Here’s how Stoermer describes Liberal Nationalism and the role it plays in american politics:
There’s a belief system that combines two things — first, that change must happen through official channels (voting, courts, proper debate), and second, that this procedural faith is wrapped in American exceptionalism. The system isn’t just legitimate. It is sacred because America itself is exceptional.
Now here’s where it gets complicated. Klein says the project is “the American experiment.” Newsom builds on that. Kirk said the same things, but meant something completely different. Kirk’s American experiment would destroy Klein’s and Newsom’s — he wanted to dismantle multiracial democracy, restrict voting, and return to what he called the real Founders’ vision. That would end everything Klein and Newsom claim to value.
Yet Klein’s nationalism enables Kirk’s. By treating Kirk’s anti-democratic project as legitimate discourse within the American experiment, by claiming they share common ground, Klein validates extremism as just another voice in the great American conversation.
And I keep wondering: Does the white Christian nationalist movement understand something about liberal nationalism that we don’t? Do they realize that as long as they frame their goals in terms of the Constitution, the Founders, and the American experiment, individuals like Klein will always find common ground with them?
I found other notable liberal figures saying similar things while perusing twitter. Notably senator John Fetterman recently insisted that americans (sorry, I refuse to capitalize demonyms. Sue me) should stop calling Trump an autocrat and pleaded for toning down the anti-Trump rhetoric. To me this attitude plays right into MAGA’s hands. This is the kind of stuff that whitewashes bigotry and helps reactionaries move the Overton window further right.
I would venture that in a similar situation, on this side of the pond we would be out on the streets, striking the economy to a screeching halt. But in the US, there seems to be this nationalist bootlicking mentality that prevents people from even considering direct action, simply because they believe the system will somehow fix itself and everything will be honky dory in the end.
I can’t help but think the US of A was never truly the haven of freedom we were told it was. And as much as I appreciate the comparably stronger fighting spirit of the working class here, I’m not sure it will be enough to resist the rise of the far right here in Europe either, propped up by the ever influential american politics. I’m a pessimist, so please give me hope, or don’t. Thoughts, please?
Erik:
colewd:
Yes, really. An open border policy is where anyone who wants in, gets in. When was the last time that was true of the US?
“Open borders” is Republican propaganda:
Axios Explains: The myth of a U.S.-Mexico “open border”
It’s propaganda, and you fell for it. The irony is that you scold us for falling for propaganda, but you can’t point to a single instance of that happening. Meanwhile, you fall for propaganda right and left.
keiths,
The borders were open under Biden as almost 10 million foreigners were able to enter the country over the southern border illegally. The numbers were cut dramatically in January when Trump was inaugurated. The borders were essentially open.
Can you not defend your ideology with facts?. The Democratic party is in deep trouble and we need it to be healthy. Generated propaganda for the Democrats that can be easily falsified is a terrible strategy.
colewd:
I already explained to you what “open borders” means. It’s not a difficult concept:
During Biden’s term, more than 10 million people were either apprehended or turned away at the border. Those people did not get in. The border was not open.
If you want to criticize Biden’s immigration policy, fine. But why lie about it? Criticize the reality, not the cartoon version that Republicans are pushing.
Lol. Here we go again. Everything I’ve said is factual. If you disagree, quote any false statement I’ve made and we can discuss it. Or run away, as usual.
If you actually cared about the Democratic party, you’d condemn the guy who is trying to steal the 2026 election and is characterizing the Dems as “the party of hate, evil, and Satan”.
In all my years at TSZ, I don’t think I’ve encountered anyone who is as blind to irony as you. I dislike propaganda from either side, and I reject it. That’s why you haven’t been able to point to a single instance in which I promulgated “propaganda that can easily be falsified.” You, on the other hand, do it all the time, including with this “open borders” nonsense.
Apply some critical thinking. Don’t assume that something is true simply because it comports with your views. Stop making idiotic claims like this:
We were right, as you acknowledged later, and you were the one who fell for Trump’s propaganda. Do better.
colewd:
“The OBBBA screws the poor, but it screws them less than it would if we hadn’t increased the standard deduction.” That’s the truth, but it doesn’t make for a good talking point, so Republicans leave out the “screws the poor” part. You’re trying to do the same. “See how generous we are? We increased the standard deduction!”
I already showed you the tax impact of the OBBBA as a whole, including the change to the standard deduction:
…and the overall impact when benefit cuts are included:
It screws poor people, pure and simple. And it isn’t just poor people. If you look at that graph, the slope is upward. Every group is subsidizing the groups above it. The slope should be downward. Poor people need more money; rich people don’t. Why transfer wealth from the poor to the rich?
