***Official Political Discussion Thread***
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rico x hood,
- Start date
- 12,114
- 12,759
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2016
The bombing of Gaza is interesting timing
- 8,565
- 16,977
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2014
My apologies for generalizing, i know you're not all like that.I miss that thread so much. we not all like that man I promise
- 10,459
- 8,935
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
I hear what you're saying. But Biden did serve 8 years as VP.
Trump is kinda dismantling everything. ( Never said this was a good thing. He's the Bankruptcy Commander in Chief and the Great Deregulator of everything). Prior I would've said Biden. But appears like more change will happen under Trump. Biden appears to be status quo Democrat. I don't see much changing under him. That don't mean I support Trump ways. I see Trump as a creature beholden to banks with his billions of dollars worth of debt and failing businesses. I think he is being used to soften the blow for a nother bank bail out much like what happened under Obama.
Trump's own commerce secretary while working as a bank executive said Trump was in a lot of debt , but worth more alive than dead.
Trump is being used. Lots of politicians openly hate him, yet they benefit from the deregulation climate he has created.
Last edited:
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,040
- 189,229
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
TARP, the biggest bank bailout, was under Bush
Either way, a bank bailout was needed. It is just that Obama failed to run their pockets afterwards. Which was a massive mistake looking back at it now.
Either way, a bank bailout was needed. It is just that Obama failed to run their pockets afterwards. Which was a massive mistake looking back at it now.
- 10,459
- 8,935
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
That seems to be the pattern with whoever is in the white house. Whoever is tighter with the banks wins and does their bidding.
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,040
- 189,229
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
Wall St. hated Obama in 2012, Romney was their guy, because of Dodd-Frank.
Obama didn't do their bidding, I think he made moves that was too pro-finance (partially on the advice of Tim Geithner) but he also proposed and passed a ton of **** they hated.
If you want want stronger regulations on Wall St. , there again is only one party that supports it right now.
- 10,459
- 8,935
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
Obamacare was a win for the health insurance companies (which are banks as well).
- 67,804
- 102,816
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2010
Y'all encourage it though. I'm with giving them hamsterdam back.I miss that thread so much. we not all like that man I promise
- 8,565
- 16,977
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2014
that’s exactly how I was picturing it like hamsterdam
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,040
- 189,229
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
Yes, it was. But that was not the goal of it.
But it was also the only way to get a Universal Health Insurance bill passed.
You hate the Clintons so much, but the Clintons tried to take on the Health Insurance companies to get people a single payer type plan, and the Health insurance companies spent like crazy to sabotage them. They won in spectacular fashion. BTW, you want to know who was one of Hillary's biggest allies in Congress trying to fight for the Clinton Healthcare Bill. Ya boy....
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4536221/user-clip-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-1993
The Dems plotted to get Joe Lieberman out of office so a person with more progressive views on health insurance can take this seat. After Lieberman lost the primary Bill Clinton begged with him not to run independent. let it go. He did not listen, and he won in a three way race. Libermann, now an independent, and right of the party of health insurance, with tons of insurance firms in his hear, pretty much said he would kill the ACA if it had a public option. The one thing the insurance firms hated the most. And he was the last vote needed to pass it.
So Obama didn't pass the ACA to help insurance companies, it was to try to get people affordable care. The Democratic Party has had a antagonistic relationship with insurers for a while now.
Socialist, Bernie Bros, and others like to paint the Dems as bad actors on health insurance. However, that take ignores decades of history.
Last edited:
- 22,757
- 32,648
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- 29,644
- 39,344
- Joined
- May 25, 2004
Because injecting bleach cures all lib.
- 10,459
- 8,935
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
Obama gave them a w with the healthcare mandate + the tax penalty. That part didn't sit well with me and most folks got quotes of like $500 a month out of pocket for healthcare. Average poor person can't afford that extra bill along with a penalty for not getting it . But it was a win for the companies and a L for the people once again.Yes, it was. But that was not the goal of it.
But it was also the only way to get a Universal Health Insurance bill passed.
