I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

A significant difference, Brother Coltrane, is that some of us in the upper tax brackets know full well that Trump will lower our taxes and make us wealthier, but choose to oppose this because of the long term ramifications for the nation and a variety of other reasons.

Many, if not most, of the Trump voters that might not have pulled a Republican lever for Ted Cruz or some of the other Deplorables pulled the lever for Trump thinking he would make things better for them. I agree with you that they are voting against their best interests, but they don't believe that.

I expect a boatload of cash back after the Republican tax bill becomes law. It will increase the deficit and exacerbate the divide between the wealthy and the blue collar folks who Trump conned. Like Paul Ryan's mantra of "freedom," a Republican tax bill will be packed with magical thinking that says one minus one equals three.

Oh I get it. And I totally agree.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I think there's a major difference between voting against one's self-interest when you're poor and voting against one's self-interest when you're not.

In my view, I would rather have a country that actually invests in things that make the country as a whole stronger (education, healthcare, infrastructure, environmental protection, etc.) by creating the conditions in which business (and I) can succeed. It's a long term view. Trying to keep this country from turning into India where people shit and wash themselves in the gutters may cost me more, but it's definitely in my self-interest.

TM

I think the major difference is that we know we are voting against our own (financial) self interest. I too want the government to invest in those things. I think a better safety net is a great crime fighter in the long run.

One thing I forgot: I'm totally on board with Trump's infrastructure proposal. Creates jobs and benefits everyone! With the understanding that I don't know what the details of the proposal are.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Are you saying I can't carve out his corporate plan from his individual plan?

Segue: I do find it interesting that people always talk about poor rural whites voting against their self interest (which they do), when many urban/suburban upper-middle class voters do the exact same thing (I know I do). Trump's tax plan would benefit both of us significantly more than Clinton's would have.

The greatest interest most like us have is in a strong economy. When you're dependent on transactional revenues for living, whether you are taxed at 25% or 50% has a lot less bearing on your net than whether the economy is strong or weak.

Now, oddly, my piece of the economy may do well under Trump, because people will hire me to help them move operations to China. But in general, it has been a long, long time since a Republican has managed a strong economy in this country. They're too busy handing out tax cuts and killing regulations to mind the fundamentals.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Status quo preservation is not a long term strategy.

Hyde Sebby: Give me a social liberal and fiscal conservative.
Jeckel Sebby: Don't give me someone who will preserve the status quo!

RT, can we set up a board where Sebby can just fight with himself?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I think the major difference is that we know we are voting against our own (financial) self interest. I too want the government to invest in those things. I think a better safety net is a great crime fighter in the long run.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

One thing I forgot: I'm totally on board with Trump's infrastructure proposal. Creates jobs and benefits everyone! With the understanding that I don't know what the details of the proposal are.

You mean Obama's infrastructure proposal that is now being pushed as Trump's infrastructure proposal after being soundly ignored by a Republican Congress.

TM

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I think the major difference is that we know we are voting against our own (financial) self interest. I too want the government to invest in those things. I think a better safety net is a great crime fighter in the long run.

One thing I forgot: I'm totally on board with Trump's infrastructure proposal. Creates jobs and benefits everyone! With the understanding that I don't know what the details of the proposal are.

Coltrane aka Young Sebby comes back, and you people are acting like it's no big deal? For shame!

So, Coltrane, you must be almost at the Swinging Free in the Hickey Freeman stage of development - how's that going? Do you like peaty single malt Scotch (excuse me, "Scots") yet? Catching the eye of the hot clerk at the Hyatt reception desk?

(Seriously, welcome back! Now we need Spanky to come by and talk about the Plantonic Ideal of Free trade.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Hyde Sebby: Give me a social liberal and fiscal conservative.
Jeckel Sebby: Don't give me someone who will preserve the status quo!

RT, can we set up a board where Sebby can just fight with himself?

Come on... We do not have anything close to fiscal moderation. Both parties spend like drunks. Medicare part d, defense budget, subsidies for ACA, countless administrative agencies... It's a fuckshow in terms of govt breadth and expenditure.