That’s all questionable, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that it’s true. What’s your logic? Wage growth benefits the poor, so it’s important to undo their gains and transfer some or all of that money to the rich, who don’t need it? Why not celebrate the fact that the poor are doing better and let them keep their gains?
Here’s the question you need to answer:
Fill in the blank. I’ve shown you that trickle-down economics doesn’t work, so what are you going to fill that blank with?
keiths,
Open boarders is a reasonable description of Biden’s policies. Someone coming over the southern border could enter the country at will in most cases. Now they cannot.
Your charts are vague and explain almost nothing. What are the income levels corresponding to D1 through D10?
What you fail to do as you have in the past is look at the big picture and see how all the policies work together.
You mean ignore all facts and swallow the propaganda as if the policies were anything else but corrupt fascism and as if there were some big picture that’s somehow good in some sense. Unfortunately, this attitude only works for the brainwashed cultists. Why don’t you stick to obvious facts instead?
Erik,
The policies individually are crap, but collectively they make sense. We just don’t have the vision.
colewd:
“Open boarders” [sic] is not a reasonable description of borders that aren’t open. 10 million people tried but failed to make it in during Biden’s term. Does that sound open to you? If you hear that the drugstore is open, you expect to walk right in. You don’t expect to be turned away. It’s no different for the border.
If you think too many got into the US during the Biden years, fine — make that criticism. But why lie about open borders? (Unless you’re dishonestly trying to score political points, as the Republicans who parroted that phrase were.)
They explain exactly what is required to make my point. They reflect the impact of the OBBBA on people of various income levels, and they show that the lower your income, the worse you get screwed. That’s the point I’m making, and it’s the point you’re trying to evade with your claim that the charts “are vague and explain almost nothing.”
Here’s your dilemma. You (hopefully) have enough of a moral compass to know that it’s wrong to screw the poor in order to benefit the rich — or if your moral compass has been thoroughly Trumpified at this point, you at least understand that it looks bad to screw the poor. That leaves you with an uncomfortable choice: Do you do the right thing and condemn your Dear Leader and his minions for foisting this abomination of a bill, that a huge majority of Americans opposed, on the people? Or do you do the wrong thing and try in vain to find some excuse for falling in line with your Dear Leader yet again, as a good cult member does? So far you’ve chosen the latter. I’m not surprised.
The CBO data includes averages but not ranges for the deciles, plus the averages are based on income plus government benefits combined, rather than income alone. But here are some figures from 2023 to give you an idea of the income ranges for each decile:
But why do you care about the income ranges? My charts already make it perfectly clear: the lower your income, the worse you get screwed by the OBBBA. How will knowing the income ranges save you?
Amusingly, that’s exactly what you are doing. You pointed to the standard deduction increase…
…as if that by itself somehow justified the entire OBBBA. I’m the one who’s looking at the big picture. My second chart shows the impact of the OBBBA as a whole on people of various income levels.
And if you’re trying to claim that I’m not looking at hypothetical wage growth due to decreased illegal immigration, guess again. I already dealt with that:
I’ll repeat the question you’re avoiding:
Fill in the blank.
The only genius with the vision is the rapist, serial adulterer, business fraudster, insurrectionist, peddler of government secrets, convicted felon “tariff is the most beautiful word” Donald Trump. And the only guy to recognise Trump’s genius is the lazy label Grok man.
keiths,
Your chart looks like it does not take all factors into account such as the large increase in the automatic deduction at the low end and the Salt issue at the high end.
Have you looked carefully at the data before you posted it?
Here is a model which includes Salt tax and child tax credit. For a couple with 2 kids and 400k vs 60k Salary.
The couple with 60k Salary pays no taxes or a 100% reduction vs the 400k couple gets a 22% reduction.
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_47052b1f-c61d-4861-a621-681d0cc04834
colewd:
Dude, you aren’t even looking at the right bill. Your Grok conversation refers to the TCJA, which passed in 2017, and not the OBBBA, which passed in July of this year. The problem was your prompt:
“Trump tax cuts” was too vague. Grok thought you were talking about the TCJA, not the OBBBA. Did you even read its response? The very first sentence says:
How could you miss that?
colewd:
A lot more carefully than you did, evidently.
