Forums

Opinion | Trumpism is now getting exposed as a monumental fraud

Opinion | Trumpism is now getting exposed as a monumental fraud

I was going to write an opinion on all points, but I would think reading the article would give everyone (including Trump supporters) a better idea about the lies.

The trump supports will get upset every time someone points out a flaw and I understand the reaction. The fact that we do point out these flaws is to make the President understand the flaws and correct the wrong he is doing to the American people.

And we need to hold the President to the promises he made to the American people that got him into office.

I and all Americans don't want trump to fail, because if he fails we all pay the price of those failures.

PS: let's keep it civil please! No mud slinging and attacking someone's livelihood.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE MORNING PLUM:

The set of policy proposals and ideas loosely known as Trumpism goes something like this: President Trump is not an ideological fellow traveler of congressional Republicans on the economy, the safety net and immigration. Unlike Paul Ryan Republicans, he sees a robust government role in maintaining protections for the poor, sick and old; and he is much more willing than other Republicans to slam the brakes on immigration to protect blue collar whites from global forces that are making them feel culturally, economically and demographically destabilized.

But little by little, as Trump seeks to make good on his promises, Trumpism — as sold by the man himself — is being revealed as fraudulent to its core.

NBC News reports that health-care experts across the political spectrum agree that the new House GOP health-care plan, which Trump has now endorsed, falls short of his promises:

The bill, experts said, falls far short of the goals President Donald Trump laid out: Affordable coverage for everyone; lower deductibles and health care costs; better care; and zero cuts to Medicaid. Instead, the bill is almost certain to reduce overall coverage, result in deductibles increasing, and will phase out Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.

The American Medical Association came out against the GOP bill on Wednesday morning, arguing that its subsidy scheme and rollback of Medicaid expansion would produce a “decline in health insurance coverage,” instead calling on Republicans to “ensure that those who are currently covered do not become uninsured.” The GOP bill would likely result in millions losing insurance, even though Trump himself recently promised that the GOP replacement would mean “insurance for everybody.”

It’s plausible that the GOP bill would hit a lot of Trump voters. A new Kaiser Family Foundation analysis concludes that older, lower-income people will likely see a loss of financial support for insurance — many of whom are probably Trump voters. Non-college whites in the Rust Belt states that flipped to Trump saw a big drop in the uninsured rate under the ACA. Meanwhile, the GOP bill would mean cuts to Medicaid over time and potentially a phasing-out of the expansion, something that might also hit many Trump voters.

As Ross Douthat suggests, Trump’s hijacking of the GOP was in part driven by his ability to grasp “the political logic of reconciling his party to some form of coverage expansion” and to a “future in which the GOP accepts a health-care subsidy for the working class.” Indeed, as I’ve argued, Trump sent a strong signal to his white working-class base during the campaign that he is not ideologically like other Republicans on health care. But this is now colliding with the specific challenges attendant on repealing Obamacare and replacing it, which have revealed that there is an irreconcilable split among Republicans over the specific outcome they envision for a post-Obamacare health-care system.

The split was obscured for years, because Republicans could call for repeal, secure in the knowledge that it wouldn’t happen. It is between two camps. There are conservatives (mostly in the House) who actually want repeal, because they don’t think the government should be spending and regulating to expand coverage to poor and sick people, and instead want free markets to fulfill this goal. And there are other Republicans (mostly senators and governors) who want to say they’re repealing Obamacare (since they’ve railed against it for years in the abstract) while actuallyminimizing just how much of the coverage expansion gets rolled back in their states. Trump is more or less in the second camp, since he doesn’t want to be the guy who kicks millions off insurance or shatter Trumpism’s aura of ideological heterodoxy.

The result is a kind of kludge solution, which tries to give both camps a way to argue that they are getting their way. But the practical result is that it doesn’t actually give either what they want. And there is simply no way of pretending it comes anywhere near what Trump explicitly promised or vaguely signaled in ideological terms. This has left Trump spewing outright gibberish as he tries to sell the plan:

“It follows the guidelines I laid out in my congressional address — a plan that will lower costs, expand choices, increase competition, and ensure healthcare access for all Americans.

“This will be a plan where you can choose your doctor. This will be a plan where you can choose your plan. And you know what the plan is — this is the plan. And we’re going to have a tremendous — I think we’re going to have a tremendous success.  It’s a complicated process, but actually it’s very simple. It’s called good healthcare.”

