Heighten those contradictions!
2 Likes
No need, these days. They heighten themselves.
3 Likes
i tend to think that is hopelessly optimistic. i regard this as a prelude to the dismantlement of the welfare state in the u.s. and a return to the period 1870-1928.
5 Likes
Whereas I think that is overly optimistic.
Climate can’t wait…
…and the empires of a hundred years ago did not have this:
The Trumpists are charging towards full-throttle unrestrained fascism, and they are not isolationists.
It’s at crisis point, either way. Either there’s a socialist revolution in the USA, or the USA kills the world.
6 Likes
Fuck 'em all.
3 Likes
I don’t believe that, sadly.
1 Like
This is a pretty good analysis:
Guardian:
And more analysis from the Guardian:
Fucks grad students but repeals the Johnson Amendment and installs language in federal law that fetuses are people.
9 Likes
Exactly. It’s Stockholm Syndrome. People will identify with those fucking them over, and take their aggressions out on the “takers”, aka those in the same position they’re in.
6 Likes
I guess I’m back to hating McCain again.
7 Likes
You mean we were supposed to stop hating him?
9 Likes
But won’t ever put in language admitting that women are people.
9 Likes
I thought there was hope for him when he gave McConnell the ol’ pollice verso.
3 Likes
8 Likes
Well, fuck indeed.
It strikes at a core component of the Affordable Care Act, eliminating the requirement that most people have health coverage or pay a penalty, a move that the Congressional Budget Office projects will increase premiums for people who buy insurance. It also would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil and gas drilling
Someone explain to me why the shit this is in a tax bill?
I really, really hope this sinks the Repugs in 2018 but I’m not very hopeful right now. People will be thrilled with their meager tax gains not realizing how badly they are being played for suckers.
9 Likes
To hide their shame.
13 Likes
The individual mandate was originally considered to be valid under the Commerce Clause. That is, since the PPACA was regulating interstate commerce, the Feds had the right to impose a fine for not signing onto an insurance plan.
This case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where it hit a 4-4 deadlock: the liberal justices were cool with the Commerce Clause being used like this, but the conservative justices weren’t. Chief Justice Roberts offered a compromise: it wasn’t a fine, it was a tax, and there is no doubt that Congress has the right to impose taxes. The liberal justices joined on his opinion, and the PPACA was found constitutional.
It was a win for Obama and the Democratic Party, but they could no longer claim that the PPACA did not impose any new taxes (as the mandate was now considered a tax). And now, it seems, that same ruling makes it possible to include a repeal of the mandate in a tax bill.
11 Likes