I got my data directly from the Congressional Budget Office. Not only that, I looked just now and found that they issued an updated estimate on August 11. In the updated estimate, the numbers look even worse for poor people. The CBO helpfully included a graph, so I don’t need to generate another one myself:
The chart illustrates the total impact of the bil, and it closely matches my earlier graph, so no, I didn’t leave anything out. The poorest people are getting slammed, the richest people are benefitting the most, and every group is transferring wealth up the chain toward wealthier people. It’s abominable, yet your Dear Leader pushed hard for it, and his flying monkeys in Congress did his bidding.
Again, I invite you to address this:
Fill in the blank.
a couple of points here. Given the standard deduction, nearly half the population pays no income taxes at all. Increasing that deduction doesn’t help them. Of course, sales taxes are recessive. 13 states put sales taxes on food. Most of these are red (and relatively poor) states for some reason.
The open borders arguments ignore the fact that the US population would be decreasing if it weren’t for immigration. The nation needs more immigration, not less. Closing the borders as tight as possible is shooting ourselves in the foot, while crops rot in the field. Smart policy would encourage immigration, simplify and streamline the process of becoming a citizen, provide ample schooling for new immigrants to be assimilated. The problem with this policy is, most of these people are colored. Hence the Trump cult’s fear of open borders.
Flint,
Hi Flint
Immigration puts downward pressure on wages. You are right there is very little tax burden for those on the left side of Keiths chart. What policy really helps pull this group into the middle class?
Well, immigration does, for starters. Yes, there is a slight downward pressure on wages, but the economy is stimulated and the standard of living for the indigenous poor goes UP. Groceries cost less. Also helpful are better education and lower healthcare costs, but MAGA has come out strongly against those two as well, so…
DNA_Jock,
Except when millions of immigrants came over our boarders over the last 4 years food prices went up. What empirical evidence do you have to support your assertion here?
As I read it, the relationships between immigration and inflation are dynamic and very complex. Overall, immigration is not a major determinative of inflation one way or another, at least in the short run. In the longer run, if immigrants can become citizens, get an education, start businesses, and generally become a productive driver of the economy, everyone benefits. After all, the US is populated almost entirely by immigrants or their descendants. What sort of nation would be if immigrants were banned?
This doesn’t really help your case. It puts downward pressure on wages but prices went up? How so?
Allan Miller,
Farm wage changes unless very high have little effect of prices at the store. Other factors like policies that constrict supply are what creates inflationary pressure.
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_2c404e45-c42c-412b-8371-73174e3c3525
You keep pasting Grok, but Grok does not support your assertions. You have not uttered a single factual statement. It is false that millions of immigrants came over the border and it is false that this is what caused prices to rise.
The only year of significant inflation in USA was the last Covid year – not because of immigration, but because Covid hit supply chains and forcibly altered shopping behaviours. All along in USA, throughout last five years, inflation was *much lower* than in most of the rest of the world, certainly lower than anywhere in Europe. You whine so much without any reason that you can be easily taken for a snowflake liberal!
Erik,
Eric
My point is the same as yours.
DNA Jock was claiming an effect on consumer prices. My claim is that it affects wages which is mostly independent of consumer prices.
How big was immigration such that it would have had an effect on wages? You have thrown up many false numbers. Got a correct one for a change?
So on the one hand you’re saying the relationship between immigration and the economy is too complex for simpllistic analysis; on the other you’re making a simplistic case on it.
Allan Miller,
I am making the case being an owner of a few food businesses both as a purchaser of farm products and pricing those products. Wages can affect prices but usually they are a minor contributor.
colewd,
A reminder:
Here’s another one: Premiums are set to more than double* on average for Obamacore enrollees. Fill in the blank:
*And that’s on average. Lots of people are getting hit even harder.
keiths,
Hi Keiths
You are cherry picking issues vs looking at the big picture.
colewd:
OK, then I’ll rephrase the questions for you:
keiths,
The important issue is overall improvement in quality of life for everyone. What economic systems have done the best job at this over time?
colewd:
In which case the questions become:
Easy. This is an important step in the desirable policy of advantaging white people much more than any other ethnicity, and not only making the rich richer but working to distort the economy to stay that way. It’s obviously better to have 100% of a 100 dollar pie, than a mere 25% of a 1000 dollar pie. Power and control in the right hands are the policy goals.
Historically, that would be economic systems where carefully regulated competition is the rule. Increasing income inequality between rich and poor is a surefire sign that you’re doing it wrong. Especially when the rich control the levers of power to keep this going. The purpose of power is power.
Here in the US we have answered the age-old question, who guards the guardians. The answer, is they do.
