The Donald's Plan:
Step 1) Dismantle Obamacare.
Step 2) Don't worry about it...we'll take care of everyone.
Step 3) We'll think of something...everyone will be fine.
Step 4) We'll do great things...you'll see. ;-)
ThePsych0Dog
+Mike Stavenes
Step 6) ???
Step 7) Profit!
It's so bad, he can't even think of a "Step 5"
gee jep
+ThePsych0Dog
lol classic south park. nice one pat on the back for you.
nargargole
+Mike Stavenes
8) Bankcuptcy.
jessica
+Mike Stavenes
but, if you want a real health care system in place, you will need to eventually abolish obamacare - which, remember, was brought in so that you wouldn't get single payer.
if you want single payer, you will need to call them at their bluff on it at some point. and, i dare them to do it.
no, really. mr. trump: i dare you to tear down obamacare and give this back to the democrats as an election issue, with the possibility that they might get it done properly this time.
if you're standing up for obamacare, and arguing it's a reason to vote democrat, they've got you exactly where they wanted to get you.
i'm not advocating campaigning against obamacare. i'm arguing that you're better off letting it die than fighting to hold on to it. you can do much better - and you will need to jettison it before you can rebuild the political capital to do it with. if you keep holding to this "obamacare is better than nothing" position, it's all you're ever going to get.
....which is what they wanted.
i mean, think it through. do you think the insurance companies and the pharmaceuticals would have pumped so much money into obamacare if they weren't behind it? and, so, do you really think the republicans are going to bite that hand off?
it's political theatre. they won't touch it. but, you're being beaten into line pretty well, aren't you?
look at what they've engineered, here.
self-identifying liberal democrats grovelling to congress to please not abolish the heritage foundation's health care plan.
fuck this. call them on their bluff. i dare you to do it, trump! dare you to...
===
arsenalfanrichi
You've gotta feel for Obama. The most honourable achievement in his tenure, other than stemming the fiscal haemorrhage left by Bush is Obama care. Although severely compromised by subhuman lizards masquerading as politicians, even that could be taken away from the bloke.
jessica
+arsenalfanrichi
he won't return your empathy - unless you send him a donation for it. he was a fraud, and you fell for it. people are still falling for it. you're not getting anywhere pretending that he was ever anything other than a bought and paid for lobbyist. so, it's wrong to even say it was a failed presidency. it was a spectacular presidency, if you were one of his financial backers.
he passed a lot of austerity measures in balancing the budget. that's his real legacy.
Rafael Lopez
+jessica
So you want Trumpcare which allows insurers to refuse to give you any healthcare if you have any illness before and after signing up. Oh I hope everypne who gets this health plan gets cancer, that would solve so many problems. Cause you have to be really fucking stupid to allowed insurers to have that kind of power.
jessica
+Rafael Lopez
i want you to have single payer. in order for you to get single payer, you will need to abolish romneycare first, and start over. you will never get from romneycare to single payer. you'll be stuck in this "protect romneycare from the republicans" narrative forever. which is why the republicans won't actually touch the status quo
if you don't like romneycare, you could always call it gingrichcare.
it has to be the most outrageous flip-flop in history. obamacare is basically the plan that newt gingrich proposed as an alternative to hillarycare, back in the 90s.
today, she's become the single biggest supporter of the opponents of her own ideas. it's remarkable, really.
Rafael Lopez
+jessica
anything's better than Trump's pay for nothing certificate.
jessica
+Rafael Lopez
that's the right attitude, if you want to maintain the status quo. and, maybe you do. but if you're still uninsured, or you simply can't afford anything offered to you, you might have a different perspective.
Rafael Lopez
+jessica
I don't give a shit if it is status quo or not a steal is a steal, so you would prefer that they rip you off if it means a change for the absolute worst. This idiot would promote people to boycott a factory if it moves to mexico, that is by far the stupidist way you could handle that, if you want a factory to stop leaving you negotiate with it, boycoting would just made their decision of leaving easier hell they might as well take wallmart with them. Talk about been a terrible business man this is capitalism even employes are part of the competition and cheeper workers are always the best answer unless the gov. offers something else that can allowed them to benefit with a higher paid work force, like lowering taxes, free promotion, or making their products more affordable, etc... But then again the factories that make his products are in china and yet he complains about others leaving america, he without a doubt has the right initiative to make america great again which is selling it to China, what a dumbass.
arsenalfanrichi
+Rafael Lopez
How does lowering taxes on companies help really? If they go out of business cos they can't afford to pay taxes, then they deserve to go out of business. If it's in a competitive sector, then someone else will pop up in their place. Decreasing tax on companies means either more tax on workforce, or, smaller governmental spending. Which means less protection for the workforce & subsequently the companies lowering wages and no the products, or failing to meet rising living costs. This is Exactly what has been happening.