You hate the Clintons so much, but the Clintons tried to take on the Health Insurance companies to get people a single payer type plan, and the Health insurance companies spent like crazy to sabotage them. They won in spectacular fashion. BTW, you want to know who was one of Hillary's biggest allies in Congress trying to fight for the Clinton Healthcare Bill. Ya boy....
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4536221/user-clip-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-1993
The Dems plotted to get Joe Lieberman out of office so a person with more progressive views on health insurance can take this seat. After Lieberman lost the primary Bill Clinton pledged with him not to run independent. He did, and he won in a three way race. Libermann, now an independent, and right of the party of health insurance, pretty much said he would kill the ACA if it had a public opinion. And he was the last vote needed to pass it.
So Obama didn't pass the ACA to help insurance companies, it was to try to get people affordable care. The Democratic Party has had a antagonistic relationship with insurers for a while now.
Socialist, Bernie Bros, and others like to paint the Dems as bad actors on health insurance. However, that take ignores decades of history.
- 29,547
- 20,790
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
Very true. I've been injecting Clorox (designer drugs ftw) and mixing Tide Pods with my daily vitamins for months now. No China Flu yet
- 29,644
- 39,344
- Joined
- May 25, 2004
Very true. I've been injecting Clorox (designer drugs ftw) and mixing Tide Pods with my daily vitamins for months now. No China Flu yet
what da libs don’t want us to know.
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,040
- 189,229
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
I don't know why they got clipped, but I think it was because they dudes were trying to leave Hamsterdam and slang their buffoonery on Main St. Especially after Covid happened.
The conspiracy theory stuff probably took up too much of the mods time, too much nonsense was posted, so it was best just to clip it.
- 4,867
- 1,856
- Joined
- May 30, 2005
Understand what you're saying. At the same time, sweeping reform/changes don't happen overnight. Based on what we've seen and experienced in our lifetimes, I'm more comfortable saying the Dems have acted in more good faith on behalf of the people than the GOP.
- 4,867
- 1,856
- Joined
- May 30, 2005
- 10,459
- 8,935
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
All platforms are censoring any anti WHO stances on the covid.
- 34,898
- 76,782
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
Yikes. Someone needs to tell her to google "war on drugs." Maybe she'll figure out why Baltimore is what it is.
- 54,353
- 143,341
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2012
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,040
- 189,229
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
-Go look up other countries that have universal healthcare programs, many have mandates. Most even worse than what the US had, in fact, many economist pointed out the US mandate might be too weak. A healthcare mandate was what the economist who wrote the bill put in because it is good economics. You need to prevent free riding and adverse selection if you are gonna allow pre-existing conditions.
-The tax penalty was income based, so poor people didn't have to pay it. Also the ACA gave poor people free health insurance through the Medicaid expansion. It is was not an anti-poor program, it was the opposite, it was an anti-poverty program.
-When the markets opened, most folks were not getting a quote everywhere close to $500 a month, maybe there were some areas, but the price increases came later. In fact when the markets opened many plans were priced below market value to attract more people. Companies were competing. However Marco Rubio during one of budget discussion demanded the risk corridor be removed from the ACA. The risk corridor meant that the government would pick up insurers extra cost, that way they don't pass it onto consumers with more expensive plans. As soon as that went away, picks started spiking like crazy, insurers pulled out of regions, so it left others with the option to jack up prices further.
If the ACA was passed in its original proposal, with the public option, nationwide marketplaces, 55 Medicare sign up, bigger income assistance, and didn't get weakened by the GOP, it would be a an even bigger success than it is.
Famb the ACA was good policy with good intentions. Obama himself said if he could start from scratch, he would just do single payer, but we were not starting from scratch. ACA has its shortcomings but those were a combination of trying to build a plan a centrist would accept, and Republicans constant attacks.
Like if it was so bad, then why did Bernie vote for it?
Sorry, but you are peddling a convenient sorry about the ACA, that handwaves a ton of ****.
Last edited:
- 14,226
- 34,458
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
You do realize that going back to segregation is change, right? You do realize that losing the USPS is going to be change, right? You do realize that Trump getting congress to carve out an constitutional amendment to allow him to run for a third term is change, right? It may not be change you like, but it's going to be change regardless.
To the banks. Not to me.