I might add, the founders of the US understood the value of this policy goal, which is why they limited the franchise (the right to vote) to about 5% of the population – white adult male land owners. No blacks, no women, no poor people, because those deplorables couldn’t be trusted to elect the best people. And even then, they had the electoral college (and a similar system, now abandoned, for electing Senators) adding one more layer of suitable people to correct any bozos from being elected by the few who could vote. Yes, all men are created equal – but children, blacks, women, the poor etc. are not men. They didn’t count, some of them for well over a century.
Bizarre shenanigans at the meeting with Zelensky. Hegseth wore a Russia tie. You can get one yourself if you’ve half a mind..
What on earth was he thinking?
And Trump asked Putin how he’d feel about giving Ukraine Tomahawks. Extraordinary admission, that he should run foreign policy past him in that way.
The more you look at the ‘big picture’, the more WTF it becomes.
Allan:
Trump, three weeks ago:
Trump, today:
He got played by Putin yet again. Trump is a complete flake. An indecisive, confused old man who can’t hold his own in a meeting with a foreign leader. In way over his head. It’s bad enough that people like Bill are in a cult, but to pick Trump as your cult leader?
keiths,
It’s not at all clear which party is doing this when you look at all the policies together.
colewd:
I’m not asking you to compare parties. I’m asking about a particular piece of legislation — the OBBBA — which Trump pushed and the Republicans passed into law.
You say:
Via its tax provisions and benefits cuts, the OBBBA massively transfers wealth from the poor to the rich. It also more than doubles, on average, the insurance premiums paid by the 24 million people enrolled in Obamacare. How do either of those things improve everyone’s quality of life?
Hence my fill-in-the-blank questions:
If you ask Democrats, they will go on and on at length about every detail of the law and how it hurts most people to benefit a few (who need a benefit the least). If you ask a Republican, he’ll say he hasn’t read the bill so he can’t address any claims about it, and then miss the point or change the subject. Bill’s lament that he just can’t tell which party is responsible for the massive wealth transfer going in is, like, a clue.
Flint,
Can anyone here quantify the wealth transfer either way including all the issues changed in the bill plus reduced boarder crossings and additional manufacturing investments. If not the discussion is meaningless.
It will take time to know the net effect of the policies.
colewd:
No, it won’t. We already know what the OBBBA does: the lopsided tax cuts, the Medicaid and SNAP benefits cuts, the inflated health insurance premiums. The CBO has done its analysis and I’ve posted the charts. They show that the poorer you are, the worse you get screwed, and the wealthier you are, the more you benefit.
I’m aware that “let’s wait and see” is your go-to excuse, but we can already see and we don’t need to wait.
“Look at the big picture!” is another one of your go-to excuses, but it doesn’t make sense. Policy isn’t all-or-nothing. Bills can be passed or not, provisions can be included or not, policies can be implemented or not. The question is always “does this particular bill/provision/policy advance our goals, or not?”
You say the goal is to improve everyone’s quality of life. If so, we should look at policies individually and ask “Does this improve everyone’s quality of life?” That’s what I’m getting at with my questions.
The OBBBA is a massive tax cut that disproportionately benefits the wealthy. Does that improve everyone’s quality of life?
It slashes Medicaid and food stamp benefits. Does that improve everyone’s quality of life?
It’s doubling health insurance premiums for 24 million Americans. Does that improve everyone’s quality of life?
It’s adding $4 trillion to the national debt. Are we all going to be better off with a higher percentage of tax revenue going toward interest payments instead of toward government functions and services?
It allows the ultra-rich to write off 100% of the cost of their business jets and yachts in the year in which they were purchased. Does that benefit us all?
You don’t have to look at “the big picture” to know that those things don’t lead to “an overall improvement in quality of life for everyone”. In that case, why support them?
Here’s another way to look at it. Let’s imagine an alternate universe in which Trump’s border and tariff policies are in place and have conferred an immediate and significant benefit on the poor (bear with me — it’s just a thought experiment). The poor are doing better. That’s a good thing, right? They’re the ones suffering the most, so we want them to benefit from government policies.
The poor are doing better, so Trump and the Republicans pass a bill — let’s call it the ABBBA — that undoes most of those gains. They’re still slightly better off, but significantly less so than before the ABBBA was passed.
If the poor were doing better, was that an emergency? Did we need to step in and take money away from them and give it to the rich? How is that a policy that improves the quality of life for everyone? Why not just let the poor keep their gains? They’re the ones who need the extra money, not the rich.
