Health bill disaster

[givemeliberty2010]

I hope the Republicans who wouldn't take most of what they wanted in the American Health Care Act enjoy seeing Trump work with the moderate Republicans and Democrats to create a slight adjustment to Obama's Affordable Care Act.

[dannno]

What are you talking about?

This whole thing was just a setup by Trump to get Paul Ryan ousted.

Once Paul Ryan is gone, we can look to getting a bill with some real free market reforms.

[ghengis86]

Good. RyanCare was a clusterfuck. If I can't opt out, it's shit. Repeal, don't replace.

[angelatc]

What are you talking about?

This whole thing was just a setup by Trump to get Paul Ryan ousted.

Once Paul Ryan is gone, we can look to getting a bill with some real free market reforms.

My heart hopes you are correct but my head says the end result will be single-payer.

[Swordsmyth]

I hope the Republicans who wouldn't take most of what they wanted in the American Health Care Act enjoy seeing Trump work with the moderate Republicans and Democrats to create a slight adjustment to Obama's Affordable Care Act.



My heart hopes you are correct but my head says the end result will be single-payer.

Rand disagrees, and so do I. Even from a pragmatist standpoint this bill was too rotten.

[TheCount]

They're going on to easier topics that everyone can agree on.

Y'know, like tax reform. Should be a snap to do.

[AuH20]

What are you talking about?

This whole thing was just a setup by Trump to get Paul Ryan ousted.

Once Paul Ryan is gone, we can look to getting a bill with some real free market reforms.

Once Paul Ryan goes, you'll likely see McCarthy. K Street has an endless lineup of boobs to screw us with.

[ronpaulhawaii]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7t4kFzVYAAVTSL.jpg:large

[Jan2017]

They're going on to easier topics that everyone can agree on.

Motion to Vacate the Speaker of the House

[donnay]

What are you talking about?

This whole thing was just a setup by Trump to get Paul Ryan ousted.

Once Paul Ryan is gone, we can look to getting a bill with some real free market reforms.

That is correct. RyanCare was Romney/ObamaCare lite. Ryan is a nasty neocon that was trying to get this through.

[Superfluous Man]

I hope the Republicans who wouldn't take most of what they wanted in the American Health Care Act enjoy seeing Trump work with the moderate Republicans and Democrats to create a slight adjustment to Obama's Affordable Care Act.

The American Health Care Act was worse than Obamacare.

[CPUd]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7tgbP2VwAEdt85.jpg:large

[Superfluous Man]

Once Paul Ryan is gone, we can look to getting a bill with some real free market reforms.

I agree. But Trump won't sign that unless we can somehow trick him or pressure him into it against his will.

[givemeliberty2010]

Rand disagrees, and so do I. Even from a pragmatist standpoint this bill was too rotten.Why? And don't just say because it doesn't do everything you want.

[givemeliberty2010]

The American Health Care Act was worse than Obamacare.In what way(s)?

[CPUd]

Why? And don't just say because it doesn't do everything you want.

AHCA would make the insurance companies too big to fail.

[Swordsmyth]

Why? And don't just say because it doesn't do everything you want.

?????
This bill gave us NOTHING of real value.

[phill4paul]

What are you talking about?

This whole thing was just a setup by Trump to get Paul Ryan ousted.

Once Paul Ryan is gone, we can look to getting a bill with some real free market reforms.

Ryan would have been out as speaker now if you hadn't gone and blabbed Trump and Rand's plan here on the forum. You know damn well there are Ryan interns spying on these forums. I blame you.

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPJfKdp3bDs

[CPUd]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7tSoQsWkAE_c6F.jpg

[Jan2017]

I agree. But Trump won't sign that unless we can somehow trick him or pressure him into it against his will.

I don't see that at all.

Trump would sign into law - he won't veto - any Obamacare clean repeal that eventually hits his desk.

[Superfluous Man]

In what way(s)?

It's discussed here.

https://fee.org/articles/ryancare-is-worse-than-obamacare/

[dannno]

Ryan would have been out as speaker now if you hadn't gone and blabbed Trump and Rand's plan here on the forum. You know damn well there are Ryan interns spying on these forums. I blame you.

Like I told you before, Mike Cernovich is much higher on their radar than I am.

https://www.periscope.tv/Cernovich

[dannno]

Why? And don't just say because it doesn't do everything you want.

It does NOTHING positive.

