Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Tax reform (Score 1) 361

I 100% expect the Republicans (congress in general, really, but the Republicans are presently driving the bus) to do exactly the same thing to tax law that the Republicans attempted to do to the healthcare law. Which is to say, rewrite it to further benefit the wealthy and further disadvantage the poor and middle class.

What congress thinks is broken about tax law and what the poor and middle class thinks is broken about tax law are two entirely different things.

It's not that congress can't figure it out. It's that what they want has absolutely nothing to do with benefitting the voters who elected them. They serve those who write them checks, hand out lucrative speaking engagements, "think tank" positions, lobbyist jobs, property and stock tips/deals, etc. They care very little for our votes. They know full well that when disapproval of congress is high (86% in a recent election), re-election rates remain high (94% in that same election.) So until disapproval numbers for a bill hit really dangerous looking extremes (83% for the ACHA, basically everyone that doesn't drool all their waking hours), they pretty much do whatever they want, and what that is, as always, is fluff the wealthy.

The key to stopping them is exactly what happened with the ACHA: The media and the Internet need to repeatedly and in a way that cannot be ignored, put the information about what the the proposed revisions to tax law is trying to do to most everyone out under bright lights. If that can be done, it'll kill their tax agenda, which is absolutely guaranteed to be harmful to most of us. Just like the ACHA.

The problem with actual reasonable tax reform is that you're asking the foxes to voluntarily reduce their access to the henhouse. No matter what they say about it, they are thinking "LOL, as if." That's not just the GOP, either; the Democrats trade on tax leverage too.

A truly fair and simple federal taxation system is literally no more than a few pages of clear and simple law away. The same is true for any state or town. Likewise decent healthcare mechanisms. But we can't get there from here. The monied interests don't want that; and that means we're not going to get it. What we are most likely to get, if we're not vigilant, is something a good bit worse. Just like the ACHA.

Comment ACHA "craft" (Score 1) 361

the lawmakers are being very well-compensated to read legislation. It's like their one fucking job, you know?

Yes, I know, that's the point I was making. I'm sorry if that was unclear.

If Trump and the GOP couldn't unravel the 3500 page health care law

The GOP unraveled it just fine (Trump doesn't even read his executive orders... the very idea that he had anything to do with the ACHA other than as an idiot mouthpiece is mildly hilarious.) The GOP rewrote it to do what they wanted it to do, which was adhere to the usual ethically bankrupt Republican agenda of disadvantaging the poor and further enriching the rich.

It's just that the poor, huge numbers of whom benefit from the ACA, actually got wind of the GOP's intent, and unfortunately for the Republicans, their base consists of considerable numbers of the poor.

It wasn't that they couldn't unravel it. It's that they got caught unraveling it.

The reason why is simply this: If you never give a baby a lollipop, it will just sit there and gurgle. But if you give a baby a lollipop and then attempt to take it away and it catches you at it, it will scream bloody murder until you give it back. That's exactly what happened here. The ACA handed out the lollipop that was healthcare to people who had never had it. The ACHA attempted to take it away. The people caught them at it. Everything from then on was entirely predictable.

Comment Re:False equivalency (Score 1) 361

I think you need to go back and look at what actually happened. Obama tried to get those prisoners into the US where they could be interned in a rights-compliant way, given proper hearings and trials, lawyers, due process. He didn't try (and shouldn't have tried) to "close Gitmo" by just releasing everyone, nor did he ever say he wanted to. His attempts to get this done were stymied by others. So from my POV, while yes, that's a failure of Obama's attempt to close Gitmo, it most certainly doesn't lay the blame for the failure at his door.

Look, I am not a blind fan of Obama. Lots of things I disagreed with him on. Some of it is just attitudes he promoted as a leader, such as his various constitutionally blind gun-control ideas, some of it is things he actually did like signing the (un)PATRIOT(ic) act. But closing Gitmo... that turned into a political nightmare, but it was a nightmare he was on the correct side of.

Comment Re:Why Fox? (Score 1) 361

> despite having one of the most expensive health care systems.

Not "one of" but "the" most expensive healthcare system by 100% increase from the next most expensive. Canada's.

But in Canada, if you want to start a business, you don't have to wonder if you're going to die in the process of not having healthcare at the beginning.

--
BMO

Comment False equivalency (Score 1) 361

I believe an important distinction is that Gitmo was not closed after 8 years of promises and the President leaving office without it getting done.

Obama was actually trying to close Gitmo, because it's a travesty against liberty and justice. This was a constitutionally sound, well thought out, and highly principled stance.

Trump was not actually trying to give us good healthcare, because either he has no idea what he's doing, or he is specifically trying to benefit monied interests rather than actually see that good healthcare is made broadly available to the citizens. This is the stance of (take your pick) an idiot or an evil person.

Yes, both were stymied by congress. But:

Obama's Gitmo effort is fairly described as "good intent, stymied by congress, AKA failure."

Trump's ACHA is effort fairly described as "bad intent, stymied by congress, AKA failure."

People claiming doomsday for President Trump are foolish.

Based on the ACHA failure, certainly. It was just terrible legislation that made him look like an idiot. Being an idiot isn't cause for impeachment. Otherwise we'd have been rid of Bush II early on. :/

However, based on Trump's continuing spewage of falsehoods, his campaign's complicity with Russian manipulation of the election, based on his utilizing the presidency to take financial advantage... I wouldn't be too sure that us saying "President Pence", and fairly soon, is all that unlikely.

Trump is obviously incompetent at the job. Between that, and his continual coloring outside the ethical and legal lines, and that of the campaign that resulted in his election, his future as president is by no means certain to extend a full four years.

Comment Re:Nope (Score 1) 53

Some businesses might...but with HIPAA laws, banking laws and lawyers, the security of "in the cloud" no matter how secure, might put some people off on this.

It doesn't matter how secure it is, it matters how secure the auditors say it is. A startup will do quite poorly by this measure, while the companies with years of good lobbying will have arranged things so that it's fine.

Slashdot Top Deals

An adequate bootstrap is a contradiction in terms.

Working...