And we're not moderate. Half of this country is absolutely clinging to its backward religious nonsense. The fantastic thinking of these people is still infecting policy.

The silent majority is never given a good choice.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Coltrane aka Young Sebby comes back, and you people are acting like it's no big deal? For shame!

So, Coltrane, you must be almost at the Swinging Free in the Hickey Freeman stage of development - how's that going? Do you like peaty single malt Scotch (excuse me, "Scots") yet? Catching the eye of the hot clerk at the Hyatt reception desk?

(Seriously, welcome back! Now we need Spanky to come by and talk about the Plantonic Ideal of Free trade.)

I went with Italian stuff years ago. The Hickeys don't drape well. Suits for fat Americans.

Still spread collars, however. And no underwear or visible socks (unless wearing a suit in summer, when boots can't be worn.)

But really, who the fuck wears a suit more than once a week, if that, anymore?

One other quirk: Peak lapels. Much nicer looking. But hard as fuck to find.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I went with Italian stuff years ago. The Hickeys don't drape well. Suits for fat Americans.

Of course you're doing Brioni now. But we're talking about Coltrane. If he ever catches up to you, I think that means you die. So keep growing and evolving.

PS - you know I love you like the nephew who stole my Scritti Politti t-shirt, but a Hickey suit paired with Allen Edmunds shoes is what America is all about. What are you talking about? Italian suits? What's next? Skinny ties and Mastroianni movies? Jesus Christ, man.

Still spread collars, however. And no underwear or visible socks (unless wearing a suit in summer, when boots can't be worn.)

Free and easy in my Giusuppe, bay-bee! Just be careful of hitting the gents with anything other than navy or charcoal.

But really, who the fuck wears a suit more than once a week, if that, anymore?

The Not Bobster, although even the old guys are starting to mock me. Fuck them. If I wanted to wear khakis and a cardigan, I'd be a professor or run a B&B in New England.

One other quirk: Peak lapels. Much nicer looking. But hard as fuck to find.

You could really be a Beau Brummel, baby, if you just gave it half a chance.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Why Abby? Why not Mary Anne?

Along which lines, what's up with the Huntsmans? I mean, Abby has been feverishly normalizing Trump every morning on Fox, Mary Anne has provided the only actual western civilization in the White House performing there. And now Jon, someone whose next political job should have been SoS, is taking this suck-up position in Moscow that is three steps down from his China position.

Meanwhile, Utah actually hates Trump.

DJT already has other people handling his relationship with the Kremlin, so Huntsman is just for show. Contrast the sort of person he sent to Israel.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Oh I get it. And I totally agree.

Serious question. Why am I wrong here?

The ACA was doomed the moment it added so many people with their conditions and costs without adequately adding premium and without reducing costs. The costs would have been reduced by limiting wasteful expenditures on end-of-life care. So called "death panels" would have decided - on behalf of taxpayer, not private money, - that paying millions for machines that go ping for a few weeks was asinine and cost ineffective.

But the Republicans in their fervor to be all things anti-Obama defeated the most fiscally responsible part of the Bill. Thus, it beacame a half assed project doomed to failure. We spend close to 20% of our GDP on health care, and over 75% of that on the last year of someone's life, i.e. the machine that goes ping when your grandparent is dying but may only add days to their life, but we added millions of sick patients without the ability to limit their care.

Do the math. Trump is right here about it expoding. Obama and Congress gave the doctors and insurance companies carte blanche to raise rates (or quit) 25% this year without recourse. And next year, etc. I may be wrong, but nothing I have read from either side - other than single payer - has proposed anything realistic on the cost side, so costs coninue to rise without equivalent revenues. Well, duh, Trump is right that that is unsustainable.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Serious question. Why am I wrong here?

The ACA was doomed the moment it added so many people with their conditions and costs without adequately adding premium and without reducing costs. The costs would have been reduced by limiting wasteful expenditures on end-of-life care. So called "death panels" would have decided - on behalf of taxpayer, not private money, - that paying millions for machines that go ping for a few weeks was asinine and cost ineffective.