[Superfluous Man]

I don't see that at all.

Trump would sign into law - he won't veto - any Obamacare clean repeal that eventually hits his desk.

And that would be just the kind of trick I mean.

Yes, I think he would. He would do it hoping that Congress would then pass another law replacing Obamacare that would include a federal guarantee of health coverage for all Americans, like he campaigned on. Hopefully no such followup bill would ever reach his desk.

[oyarde]

Once Paul Ryan goes, you'll likely see McCarthy. K Street has an endless lineup of boobs to screw us with.

That would actually be worse.

[oyarde]

Ryan would have been out as speaker now if you hadn't gone and blabbed Trump and Rand's plan here on the forum. You know damn well there are Ryan interns spying on these forums. I blame you.

Really , Danno is behind more than people know :)

[WTLaw]

First, the democrats would never work with Trump on their signature.

Second, Trump is prevented from doing so because to the extent he has a base left, if he alienates them by switching parties (essentially), there will be no 2020 for him.

So either Trump does nothing, or perhaps people take a breath and talk to the Freedom Caucus, specifically Rand.

As for Dano's idea that this was intentional, of course not. Its a major embarrassment, a failed deal, but since at this point his best move is to keep Ryan, order him (he is pliable) to give the freedom caucus what they want, hype how this actually repeals obamacare, admit that they made a mistake before but are learning from it, and then, actually fullfill that campaign promise. He will have to browbeat a few reps to 216, but not as many as they were before, trying to appeal to the middle - and its possible to do, as everyone in the GOP is on record as wanting a repeal.

[Dr.3D]

Why oh why is it that when a terrible bill becomes law, instead of repealing it, they just go on to change it to another terrible bill and hope to pass it?

[CPUd]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7tJydCWsAA2NsA.jpg

[Zippyjuan]

I don't see that at all.

Trump would sign into law - he won't veto - any Obamacare clean repeal that eventually hits his desk.

He has consistently said "repeal and replace"- that he does not want any gap between repealing Obamacare and replacing it with something else. Some only wanted to hear the "replace" portion. I don't think he would sign a repeal- only bill. But with Trump one can never be certain.


He said he would not accept a delay of more than a few weeks before a replacement plan was voted on. “Long to me would be weeks,” he said. “It won’t be repeal and then two years later go in with another plan.” That directly contradicts House Speaker Paul D. Ryan’s plans.

Ryan met privately with Trump transition officials Monday to discuss health-care reform and agreed with the president-elect that Obamacare is a disaster and needs to be repealed. However, he wasn’t too keen on Trump’s replacement plan. Rather than an immediate overhaul, the speaker argued Tuesday that lawmakers need time to reach a bipartisan solution on the issue, according to the Times.

But Trump appears immovable.

“It’s a catastrophic event,” he said. “I feel that repeal and replace have to be together, for very simply, I think that the Democrats should want to fix Obamacare. They cannot live with it, and they have to go together.”

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/10/trump-i-want-obamacare-repealed-and-replaced-within-weeks/

[phill4paul]

Like I told you before, Mike Cernovich is much higher on their radar than I am.

https://www.periscope.tv/Cernovich

Loose lips sink ships. You're a looser. Way to blow it.

[dannno]

Loose lips sink ships. You're a looser. Way to blow it.

There were at least 500 people more visible than me discussing the same thing.

[Superfluous Man]

He has consistently said "repeal and replace"- that he does not want any gap between repealing Obamacare and replacing it with something else. Some only wanted to hear the "replace" portion. I don't think he would sign a repeal- only bill. But with Trump one can never be certain.

Exactly. He would have to be tricked into it.

[Zippyjuan]

Exactly. He would have to be tricked into it.

Though it may get modified (and some of it certainly needs to be), Obamacare is here to stay it seems.

[phill4paul]

There were at least 500 people more visible than me discussing the same thing.

A 1:500 chance you destroyed Rand and Trumps plan. I wouldn't shrug that off on others if I were you. This is serious stuff.

[Superfluous Man]

Though it may get modified (and some of it certainly needs to be), Obamacare is here to stay it seems.

If something can't go on forever, it won't.

The modifications that will happen, as long as Obamacare stays, will primarily be increasing the penalty for not buying insurance.

[Swordsmyth]

If something can't go on forever, it won't.

The modifications that will happen, as long as Obamacare stays, will primarily be increasing the penalty for not buying insurance.