The moral of the story? Punishing the poor in order to reward the rich is bad policy, period. You don’t have to look at “the big picture” in order to see that.
keiths,
When you are making policy all the programs needs to work to gather. Since your argument is based on cherry picking and not considering the effect of all the policies working together it is not persuasive to anyone not tied to either parties ideology.
Healthcare is a mess and must be reformed as a whole.
Bill, legislators don’t craft huge bills just to see what effect they might eventually have. The truth is the opposite – they craft bills with the intention of producing specific results. Yes, some legislation eventually produces unexpected consequences, but that doesn’t mean the original intention wasn’t clear. It’s not all that mystifying that tax cuts benefit those who pay taxes, or that killing programs that have been helping the poor isn’t going to help the poor.
In the big picture, how is Trump reforming healthcare other than just defrauding and defunding it? Shouldn’t the big picture be documented somewhere as a party program or policy platform? Perhaps in Project 2025? Have you checked what it says about healthcare?
Just for giggles, here is what duck.ai replied to “What goals with healthcare does Project 2025 have?”
“Project 2025, developed by the Heritage Foundation and supported by various conservative groups, aims to reshape healthcare policies significantly if implemented. The central goals primarily include rolling back existing healthcare reforms, cutting benefits, and altering regulations governing the healthcare landscape in the U.S.”
Oh, soon you can stop complaining about the mess. Enjoy your reform along with the big picture.
There is no requirement that any new laws must be consistent with existing law, and legislators don’t even bother to look for conflicts – that’s what the judicial system is for. Policy is often enacted to make change, which is to say, to NOT work together with existing policy.
The OBBBA is a thousand pages of cherries! Every actor is tied to their party’s ideology. Your objections are not realistic.
In the US, healthcare is far and away the most expensive of any developed nation, and about the worst according to reasonable metrics (life expectancy, hospitalized populations, etc.) But there is no realistic proposal for wholesale reform. The ACA is truly a camel designed by a committee, with lots of inconsistencies and patches and amendments and litigation, BUT it has made the nation as a whole healthier.
You seem to be saying that taking a step in the right direction is useless if that single step doesn’t complete the journey. This is simply wrong.
colewd:
That’s ridiculous on three counts.
1. The idea that we can’t judge policies on their own merits is false. Remember my example from earlier in the thread?
If someone objects, telling you that it’s wrong to single out Nebraskans for punishment, what will your response be? Will you say “You’re cherry picking! You’re not considering the effect of all the programs working together!”? You don’t need to consider the effect of “all the programs working together” to know that it’s wrong to screw Nebraskans this way.
Likewise with poor people. Screwing the poor in order to put more money in the pockets of the rich is wrong, and it doesn’t magically transform into a good thing when considered in the context of other programs.
2, Suppose you were actually correct that we can’t judge the OBBBA’s provisions without considering their joint effect with other Trump/Republican policies. You specifically mentioned “reduced boarder [sic] crossings” and “additional manufacturing investments”. How specifically would either or both of those things transform screwing the poor into a good thing? Fill in the blank:
Go ahead. Fill in the blank. You won’t, because you can’t. Border enforcement and manufacturing investment can’t turn screwing the poor into a good thing. You know that, but you won’t admit it, because to admit it would be to criticize the Dear Leader, and he must never be criticized.
3. Suppose hypothetically that reduced border crossings and additional manufacturing investment actually benefit the poor, say by raising their effective income by 2%. Then Congress considers a bill that will reduce their income by 3% and increase the income of the rich. Should they pass the bill? If yes, why? Why is it important, when the poor do a little bit better, to take that away from them so that the rich can be richer? Why not celebrate the fact that the poor are doing a bit better and keep it that way?
And the Republicans have taken an important step in the right direction. By stripping Medicaid benefits and doubling insurance premiums, they are causing people to lose their healthcare or to go bankrupt due to medical debt. People will avoid going to the doctor because they can’t afford it, and they’ll go to the ER instead. That will drive costs up for everyone. People will die and their health will be worse. But it’s all good, because reduced benefits for the poor mean more dollars for the rich.
What’s not to love? Increased costs, people becoming uninsured, bankruptcy due to medical debt, people dying, others with worse health, an increase in costly and inefficient ER visits. These are all reforms, right?
Thank God we have a president like Trump who has a clear vision for
healthcare reformmaking the rich richer, backed up by a Congress that full-throatedly supports him. They are all so compassionate, it brings tears to my eyes. They truly care about the plight of the poor. Not like those Communist Democrats who hate America.I recall a programme whose aim was to test out a telephone voting system in the very early days. The voting public played chess against a single player. He stuffed the herd with ease – the mass had no strategy, just lumbering along move by move.