But the Republicans in their fervor to be all things anti-Obama defeated the most fiscally responsible part of the Bill. Thus, it beacame a half assed project doomed to failure. We spend close to 20% of our GDP on health care, and over 75% of that on the last year of someone's life, i.e. the machine that goes ping when your grandparent is dying but may only add days to their life, but we added millions of sick patients without the ability to limit their care.

Do the math. Trump is right here about it expoding. Obama and Congress gave the doctors and insurance companies carte blanche to raise rates (or quit) 25% this year without recourse. And next year, etc. I may be wrong, but nothing I have read from either side - other than single payer - has proposed anything realistic on the cost side, so costs coninue to rise without equivalent revenues. Well, duh, Trump is right that that is unsustainable.

Sad reality and what I have said again and again:

Single payer countries do away with end of life expenditures. As you know, I deal with this on a daily basis. In Canada, UK, no chemo, surgeries for 65+ people. They say "sorry", give you pain meds, and say "call us when it is . . . time."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Of course you're doing Brioni now. But we're talking about Coltrane. If he ever catches up to you, I think that means you die. So keep growing and evolving.

PS - you know I love you like the nephew who stole my Scritti Politti t-shirt, but a Hickey suit paired with Allen Edmunds shoes is what America is all about. What are you talking about? Italian suits? What's next? Skinny ties and Mastroianni movies? Jesus Christ, man.



Free and easy in my Giusuppe, bay-bee! Just be careful of hitting the gents with anything other than navy or charcoal.



The Not Bobster, although even the old guys are starting to mock me. Fuck them. If I wanted to wear khakis and a cardigan, I'd be a professor or run a B&B in New England.



You could really be a Beau Brummel, baby, if you just gave it half a chance.

Were I could stock the closet with regular price Brionis...

Allen Edmonds? There's a layer of dust on my lace ups. Yes... I break the loafers-with-a-suit rule. But never with buckle or tassel-free loafers. Only with those old school tassel jobs (Alden). And you have to discover the joy of boots. One never has to match his hidden socks to anything.

My wife also had me get the suit pants more tightly tailored. Not Sticky Fingers tight, but a bit more fashion-forward. Is terribly constricting on those random half-erections, but cuts a nice silhouette.

There's a special ring in hell for people who put that song in other peoples' heads, you know that?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Serious question. Why am I wrong here?

The ACA was doomed the moment it added so many people with their conditions and costs without adequately adding premium and without reducing costs. The costs would have been reduced by limiting wasteful expenditures on end-of-life care. So called "death panels" would have decided - on behalf of taxpayer, not private money, - that paying millions for machines that go ping for a few weeks was asinine and cost ineffective.

But the Republicans in their fervor to be all things anti-Obama defeated the most fiscally responsible part of the Bill. Thus, it beacame a half assed project doomed to failure. We spend close to 20% of our GDP on health care, and over 75% of that on the last year of someone's life, i.e. the machine that goes ping when your grandparent is dying but may only add days to their life, but we added millions of sick patients without the ability to limit their care.

Do the math. Trump is right here about it expoding. Obama and Congress gave the doctors and insurance companies carte blanche to raise rates (or quit) 25% this year without recourse. And next year, etc. I may be wrong, but nothing I have read from either side - other than single payer - has proposed anything realistic on the cost side, so costs coninue to rise without equivalent revenues. Well, duh, Trump is right that that is unsustainable.

I believe the descriptive you're seeking are, "opened the flood gates," "foot in the door," or more cynically, "Trojan horse." The end game was always single payer.

It was a long term transfer of care dollars from the last-years-of-life demographic to the too-poor-to-pay-for-insurance demographic. In that regard, on an exclusively economic basis, it's quite defensible. From the perspective of an old person who paid into the system her whole life, however, it's a rotten bargain. Perhaps even a bait and switch.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

DJT already has other people handling his relationship with the Kremlin, so Huntsman is just for show. Contrast the sort of person he sent to Israel.

His daughter is seriously fucking hot. How did I not know of this person before?

Shame she doesn't drink, and a google image search for her nude is pointless...

Religion. It Ruins Everything.