Trump II

[Alan Goldhammer]

Federal regulations cost America 2 trillion dollars in 2012.  For comparison our GDP for 2012 is around 16 trillion. http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports/Cost-of-Federal-Regulations/Federal-Regulation-Executive-Summary.pdf

Could you find a link for state and local regulation costs so we can see what it is for comparisons? 

Regarding codes, NYC recently re-wrote their building codes to streamline them and get rid of many archaic rules that cost a lot but did little to improve safety or construction.  Private as well as government saved a lot of money. (Government has to follow the same codes when building as private and the city had to cut costs.)  They still have stupid and costly rules that serve no purpose.  I once installed a small 1/4 horsepower exhaust fan in a window that we bought for around $150.  Code requires that  the manufacturer's name and model number be on the engineer's plans that were already filed with the Dept of Building's.  So we had to re-hire the engineer at around $700 to update his plans that showed the fan at 1/4 hp but with out the model info.  You don't know that at the time of design. Putting that additional info on the plans serves no real purpose.  So $750 was spent for no purpose.  That doesn't even include the costs for soft labor of arranging an inspection to show the plans match the installation fan nameplate.  We're taking about a tiny fan like you would install in your window.  It's these kind of regulations that that should be expunge fro local and federal rules.

I was talking specifically about state and local permitting issues.  The number that you cite might be accurate though it comes from an industry trade association (I used to work at one and know how the data is sometimes skewed.  Of course that amount also covers food and drug regulation and a bunch of other stuff that is probably necessary.  The example you cited is a classic one of how states and localities regulate to excess.

[JoeKitchen]

costs have to be controlled.  This can be either done by the government (the way they do it with Medicare and Medicaid) or it can be done through negotiation by the insurance carriers (establishing physician networks and getting discounts for services and drugs).  to think that individuals can do this on their own is laughable as there is no transparency on pricing or quality of care/service.  It's not like buying a car using Internet pricing discounts.

I agree that costs need to be controlled, however I don't think it has anything to do with what you proposed. 

The underlying problem with healthcare in America is that we are so damn unhealthy.  We don't exercise, eat right, are obese, causing all kinds of preventable health problems, and then we complain about healthcare being so expensive. 

Personally I believe people should be forced to pay more for coverage based on their lifestyle and diet.  Money talks and bull shit walks. 

Turn being unhealthy into a money problem for people and this will get fixed, or at least it will get better. 

[Alan Klein]

...costs have to be controlled.  This can be either done by the government (the way they do it with Medicare and Medicaid) or it can be done through negotiation by the insurance carriers (establishing physician networks and getting discounts for services and drugs).  to think that individuals can do this on their own is laughable as there is no transparency on pricing or quality of care/service.  It's not like buying a car using Internet pricing discounts.
I've been on Medicare for four years and never encountered that.  there are some quality metrics that were put into Medicare to improve quality of care but this does sound rather strange.  I wouldn't call the effort a boondoggle as one of the most difficult things to do is assess quality of care.  A lot of years ago I attended one of the Jackson Hole meeting that were convened by Dr. Paul Ellwood, one of the very early champions of managed care.  His big thing was trying to figure out how to assess quality and maximize health outcomes.  Unfortunately, this is really an area that is not funded very well.

Controlling costs means lowering doctor fees.  Many of the better doctors have already pulled out of Medicare.  I learned my lession right after I enrolled. I went to a doctor who charged $500.  Since he opted out of Medicare, Medicare would not pay as primary and therefore my secondary insurances that I paid for, would not pay either because the primary did not accept it.  So I didn't get ten cents back from anyone and had to drop the doctor.  My wife's cancer doctor who checks her out every year (she's the best) is going to be a problem when my wife starts Medicare in April.  The doctor charges $900, most of which I get back from insurance now.  But since she doesn't accept Medicare, and my wife will not give her up annual exams with her, we'll have to pay the full amount next year.  The doctor does offer a ten percent discount if you're on Medicare, but that still means $800 out of pocket for a checkup.  Of course my wife is worth it.

I still think that any kind of competition is better than no competition at all such as with the government as a single payer.  In any case, there's no way to pay for it with Obamacare or with some Republican plan.  And the government is already broke.  Stay healthy, my friend.

The point is the same thing is going to happen with Obamacare, or Trumpcare, or whatever it's called.  Doctors go though too many years of training at high expense.  If they can't make money, the smarter ones will either opt out or go into more lucrative professions. That will reduce quality care for the average person.  Of course the rich will be able to pay for the best out of pocket. 