This seems a metaphor for the idea that there is an overarching strategy that sits above any individual ‘move’. In a true dictatorship, that might be more possible- though I don’t think Trump is intelligent enough for that – but in the world where Senate and Congress have a say, amendments can be brought, voters need persuading, other nations have agency, any strategy gets subsumed by the chaos inherent in the process. You can only look at the next ‘move’, and judge it on its merits. The ‘4D chess’ notion is just bullshit; unwarranted faith that the man at the top knows what he’s doing and all the other actors – including other nations – will play their parts precisely.
I think the US has come as close as I’ve ever heard of to this ideal. Trump may not know how to do anything, but his instincts have been consistent. He’s a bigot, he grasps exactly how bigots think and what they want, and he has blundered on a strategy to make his desires reality. Somehow he intuited that the bigot vote can elect a President. That strategy has certain key elements – flood the media and the courts with distractions, invite and preserve chaos, intimidate the universities, law firms, and networks, and (most of all) surround himself with toadies who blindly do whatever he wants without regard to reason, law, facts, education or conscience. And of course without Senate confirmation. Meanwhile, Congress and SCOTUS have been solidly and consistently complicit.
Flint,
This issue again is not a single program but the net effect of all programs.
Most of the change as I understand it is the expiration of the subsidies in the inflation reduction bill.
Most here believe in health care for all and if we had no debt this might be plausible. I think going forward without bureaucracy stalling progress technology like AI could help here.
Of course, the OBBBA is far from a single program; it has direct and indirect effects on a great many programs. The whole idea of “one big bill” was to include some of everything the Republicans wanted. One of the handicaps Democrats face is that there are so many programs affected it’s hard to generate opposition to the whole thing. Should they focus on taxes, or on health care, or on child care, or on food stamps, or on foreign policy, or what?
And the NON expiration of the trillions in tax cuts for billionaires. And then again there’s the firing of tens of thousands of federal workers, from nuclear maintenance people to air traffic controllers to nearly every sort of scientist. And of course, firing all the inspectors general. Can you truly not see the pattern here, the net effect of all these things together?
Universal health care is impossible not because of debt (hey, a trillion here and a trillion there and pretty soon …) but because the vested interests opposed to it are extremely wealthy, well organized, powerful, and own too many politicians. Even the ACA has had to be modified multiple times lest it cut into the profits of the insurance industry.
There is a reason why the Trump administration is gutting the Department of Education and attempting to transform university curricula into propaganda. Even Republicans can see that there is a strong correlation between years of education and tendency to vote for Democrats. The war on education is an essential feature of the war on truth. Enough Republican voters are either misinformed or uninformed that, with a little gerrymandering, Republicans can cement control of Congress and SCOTUS indefinitely.
colewd:
Then answer my question. Fill in the blank:
colewd:
Seriously? You have no idea what’s in the OBBBA, but you’re sure it’s a good bill? As long as we look at it in the context of other programs? How can you judge that a bill is good without knowing what the bill is?
Plus, you should know what’s in it because we’ve gone over it in this thread, repeatedly The major cuts in the bill are:
1. Almost $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts.
2. $325 billion in Obamacare subsidy cuts.
3. $189 billion in food stamp cuts.
As a result of the benefit cuts, 17 million people will become uninsured. As a result of the tax cuts, the top 1% are gaining more than the bottom 60% combined. That’s despicable, it’s immoral, and “the big picture” doesn’t change it.
You support it for two reasons. First, because you are a cult member and your cult leader likes it and pushed it through Congress. Second, because as you’ve told us:
If you truly believed that
…then you would condemn the bill and condemn Trump and the Republicans for passing it. Those policies don’t “improve the quality of life for everyone” and in fact make life substantially harder for the people who are struggling the most.
Which is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether massive cuts to Medicaid and Obamacare are a good idea. Those programs are not “health care for all”.
Logically, eliminating health care altogether means the same health care for all. The rich don’t care about insurance, why should they?
keiths,
Big picture we have 37 trillion in debt. How do we fix it?
The first problem with health care is how inefficient we are as a country. Here is a list of spending per capita vs life expediency. We are number 1 on the list for spending per capita and don’t even make the top 10 in life expediency.
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNQ%3D%3D_148d0100-dd05-4d30-b9cb-772bf9137761
You are asking the wrong questions.