No it will simply explode. Dumps EO made the Insurance line on the IRS form voluntary. 0 Chance even he would increase the penalty.

[spudea]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7tgbP2VwAEdt85.jpg:large

all that work for not a single republican vote, what a loser.

[CPUd]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-VTbt-i_b4

[Superfluous Man]

No it will simply explode. Dumps EO made the Insurance line on the IRS form voluntary. 0 Chance even he would increase the penalty.

That EO was based on the assumption that the law was soon to be altered. Now that that isn't true any more, don't expect that EO to last into future tax filing deadlines.

You may be right that he would rather see Obamacare make a complete death spiral (I certainly would). But while that goes on, it will make Trump extremely unpopular across party lines. I doubt that's his preference.

[Swordsmyth]

That EO was based on the assumption that the law was soon to be altered. Now that that isn't true any more, don't expect that EO to last into future tax filing deadlines.

You may be right that he would rather see Obamacare make a complete death spiral (I certainly would). But while that goes on, it will make Trump extremely unpopular across party lines. I doubt that's his preference.

Dems already call him the Devil incarnate, he can't afford to make Repubs angry, and everyone will be mad if the penalty is raised and enforced.

[Jan2017]

Though it may get modified (and some of it certainly needs to be), Obamacare is here to stay it seems.

Ryan bluff that it had to be "repeal and replace" tricked Trump - that is why he has to go as Speaker.

Breitbart floats replacing Ryan as House Speaker after colossal Trumpcare fail

“Republican officials in Congress and the White House are now openly discussing finding a GOP replacement to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) as
Speaker of the House, after Ryan failed to pass the American Health Care Act out of the House and misled the public and President Donald Trump
when he promised repeatedly the bill would pass”.

The split between the House Freedom Caucus and the Tuesday Group (moderates) proved difficult to manage for former Speaker John Boehner.
Last week, Boehner said that in 25 years he never was able to see Republicans agree on a health care plan and that
the GOP would never pass a repeal and replace. The same problem surfaced Friday for Ryan.
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/steve-bannons-breitbart-floats-replacing-ryan-as-house-speaker-after-colossal-trumpcare-fail/

[inthehall]

You can't trust any of them. Just more fucking government shoved down your throats. More bankers and insurance companies controlling your life. More crony capitalism. More politicians out of touch. Fuck them all.

[Superfluous Man]

Dems already call him the Devil incarnate, he can't afford to make Repubs angry, and everyone will be mad if the penalty is raised and enforced.

Yes, everyone will be mad if the penalty is raised and enforced. But they'll be even more mad when insurance companies drop like dead flies and prices go up more than anyone can afford, at rates far greater than the penalty.

[eleganz]

Ryan bluff that it had to be "repeal and replace" tricked Trump - that is why he has to go as Speaker.

Breitbart floats replacing Ryan as House Speaker after colossal Trumpcare fail

“Republican officials in Congress and the White House are now openly discussing finding a GOP replacement to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) as
Speaker of the House, after Ryan failed to pass the American Health Care Act out of the House and misled the public and President Donald Trump
when he promised repeatedly the bill would pass”.

The split between the House Freedom Caucus and the Tuesday Group (moderates) proved difficult to manage for former Speaker John Boehner.
Last week, Boehner said that in 25 years he never was able to see Republicans agree on a health care plan and that
the GOP would never pass a repeal and replace. The same problem surfaced Friday for Ryan.
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/steve-bannons-breitbart-floats-replacing-ryan-as-house-speaker-after-colossal-trumpcare-fail/



Its been pure entertainment ever since Eric Cantor got kicked in the balls by Dave Brat

[rpfocus]

TRUMPCARE FAILS! WHAT A SUPRISE!

[givemeliberty2010]

It does NOTHING positive.It would have repealed the worst part of the ACA: the employer mandate. It would have also repealed the individual mandate and weakened the essential health care benefits regulations.

[givemeliberty2010]

AHCA would make the insurance companies too big to fail.Please explain.


?????
This bill gave us NOTHING of real value.Don't you value getting rid of the employer mandate?

[givemeliberty2010]

Ryan bluff that it had to be "repeal and replace" tricked Trump - that is why he has to go as Speaker.

Breitbart floats replacing Ryan as House Speaker after colossal Trumpcare fail

“Republican officials in Congress and the White House are now openly discussing finding a GOP replacement to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) as
Speaker of the House, after Ryan failed to pass the American Health Care Act out of the House and misled the public and President Donald Trump
when he promised repeatedly the bill would pass”.