[Otto Phocus]

The underlying problem with healthcare in America is that we are so damn unhealthy.

Not to be too snarky but the underlying problem with healthcare in America is a belief that there is only one problem with it.  This makes identifying a solution much harder.

There are many problems with American Healthcare, very few of which can be fixed quickly.

Like the economy in general, it took us decades to get in to this mess, it will probably take us decades to get out.  But people want fast sound-byte solutions "If we only did A, it would solve the problem".  That's just not reasonable. To make things even harder, I feel we need two separate solutions

One solution for the long term and one solution to carry us over until the long term solution can take effect.  But since the term of a Representative is only 2 years, governmentally, the future is only 18 months.  Anything after that is not considered.

The sad news is that there is most likely no cheap solution and no quick solution.  Definitely no quick and cheap solution.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

U.S. senators ask FBI, DOJ for any evidence of Trump wiretap:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-wiretap-idUSKBN16F2AQ

And related:

FBI Director Comey at cyber conference: 'You're stuck with me':
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-comey-idUSKBN16F23N
Comey, who was appointed FBI director by Barack Obama in 2013, urged Justice Department officials to refute Trump's claims because it falsely insinuated the Federal Bureau of Investigation broke the law, U.S. officials said. The department has not acted on his request.

Cheers,
Bart

[scyth]

Stay healthy, my friend.

or die young...

[Alan Klein]

U.S. senators ask FBI, DOJ for any evidence of Trump wiretap:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-wiretap-idUSKBN16F2AQ

Clapper the Director of National Intelligence said there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.  But the press only talks about his denial of the tap.  Trump is playing the what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  Since the whole claim about collusion is from unnamed sources, Trump is using unnamed sources to claim a tap.    The media is pushing the tap and ignoring the more important Russian collusion claim that's just as phony.

Here's Clapper: "Clapper was also asked on "Meet the Press" if he had any evidence that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russian government while the Kremlin was working to influence the election.
"Not to my knowledge," Clapper said, based on the information he had before his time in the position ended.
"We did not include anything in our report … that had any reflect of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report," he said. "We had no evidence of such collusion."
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/former-dni-james-clapper-i-can-deny-wiretap-trump-tower-n729261

Here's the full interview transcript: http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-03-05-17-n729271

[scyth]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-08/wikileaks-cia-revelations-look-like-a-dud-for-now

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Clapper the Director of National Intelligence said there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

The wiretap issue is not about the Russian connection or lack thereof. It is about an allegation that the former President of the USA, supposedly broke the law as part of a political campaign.

Sofar, Trump has neither explained his reasons for that claim nor disclosed sources that led him to assuming that. So sofar it's a false allegation, which also reflects badly on the judicial system.

But the press only talks about his denial of the tap.

Clapper, when asked, denied that there was an investigation order, so it's up to Trump to prove otherwise (or explain his tweets).

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

The wiretap issue is not about the Russian connection or lack thereof. It is about an allegation that the former President of the USA, supposedly broke the law as part of a political campaign.

Sofar, Trump has neither explained his reasons for that claim nor disclosed sources that led him to assuming that. So sofar it's a false allegation, which also reflects badly on the judicial system.

Clapper, when asked, denied that there was an investigation order, so it's up to Trump to prove otherwise (or explain his tweets).

Cheers,
Bart

You totally ignored my post.  You're still talking about the tap. Forget the tap.   Who cares about what Obama did or didn't?   The point is that Clapper said there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.  That Russia's hack of the Democratic National Committee had nothing to do with the Trump campaign. The Russians did it on their own.  Trumps hands are clean.  That's what the whole original issue was about. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

You totally ignored my post.  You're still talking about the tap. Forget the tap.   Who cares about what Obama did or didn't?

And you are missing the point. It's not about Obama, it's about the current President of the USA who is either telling lies, thereby implicating the former president in breaking the law (or his whole Security administration did), or is so unstable that he bases his actions on unreliable sources and impulsively acts upon whatever they say/suggest. Not the kind of behavior that inspires trust in someone to decides on matters of (inter-)national security. Especially worrying when we know that he will be tested by several foreign powers.

The point is that Clapper said there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.  That Russia's hack of the Democratic National Committee had nothing to do with the Trump campaign. The Russians did it on their own.  Trumps hands are clean.  That's what the whole original issue was about.

All he said was that at that time (of the report after which he left), there was no evidence of collusion. He obviously has no knowledge of what happened since.