Instead of listening to what you're told, try using some logic.
Rafael Lopez
+arsenalfanrichi
Idiot the whole point is to avoid making them leave and that's just one of the three options I gave (and I could have given more) that are better than a boycot which would leave hundreds unemployed and living under wealthcare which would mean the gov. will have to tax the work force more that would make then beg for a better salary that would make compannies leave, leaving even more people unemployed and repeating the cycle that only gets worst. I am not saying it is the best options but clearly your stupid little anti big compannies brain only concentrated on that point and only that point. Of course the government could tax the compannies making them leave even faster than a boycot, this is capitalism which is all about making the most profit with the less expences. We have to appeal to them or turn to socialism.
Mike Stavenes
+Rafael Lopez
You make it sound like they have all the control. No company is going to leave the US because of taxes. If the cost of doing business in the US goes up...leaving, means doing no business in the US, instead. No company like Walmart, or McDonalds is going to boycott an entire country, throwing away all that profit, just to prove a point. That would be like turning down a billion dollars in order to save a million. The US economy is too large to just walk away from, without getting your ass fired by your shareholders.
jessica
this discussion is terrible from every direction.
asia does have a comparative advantage, it's just that you have to change the way you think about it to see it. their comparative advantage comes in the size of their population, which allows them to decrease wages. remember that for every asian job that exists, there are hundreds or thousands of unemployed people. a few cents an hour is better than sorting through the trash.
the only way to solve the issue, in the context of global trade, is consequently to reduce the population in asia. even if we had the ability to do this, we wouldn't want to.
so, we must conclude that global free trade, as we'd like to envision it, is impossible so long as the population imbalance is so great. that is, if we were ever naive enough to take the idea as what it is claimed.
so, if you want to hold to the industrial era, then you need tariffs and you need other trade restrictions. sanders & trump agree on this point, to varying levels. clinton, however, is very soft on corporations.
changing the tax rates will accomplish nothing.
but, let us ask a different question: might we be better off moving beyond a job-based industrial society and instead working together to automate the factories, for local production, distribution and consumption?
Rafael Lopez
+Mike Stavenes
the problem is not them boycoting us (which would be ridiculous and yet funny at the same time) and yes they have a certain amount of control, who do you think sponsors presidential campaings. Not forgeting that it is private compannies that manage almost all of the production jobs in america, which don't depend on consumers to be here so they can still easily move to any country and still keep selling as much as they want in america. While most of us have no jobs, but can still buy thanks to wealthcare. I am not saying that all of them would leave but just a handful of factories leaving can cause a dent in the economy of a state, boycotting will serve as nothing more than anti promotion which would make them lose profit making more of their factories having to leave because they can't "afford" the work force here,(example: if people stop buying oreos, the oreo companny would lower production and with lowering the production they will start lowering the pay of the employes because they had a x number of employes ready to supply a high demand of oreos which they would split the profit to pay that x number of employes with, but because the demand has now lower and so did the profit....well in most cases employes would be fired or pay way less or factories would just move to a country were the work force is cheeper.) A companny that pays more for employes than the profit they actually make is shooting itself in the leg, that's why if the demand lowers so does the pay that goes into their work force, until it eventually closes down factories.
jessica
+Rafael Lopez
but, trump has articulated support for tariffs - which increase the price of imported goods, thereby acting as a disincentive to offshore. that's what america needs to rebuild it's economy.
the issue with boycotting imported goods is that it's not likely to actually work. it's requesting that people ignore issues like prices. it's the kind of thing you hear from clueless hippies.
Rafael Lopez
+jessica
Obama has been doing that and everyone hates him. What we need is to promote foreign trade, almost all of what we produce should be leaving and not staying. But in order to produce enough to compete even against China we need more factories, of course we are not going to treat our work force just as bad as the Chinese gov. treats theirs, so we need to at least offer cheaper promotion accross the globe and cheaper transportation of goods like our cargo ships, unfortunately ours charges a ton of money almost everyone avoids transport from us because of it. We even force our colonies to buy from them in order to keep it alive. I think we need to turn most of our navy ships into cargo ships so we can save up and deliver more goods to Europe, South America and China. Or we can negotiate with China so they can help us trade, a big world wide trading companny build by China and US would be unstopable, but then again that's just blind wishfull thinking.
jessica
+Rafael Lopez
obama is a "free trade" zealot. his major legacy is the tpp, which is even worse than what exists right now.
you seem to be articulating a return to tory mercantilism. well, i'm not sure america, exactly, ever carried out that kind of economy - although it fought a revolution against it. the british built (and lost) an empire on it, though.
it's nineteenth century thinking. we need to get out of this game, where everybody loses, and just abolish private control of the means of production, already.