The split between the House Freedom Caucus and the Tuesday Group (moderates) proved difficult to manage for former Speaker John Boehner.
Last week, Boehner said that in 25 years he never was able to see Republicans agree on a health care plan and that
the GOP would never pass a repeal and replace. The same problem surfaced Friday for Ryan.
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/steve-bannons-breitbart-floats-replacing-ryan-as-house-speaker-after-colossal-trumpcare-fail/

"Repeal and replace" was more Rand Paul's priority than it was Paul Ryan, except Rand Paul wanted to do these in separate bills.

[dannno]

It would have repealed the worst part of the ACA: the employer mandate. It would have also repealed the individual mandate and weakened the essential health care benefits regulations.

It would have replaced the government penalty with a penalty paid to the insurance companies. It didn't include any free market reforms or anything that would help lower the costs, in fact costs would have kept increasing.

[Anti Federalist]

No it will simply explode. Dumps EO made the Insurance line on the IRS form voluntary. 0 Chance even he would increase the penalty.

Since there are still people doing taxes and maybe waiting for how this is all going to flesh out, keep something in mind:

The EO making the line asking if you were covered by health insurance voluntary on a return DOES NOT ABSOLVE YOU OF PAYING ANY FINES OR FEES.

Regardless of how you answer, or do not answer at all, you are still on the hook for ObamaCare fines if you did not have coverage for any part of 2016.

[Anti Federalist]

Worthless, feckless, spineless GOP establishment.

PASS THE SAME FUCKING BILL YOU PASSED IN 2015 YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES!!!!

[CPUd]

845380969041399808
https://twitter.com/NAChristakis/status/845380969041399808

[Anti Federalist]

The IRS notes that taxpayers are still required to pay the mandate penalty, if applicable. "Legislative provisions of the ACA law are still in force until changed by the Congress, and taxpayers remain required to follow the law and pay what they may owe‎," the agency statement said.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/14/irs-blow-to-obamacare-individual-mandate

[CPUd]

yeah, when it comes time to pay for that trillion dollar infrastructure, IRS is gonna get retroactive on that penalty shit.

[NewRightLibertarian]

What are you talking about?

This whole thing was just a setup by Trump to get Paul Ryan ousted.

Once Paul Ryan is gone, we can look to getting a bill with some real free market reforms.

I think there is a possibility you are correct, but I wouldn't jump the gun so fast. For all we know, he could just as easily go after the Freedom Caucus members next year with primary elections. Trump is a wildcard.

[CPUd]

845476009931685888
https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/845476009931685888

[r3volution 3.0]

Next step, replacing Trump.

If you thought this was bad, wait for the debt ceiling fight in a few months.

...FYI, freedom caucus IS NOT going to be folding to the Dem-In-Chief on that either.

[dude58677]

As long as Donald Trump says he is still pursuing this repeal then the Executive Order stands which says it is voluntary.

[dude58677]

Next step, replacing Trump.

If you thought this was bad, wait for the debt ceiling fight in a few months.

...FYI, freedom caucus IS NOT going to be folding to the Dem-In-Chief on that either.

If that happens we get a government shutdown which is good either way.

[UWDude]

Funnily, I don't see the disaster.
Yes, Obamacare still exists, now it is time to just abolish it.
Two years from now, GOP victory.
As the bills rise exponentially, the people will cry for a change.
America is too sick for socialized medicine to ever work on it. Drugs and obesity.

[kpitcher]

They're going on to easier topics that everyone can agree on.

Y'know, like tax reform. Should be a snap to do.

Rand had a good idea on tax reform, hope he leads on that like he did with healthcare.

[UWDude]

Rand had a good idea on tax reform, hope he leads on that like he did with healthcare.

Im just fine with Trumps plan, it is quite detailed, and I like it just fine.

I like the idea of poor people sending the IRS a tax return that says "I win".

[CPUd]

‘The closer’? The inside story of how Trump tried — and failed — to make a deal on health care
By Robert Costa, Ashley Parker and Philip Rucker March 24 at 9:19 PM


Shortly after House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) unveiled the Republican health-care plan on March 6, President Trump sat in the Oval Office and queried his advisers: “Is this really a good bill?”