Thus, Trump’s only play is to fall back on the GOP trick of conflating “health-care access” with coverage and robotically describing the plan as “good health care,” in hopes that his magical Twitter feed and powers of salesmanship can envelop the specifics in impenetrable fog. And the fraudulence doesn’t stop there. But that brings us to our next item.

*************************************************************

* TRUMP IMMIGRATION CRACKDOWN REQUIRES BUDGET CUTS: The Post reports:

The Trump administration, searching for money to build the president’s planned multibillion-dollar border wall and crack down on illegal immigration, is weighing significant cuts to the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration and other agencies focused on national security threats, according to a draft plan.

The proposal, drawn up by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), also would slash the budget of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which provides disaster relief after hurricanes, tornadoes and other natural disasters. The Coast Guard’s $9.1 billion budget in 2017 would be cut 14 percent to about $7.8 billion, while the TSA and FEMA budgets would be reduced about 11 percent each to $4.5 billion and $3.6 billion, respectively.

The cuts are proposed even as the planned budget for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees all of them, grows 6.4 percent to $43.8 billion, according to the plan, which was obtained by The Washington Post. Some $2.9 billion of that would go to building the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, with $1.9 billion funding “immigration detention beds” and other Immigration and Customs Enforcement expenses and $285 million set aside to hire 500 more Border Patrol agents and 1,000 more ICE agents and support staffers.

Politico reports that some Republicans are criticizing this diversion of funds. As I’ve argued, Trump’s plan for stepped-up deportations will have to be paid for, which will require diverting resources from other immigration enforcement or national security spending. Republicans spent years screaming that President Barack Obama’s de-prioritization of the removal of longtime residents was tantamount to “non-enforcement.”
But this shows that Trump’s vow to undo Obama’s priorities — a promise made as part of a broader narrative holding that undocumented immigrants represent an economic, cultural and political threat to his voters — is not a mere matter of “enforcing the law” where Obama supposedly failed to do so. It’s a matter of making choices and trade-offs. And now Republicans may be asked to defend these choices.

********************************************************************

* MILLIONS COULD LOSE COVERAGE, AND PREMIUMS COULD SOAR: The New York Times reports that health-care analysts think the new House GOP health plan could cause millions to lose insurance and patients’ costs to rise due to less generous subsidies. And there’s this:

J. Mario Molina, the chief executive of Molina Healthcare … said insurers are likely to increase their premiums significantly because they will worry about enrolling more high-cost patients as healthier people opt to go without coverage. “Insurance companies are going to jack up the rates,” predicted Dr. Molina, who said premiums might increase even more than they did last year when some companies raised the rates by 25 percent or more.

This is because the replacement for the mandate (a surcharge for non-continuous coverage) will be insufficient. So: Millions lose coverage; subsidies are smaller; and premiums soar. Great plan!
* CBO SCORE COULD UPEND GOP HEALTH PLAN: Politico observes that Republicans may balk once they see the Congressional Budget Office’s score of the new GOP health plan:

With no official estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, they have no idea yet how much their American Health Care Act costs and how many people might lose their health coverage because of it … if the CBO numbers are ugly, they could send critics to even higher decibel levels. Republicans spent years trashing the Democrats’ health care law as a budget buster (even though the CBO didn’t agree).

A high cost could alienate conservatives; kicking millions off coverage could alienate moderates. Turns out repeal-and-replace involves more than just shouting lies about Obummercare.

* CONSERVATIVES STILL IN REVOLT: CNN reports that House conservatives remain resolutely opposed to the House GOP bill and don’t think it will pass the House:

“No new position tonight. Our position is the same,” caucus chairman Mark Meadows told reporters following a closed-door meeting of his caucus. “We believe we need to do a clean repeal bill.” … Rep. Raul Labrador, an Idaho Republican, said: “I don’t think there is any tinkering that will get us to 218.”

And this is before the CBO score has told anyone how much it will cost.

* GOP’S MARGIN FOR ERROR ON PLAN IS VERY SLIM: With both conservatives and moderates expressing skepticism about the new plan, The Post observes this about the challenge facing Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell:

The margin of error is slim for House and Senate GOP leaders — in the House, Ryan can afford to lose only 21 GOP lawmakers. In the Senate … McConnell must persuade all but two Republicans to support the plan. Republicans have 52 seats in the Senate, and no Democrats are expected to back the overhaul in either chamber.

