unified desire for a certain outcome.

So let's say there is a basic one size fits all system. Why couldn't medical boutiques spring up to offer things to enhance and fill in the gaps, so to speak.

Depends on what how the system is crafted. Back to what is "UHC".

Are you starting to understand why details matter??

We're talking in circles now.

Yes because you're still convinced that if we all hold hands and sing kumbaya the Corporate Care, Soviet Care, Liberal Care and Social Democracy Care camps will all find away to set aside the WILDLY different ideas about UHC and get a 1 size fits all 50 states program done that won't just be immediately dismantled by one of the other factions as soon as they get power.

You're saying it can't get done because people disagree on what it should look like and things fall apart.

That is the observable reality of the last near 70 years.

I'm not saying it would be easy. But I am saying that if both parties got serious about it solutions could be found that work in the US.

That would be nice, but it doesn't seem to be working.

Let's agree to disagree and move on to something else.

I guess I'll never understand the NEED to force all 50 states into one program and the aversion to stats doing their own programs.

But sure.

 

[RoryN]

Doesn't look like a rally this morning...

 

[jomar]

How could we??

We don't have a unified agreement on what "it" is.

70% have a unified desire for a certain outcome.

70% of citizens supporting UHC doesn't translate to a majority of congressional support. Until that happens the "what it looks like" is actually pretty irrelevant.

Depends on what how the system is crafted. Back to what is "UHC".

Are you starting to understand why details matter??

Again, details matter but until there is strong bipartisan support that can withstand outside pressure from interest groups to hammer out UHC, it won't happen.

Are you starting to understand why strong bipartisan support matters?

Yes because you're still convinced that if we all hold hands and sing kumbaya the Corporate Care, Soviet Care, Liberal Care and Social Democracy Care camps will all find away to set aside the WILDLY different ideas about UHC and get a 1 size fits all 50 states program done that won't just be immediately dismantled by one of the other factions as soon as they get power.

Don't be silly. It would get hammered out. And if there is strong bipartisan effort that gets the job done it won't get dismantled because...bipartisan. Also, Republicans couldn't repeal and replace ACA because people liked it despite its flaws and they couldn't come up with anything better...it's hard to take away things from people.

That is the observable reality of the last near 70 years.

That's because there has never been strong bipartisan support with the will to get UHC done.

That would be nice, but it doesn't seem to be working.

True so far.

I guess I'll never understand the NEED to force all 50 states into one program and the aversion to stats doing their own programs.

But sure.

Because maybe as a first world nation we have a responsibility to take care of all of our citizens and that's failing under the current healthcare system.

 

[urguyscott]

We all know why the market went down, because of the China sickness and its dictators with their version of Obama Care hid the problem for political reasons. Just as our great wicked witch of the west Nancy P. was and is willing for Americans to die and lose their jobs for political power and money. By the way her husband has made money off the stock market with his inside trading during this. We all know how poor Nancy is (with her slave trade in Tibet and China) and the rest of the fat cats in Congress so it is natural that they would give themselves millions of dollars for "house hold cleaning" at their many castles (and you can bet they have lots of poorly paid illegals doing the cleaning). Also they gave millions to the Kennedy Center. This money could feed families and pay the rent and mortgage of those out of work because of socialism lies but hey they are just Americans and the Dumbacrats do not represent us fools.

Think of all the billions of dollars the Clinton's and Biden's have from their bribes, kick backs and treason and yet they and Sanders have not given one dime to anyone, especially you fools on here who say how proud you are to be slaves and you never will. Trump is a $1 a year man who made his money in business not by stealing money from the treasury or selling out his country to China, Russia and Iran. But like all Communists they are rich royalist capitalist of the worst kind and think of themselves as gods above any law of man. But hey you Dumbacrats love being treated like dirt and made fools of so I can understand why you kiss their behinds.

If anyone on here can give one reason why we should not decorate one of the highest red woods in California with her please tell us. I know she has mental p;problems and drug problems and is unable to read or write having never really read a bill in her life, but just being a stupid corrupt commie puppet is no excuse.
Can you excuse the wicked witch of the west and her buddies in crime for taking money out of your pockets, letting you and your families lose money because the dictators of China were more interested in their power than their people? Please defend her. In this country even low life like her and the others have a right to defend themselves. Unlike Iran, China, Russia, Cuba, North Korea, etc. etc etc. (see the Communists are the world history most imperialists countries ever on earth.)

And don't just hide your head in the sand like you have been doing. Defend your hero.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

ruh-roh.

When urguyscott comes out of the Politics Board to slum it up on the GB and gets on his hind legs going into a rabies tear, you know some shit is going down somewhere!

https://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxpj6grFIe1qcaomb.gif

 

[Fuzzy1975]

ruh-roh.

When urguyscott comes out of the Politics Board to slum it up on the GB and gets on his hind legs going into a rabies tear, you know some shit is going down somewhere!

https://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxpj6grFIe1qcaomb.gif

Damn, I already gave my "stupidest post of the day award to Shelly". ..

But that is my fault, for not being patient enough for another idiot to show up...