And over the next 18 days, until the bill collapsed in the House on Friday afternoon in a humiliating defeat — the sharpest rebuke yet of Trump’s young presidency and his negotiating skills — the question continued to nag at the president.

Even as he thrust himself and the trappings of his office into selling the health-care bill, Trump peppered his aides again and again with the same concern, usually after watching cable news reports chronicling the setbacks, according to two of his advisers: “Is this really a good bill?”

In the end, the answer was no — in part because the president himself seemed to doubt it.

“We were a little bit shy — very little, but it was still a little bit shy, so we pulled it,” Trump said Friday afternoon in an interview with The Washington Post.

For Trump, it was never supposed to be this hard. As a real estate mogul on the rise, he wrote “The Art of the Deal,” and as a political candidate, he boasted that nobody could make deals as beautifully as he could. Replacing Obamacare, a Republican bogeyman since the day it was enacted seven years ago, was Trump’s first chance to prove that he had the magic touch that he claimed eluded Washington.

[Balz: A postponed health-care vote, a big GOP embarrassment and no good options ahead]

But Trump’s effort was plagued from the beginning. The bill itself would have violated a number of Trump’s campaign promises, driving up premiums for millions of citizens and throwing millions more off health insurance — including many of the working-class voters who gravitated to his call to “make America great again.” Trump was unsure about the American Health Care Act, though he ultimately dug in for the win, as he put it.

There were other problems, too. Trump never made a real effort to reach out to Democrats, and he was unable to pressure enough of his fellow Republicans. He did not speak fluently about the bill’s details and focused his pitch in purely transactional terms. And he failed to appreciate the importance of replacing Obamacare to the Republican base; for the president, it was an obstacle to move past to get to taxes, trade and the rest of his agenda.

Trump’s advisers thought he could nudge the bill over the finish line by sheer force of personality. “He is the closer,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer boasted on Wednesday.

But by Friday, it was clear that the closer could not close.
...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-closer-the-inside-story-of-how-trump-tried--and-failed--to-make-a-deal-on-health-care/2017/03/24/3e6353d6-0fdc-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html

[Origanalist]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7pvT2OXQAE4wVM.jpg

[Noob]

Yes Democrats well use this as means to get a signal payer system pass, complete Government bureaucratic control over your healthcare.

[Dr.No.]

They're going on to easier topics that everyone can agree on.

Y'know, like tax reform. Should be a snap to do.

It really should be. Everyone is on board for tax reform. The donors, who back both parties, heavily favor it.

[LibertyEagle]

Loose lips sink ships. You're a looser. Way to blow it.

You sure are putting a lot of relevance to this little forum. It just ain't anymore.

[phill4paul]

You sure are putting a lot of relevance to this little forum. It just ain't anymore.

As much as you do. <shrug>

[LibertyEagle]

Next step, replacing Trump.

If you thought this was bad, wait for the debt ceiling fight in a few months.

...FYI, freedom caucus IS NOT going to be folding to the Dem-In-Chief on that either.

Yes, yes, we all know you want world government, but sorry, there are a whole lot of us who are not going to go along with that.

http://i66.tinypic.com/15ft7yq.jpg

http://i65.tinypic.com/2wfi7vr.png

http://i65.tinypic.com/9u9o4i.png



http://i64.tinypic.com/4j3m9d.png

[angelatc]

Rand disagrees, and so do I. Even from a pragmatist standpoint this bill was too rotten.


Do not misunderstand me, my friend. I wanted the bill to fail. If the GOP can't be conservative then I'd rather be a roadblock than a speed bump.

[Superfluous Man]

Yes Democrats well use this as means to get a signal payer system pass, complete Government bureaucratic control over your healthcare.

And that's what Trump wants.

[Superfluous Man]

http://i65.tinypic.com/9u9o4i.png





Most of quotes you posted from Revolution3.0 are weird at best. I'll give you that. But your decision to include his question of why he should prefer you to a Mexican alongside those others says more about you than it does him.

[LibertyEagle]

Most of quotes you posted from Revolution3.0 are weird at best. I'll give you that. But your decision to include his question of why he should prefer you to a Mexican alongside those others says more about you than it does him.

:rolleyes: He's a globalist, who prefers Mexican nationals to his own countrymen, in the United States.

[TheCount]

It really should be. Everyone is on board for tax reform. The donors, who back both parties, heavily favor it.Everyone is also for health care reform.