From the article you linked to:

CHUCK TODD:

There was a conclusion that said, "It's clear that the Russians interfered and did so in an attempt to help Donald Trump." Do you still believe that conclusion?

JAMES CLAPPER:

Yes, I do.

CHUCK TODD:

But at this point, what's not proven is the idea of collusion.

JAMES CLAPPER:

That's correct.

Cheers,
Bart

[Chris Kern]

the current President of the USA who is either telling lies, thereby implicating the former president in breaking the law (or his whole Security administration did), or is so unstable that he bases his actions on unreliable sources and impulsively acts upon whatever they say/suggest.

The second explanation seems more plausible to me — at least, in this instance and probably by default.  I don't get the impression Trump typically is aware of whether something he says is true or false as long as it fits his narrative of the moment: he seems to be opportunistically delusional.  Of course, pathology doesn't entirely rule out mendacity, but I think the publicly-available evidence suggests that he just ... ahhh ... went off his rocker Saturday morning.

[Alan Klein]

And you are missing the point. It's not about Obama, it's about the current President of the USA who is either telling lies, thereby implicating the former president in breaking the law (or his whole Security administration did), or is so unstable that he bases his actions on unreliable sources and impulsively acts upon whatever they say/suggest. Not the kind of behavior that inspires trust in someone to decides on matters of (inter-)national security. Especially worrying when we know that he will be tested by several foreign powers.

All he said was that at that time (of the report after which he left), there was no evidence of collusion. He obviously has no knowledge of what happened since.

From the article you linked to:
Cheers,
Bart

Clapper was DNI from 2010 through Jan 2017 long after the campaign ended.  What happened "since" occurred after Jan 2017 when he resigned so it has no bearing on any collusion.  The collusion in question refers back to the campaign period before the election.  He was DNI when the Russians were hacking during the campaign before the election.  Therefore he would have been knowledgeable of any FBI CIA or other America intelligence groups whether they had evidence of the Trump campaign colluding with the Russians.    And he stated as you bolded that there was no proof of collusion.   So he denied there was collusion.   No one is denying that the Russians hacked the DNC. But the Democrats were trying to stablish the collusion link so they could impeach Trump.  Clapper indicated there was no collusion.  By the way so did the FBI Director Comey state the same thing.  No proof found of collusion. 

The tap issue was a diversion, a head fake created by Trump to drag the Democrats and Obama into investigation.  You and the entire world's media took the bait.  So now the issue is the tap.  Who cares about the tap?  The worse that would happen is like Sweden, Trump will say he thought it to be a possibility.  Unless both Clapper and Comey lied, the main point is no collusion with the Russians which would be an impeachable offense. 

 

[Alan Klein]

For the record here is the exact portion of what Clapper told NBC about collusion.  It's clear that there was no collusion according to him.  Remember, the intelligence groups were investigating all through the campaign.  That's how they new the Russians were hacking.  Clapper left in Jan 2017 long after the campaign.  So one would have to believe that the intelligence groups have figured out collusion since Jan 20th, 2017 and knew nothing about it before.  Very unlikely.
CHUCK TODD:
Well, that's an important revelation at this point. Let me ask you this. Does intelligence exist that can definitively answer the following question, whether there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials?
JAMES CLAPPER:
We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, "our," that's N.S.A., F.B.I. and C.I.A., with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report.
CHUCK TODD:
I understand that. But does it exist?
JAMES CLAPPER:
Not to my knowledge.
CHUCK TODD:
If it existed, it would have been in this report?
JAMES CLAPPER:
This could have unfolded or become available in the time since I left the government.
CHUCK TODD:
At some--
JAMES CLAPPER:
But at the time, we had no evidence of such collusion.
CHUCK TODD:
There's a lot of smoke, but there hasn't been that smoking gun yet. At what point should the public start to wonder if this is all just smoke?
JAMES CLAPPER:
Well, that's a good question. I don't know. I do think, though, it is in everyone's interest, in the current President's interests, in the Democrats' interests, in the Republican interest, in the country's interest, to get to the bottom of all this. Because it's such a distraction. And certainly the Russians have to be chortling about the success of their efforts to sow dissention in this country.
CHUCK TODD:
So you feel like your report does not get to the bottom-- you admit your report that you released in January doesn't get to the bottom of this?
JAMES CLAPPER:
It did-- well, it got to the bottom of the evidence to the extent of the evidence we had at the time. Whether there is more evidence that's become available since then, whether ongoing investigations will be revelatory, I don't know.
CHUCK TODD:
There was a conclusion that said, "It's clear that the Russians interfered and did so in an attempt to help Donald Trump." Do you still believe that conclusion?
JAMES CLAPPER:
Yes, I do.
CHUCK TODD:
But at this point, what's not proven is the idea of collusion.
JAMES CLAPPER:
That's correct.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-03-05-17-n729271

[Farmer]

No collusion is good.  Interference is still bad.  Interference to support one particular candidate makes you wonder why.