Everyone agrees that it should happen but nobody agrees on how.

[Dr.No.]

Everyone is also for health care reform.

Everyone agrees that it should happen but nobody agrees on how.

Not sure I agree. The liberals/left wants more government involvement in healthcare. The center/center-right wants some government involvement but not too much. The right/far-right wants very little government involvement in healthcare. There is money behind all three parts, especially the center and the right. The voters tend to heavily support the far-left and the center, and while money is important, politicians are wary of angry voters.

When it comes to taxes, the entire Republican party is united behind lower taxes. The only point of contention would be that some Republicans want to cut taxes on the rich and raise them on the middle-class to maintain the deficit; this is very toxic to voters so some Republicans in weaker districts will protest, as will many Democrats. The blue-dog Democrats are equally eager to cut taxes on the rich, as long as taxes on the middle class are not raised. But there is pretty much no money behind the "raise taxes" wing; taxes are raised because politicians are forced to be fiscally responsible, not because special interests or voters forced them to. For the most part, all the big donors want drastic cuts in taxes. As long as everyone gets a cut, voters will generally go along with it.

[givemeliberty2010]

It would have replaced the government penalty with a penalty paid to the insurance companies. It didn't include any free market reforms or anything that would help lower the costs, in fact costs would have kept increasing.Insurance companies choosing their own prices is part of the free market, not a penalty. I also surprised this bill did no include free market reforms, but not getting all of what we want is not a reason to oppose repealing some of what we don't. As Rand Paul said, no everything has to be done in the same bill. We could still have tried to get a free-market bill through later. Can you expect free market reforms when Trump goes to the moderate Democrats to make some tweaks to the current law?

[nobody's_hero]

Insurance companies choosing their own prices is part of the free market, not a penalty. I also surprised this bill did no include free market reforms, but not getting all of what we want is not a reason to oppose repealing some of what we don't. As Rand Paul said, no everything has to be done in the same bill. We could still have tried to get a free-market bill through later. Can you expect free market reforms when Trump goes to the moderate Democrats to make some tweaks to the current law?

The blame still rests with democrats as long as O-care is in place. If Republicans pass a bill that is equally bad or perhaps even worse than the current Obamacare crap, then the burden of blame shifts to them for giving us a crappy system.

I don't think any Republican, moderate or Freedom Caucus member, wants that.

The only thing worse than a fully socialist, government-run program is one that puts just enough hint of capitalist characteristics in it that in the event that it fails (which it will because gov't will get the final say in that partnership), capitalism gets blamed. That's essentially what Paul Ryan was going for last week.

I think perhaps you had your hopes too high that this was going to be a simple matter. Don't forget that by and large, Republicans govern like republicans. It's the democrats who move swiftly because as soon as 51% of them agree, they bring out the battering ram and push things through, consequences-be-damned.

[Madison320]

It would have repealed the worst part of the ACA: the employer mandate. It would have also repealed the individual mandate and weakened the essential health care benefits regulations.

That's not the worst part. The worst part is that it forces insurance companies to insure people who are already sick. That's basically socialized healthcare. If they don't remove that part it's a joke.

[Madison320]

Next step, replacing Trump.

If you thought this was bad, wait for the debt ceiling fight in a few months.

...FYI, freedom caucus IS NOT going to be folding to the Dem-In-Chief on that either.

I've been wondering what is going to happen with the debt ceiling ever since the election. My guess is that they quickly re-suspend it.

[specsaregood]

I've been wondering what is going to happen with the debt ceiling ever since the election. My guess is that they quickly re-suspend it.

I predict that they completely eliminate the concept of a debt ceiling saying that it is outdated, antiquated and unnecessary.

[merkelstan]

Why oh why is it that when a terrible bill becomes law, instead of repealing it, they just go on to change it to another terrible bill and hope to pass it?

Exactly.

My dad had an idea back in the '80s - "We need another arm of government - a Congress that only exists to repeal laws."

[Dr.3D]

Exactly.

My dad had an idea back in the '80s - "We need another arm of government - a Congress that only exists to repeal laws."

Of course that can't happen, because that would be against what they are trying to do. They eventually want to have everything against the law.

[Madison320]

I predict that they completely eliminate the concept of a debt ceiling saying that it is outdated, antiquated and unnecessary.

They're getting closer. The last 3 times they've suspended it instead of raising it.