[Alan Klein]

No collusion is good.  Interference is still bad.  Interference to support one particular candidate makes you wonder why.

Trump indicated during the campaign that he wanted a reset with Russia, that he could work with Putin. Hillary wanted to practically go to war with Russia.  So if you were Putin, who would you provide interference too?   What the Democrats did, however,  was to escalate the interference and  infer without any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia  in violation of Federal laws.  In fact, the evidence from Clapper and Comey indicates no collusion.    Many Democrats still infer that there was collusion of a sitting President.  Yet, the same people  complain how terrible it is that Trump is accusing a past President of taps.  Why is the latter tap charges so bad but not the former collusion charges?  What Trump did with the tap accusation, is play the same game that the Democrats were playing against him.   Using unproven assumptions to paint a negative picture of the opposite side.  Frankly, I think it's all political BS on both sides.

[Farmer]

Trump indicated during the campaign that he wanted a reset with Russia, that he could work with Putin. Hillary wanted to practically go to war with Russia.  So if you were Putin, who would you provide interference too?   What the Democrats did, however,  was to escalate the interference and  infer without any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia  in violation of Federal laws.  In fact, the evidence from Clapper and Comey indicates no collusion.    Many Democrats still infer that there was collusion of a sitting President.  Yet, the same people  complain how terrible it is that Trump is accusing a past President of taps.  Why is the latter tap charges so bad but not the former collusion charges?  What Trump did with the tap accusation, is play the same game that the Democrats were playing against him.   Using unproven assumptions to paint a negative picture of the opposite side.  Frankly, I think it's all political BS on both sides.

Because there is zero evidence of the wire tapping.  None.  Not one single tiny little bit.  If there was, it would have been presented.

The question of collusion was not unreasonable given the actions of the Russian state and the meetings and pro-Russia rhetoric coming from Trump and his team.  Circumstantial, of course, but not an unreasonable question to be asked.

There's the big difference.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Because there is zero evidence of the wire tapping.  None.  Not one single tiny little bit.  If there was, it would have been presented.

Indeed, it's increasingly likely that Trump was triggered by something/someone into sending 4 Tweets about it:

3:35 AM - 4 Mar 2017
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

3:49 AM - 4 Mar 2017
Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!

3:52 AM - 4 Mar 2017
I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!

4:02 AM - 4 Mar 2017
How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!

That's 4 Tweets in half an hour, something really got him worked-up.

Since his reactions are so impulsive, it would be worthwhile to understand who or what causes these reactions. Alan calls it deliberate actions (to bait the media), but that's unlikely in this case also given earlier reactions that were probably based on TV show items (like in the Sweden case, with a fake expert), and this wiretap-incident might have been triggered by articles on the Breitbart website. This is a concern because of Trump attempts to discredit all information sources that can unveil the truth (a concept that seems alien to Trump), and if he's successful it gives him even more of a free rein (or as he hopes, free reign). Such an unstable person needs high level 'sanity checks'.

The question of collusion was not unreasonable given the actions of the Russian state and the meetings and pro-Russia rhetoric coming from Trump and his team.  Circumstantial, of course, but not an unreasonable question to be asked.

There's the big difference.

Exactly! And the reason why Russia interfered with the election process was to weaken the mandate for President Clinton, if she had been elected, or create some leverage with Trump (which there might still be). Anyway, Trump was considered to be a much easier opponent than Clinton, especially when Trump increases the budget deficit (which would limit his maneuvering space) as a result of his plans (that only divide the people more, increase cost for the government and reduce tax revenues).

A weaker, more divided USA, and with issues of damaged international trust, is a much more preferred opponent for Russia than a strong USA under Clinton (who was more seasoned in dealing with Putin's machinations). The weakened Russian economy is a concern for Putin, and there's nothing better than creating a international enemy with trouble at their own home, to have his own population close ranks behind their leader.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

If only we could let the experts from outside the US run this country, what a wonderful world it would be!!!

[kers]

If only we could let the experts from outside the US run this country, what a wonderful world it would be!!!

More and more it looks like anyone but Trump will do... even somebody from within the USA