[Occam's Banana]

I predict that they completely eliminate the concept of a debt ceiling saying that it is outdated, antiquated and unnecessary.

Sooner or later, they will. And they'll be right ...

The so-called "debt ceiling" has never been anything but an irrelevant bit of diversionary fluff.

After all, what can the concept of a "debt ceiling" possibly mean when they can conjure money into existence just by typing some numbers into a computer?

[Superfluous Man]

:rolleyes: He's a globalist, who prefers Mexican nationals to his own countrymen, in the United States.

Not necessarily. He could be an honest broker and prefer neither. You act like there's something wrong with that. And, like I said, the fact that you do tells us more about you than him.

[jmdrake]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7pvT2OXQAE4wVM.jpg

Thread winner.

[r3volution 3.0]

Sooner or later, they will. And they'll be right ...

The so-called "debt ceiling" has never been anything but an irrelevant bit of diversionary fluff.

After all, what can the concept of a "debt ceiling" possibly mean when they can conjure money into existence just by typing some numbers into a computer?

The debt ceiling is valuable insofar as it allows one house, or the president, to kill otherwise "mandatory" spending.

...not this House, not this Senate, not this President, but some at some point.

There are few issues more important for posterity; fiscal conservatives should be ready to die on this hill.

[Occam's Banana]

The debt ceiling is valuable insofar as it allows one house, or the president, to kill otherwise "mandatory" spending.

...not this House, not this Senate, not this President, but some at some point.

'The rule is jam tomorrow and jam yesterday but never jam today."


There are few issues more important for posterity; fiscal conservatives should be ready to die on this hill.

If fiscal conservatives (so called) should by dying, it should be on the hill of something like commodity standards derived and enforced by markets - and certainly not on the hill of gimmicks for the preservation and promotion of the pretense that a fiat system can be constrained and managed responsibly.

There would be little or no need for contrivances such as "debt ceilings" under commodity money standards, because such standards would inherently limit the State's capacity to spend. States implement and enforce fiat systems precisely in order to get around such limitations in the first place. The post hoc bolting of poor and toothless imitations of those constraints onto the edifice of fiat is like installing smoke alarms without batteries after the house has already caught fire ...

[r3volution 3.0]

There would be little or no need for contrivances such as "debt ceilings" under commodity money standards, because such standards would inherently limit the State's capacity to spend.

Of course, but we don't have a commodity money standard.

If we want to push Congressmen to implement one, great.

We can simultaneously push them to cut spending via the debt ceiling.

...not mutually exclusive.

[CPUd]

847881709056126976
https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/847881709056126976

[Occam's Banana]

Of course, but we don't have a commodity money standard.

Which is precisely why any "political capital" we have would be better spent upon trying to create an environment congenial to allowing markets to establish such standards, rather than upon stop-gap "kick the can" bandages such as "debt ceilings" (or "balanced budgets" or etc.). The latter can only serve to (1) preserve the putative viability and extend the lifetime of the fiat standard that we currently do have, and (2) reinforce the illusion that fiat standards can somehow be responsibly managed and limited.

The fundament of fiat standards, after all, is the evasion of such responsibilities and limitations. It is deleterious to further enable the continuation of those fundamental evasions.


If we want to push Congressmen to implement one, great.

We can simultaneously push them to cut spending via the debt ceiling.

...not mutually exclusive.

I didn't say that they are mutually exclusive.

They are mutually counterproductive, however ...

As I said in a previous post, a so-called "debt ceiling" in the context of a fiat standard is "an irrelevant bit of diversionary fluff." It is an exercise in installing smoke alarms after the house is already on fire.

Our political resources are scarce, and as intimated in the part of my statement you elided in your quote of me, it would be wiser not to waste those resources by dividing them between "bolting [...] poor and toothless [...] constraints onto the edifice of fiat" (on the one hand) and working to promote and establish genuine market-based standards (on the other hand).

Effort expended upon the one is effort that cannot be expended upon the other - and to the extent that either effort "works," it works to the detriment of the other. If, for example, a gimmicky "debt ceiling" (or "balanced budget" or etc.) is ever actually efficacious in achieving its ostensible goals (an outcome of which I am in any case profoundly skeptical), it would serve only to treat a symptom - thereby making the underlying disease that much more bearable, and in the same degree diminishing the impetus for any genuine cure. ("Look! it's working! We can get away with it! We don't need no stinkin' market-based commodity standards ...")