Meanwhile, at least seven GOP senators are currently expressing reservations: Cory Gardner, Shelley Moore Capito, Rob Portman, Lisa Murkowski, Dean Heller, Bill Cassidy and Susan Collins.

* GOP GOVERNORS ARE LIKELY TO OPPOSE PLAN: It seems likely that GOP governors in states that expanded Medicaid may also oppose the new House GOP plan. Note this, from Ohio Gov. John Kasich:

Kasich expressed deep doubts in a statement that took issue with congressional plans to curb Medicaid coverage expanded under Obama. “Phasing out Medicaid coverage without a viable alternative is counterproductive and unnecessarily puts at risk our ability to treat the drug-addicted, mentally ill and working poor who now have access to a stable source of care,” said Kasich.

It’s a reminder that if this passes, it will be a major issue in the 2018 gubernatorial contests, which will have important long-term ramifications for the Democratic Party.
* AND THE EPA IS NOW STOCKED WITH CLIMATE SKEPTICS: Coral Davenport reports on the latest moves by Trump’s new EPA chief, Scott Pruitt:

Mr. Pruitt, a former Oklahoma attorney general who built a career out of suing the agency he now leads, has moved to stock the top offices of the agency with like-minded conservatives — many of them skeptics of climate change … Mr. Pruitt has drawn heavily from the staff of … James Inhofe, long known as Congress’s most prominent skeptic of climate science.

Sen. Snowball now has his hooks deep into the EPA. Awesome.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/msn/opinion-trumpism-is-now-getting-expos...

Uncle Paul | March 12, 2017

Give it a break!

SCCRENDO | March 12, 2017

@phawker. When he leaves office and takes Ryan with him we'll give it a break,

RedShift | March 12, 2017

@phawker

Like you gave a break to Obama? Ha!

Silver2K | March 13, 2017

Gimme a break! Gimme a break!
Break me off a piece of that Kit! Kat! Bar!

Jhwjr1 | March 13, 2017

For anyone who has been watching all along and who cares about hard truths, your suggestion that Trump's fraud is only NOW? becoming exposed as a monumental fraud are taken aback. You must have just woken up.

massimob30 | March 13, 2017

In other news, people's worlds are falling apart because Trump won. The sky didn't fall, the stock market didn't crash, in fact none of the doomsday predictions came true, yet they still suffer immense pain because Trump won.

Tesla may need to adjust it's specs so a fainting couch can fit in the back, or a Costco sized pack of Kleenex comes standard with each vehicle purchase.

So many delicate flowers here on these boards.

SO | March 13, 2017

@massimob30 - it is WAY too early to celebrate. Let's see where things end up in 4 years.

Should we be surprised the market is doing well? They all think it's going to be like Christmas. Low taxes, less regulation, huge spending, etc.

When reality sets in, we shall see where things end up.

Too funny though. When Obama was in office, republicans were constantly saying how over inflated the market was and now they all celebrate it. If anything, the high of wall street is based on speculation now more than anything.

SO | March 13, 2017

Oh and now magically the good unemployment numbers are accurate under Trump.

Good grief.

You can bet your butt that if they got worse now, Trump would do two things:

1. Blame Obama.
2. Say they are fake.

Obama had a right to blame Bush for the sinking ship he inherited. Trump inherited a yacht in comparison.

SCCRENDO | March 13, 2017

@massimo. How about Trump/Ryan care??
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39261503

lilbean | March 13, 2017

Yummy, silver!

Silver2K | March 13, 2017

massimob30

we are a free society and allowed to criticize the president. if you don't have anything 1/2 way intelligent to add, please move on.

by they way, we have a few pieces of kit kat bar left after @bean at most of it. want some?

rxlawdude | March 13, 2017

@massimo spewed, "In other news, people's worlds are falling apart because Trump won. The sky didn't fall, the stock market didn't crash, in fact none of the doomsday predictions came true..."

How about 24 million more uninsured Americans? That's a good thing in your opinion?

Silver2K | March 13, 2017

Rx

Yes, it's a good thing to @massimo, because he's insured or can easily afford it. Screw the ones without insurance or can't afford it, right @massimo?

RedShift | March 13, 2017

Hey, the wiretapping evidence should be coming out just about any moment now!

Right @massimob? You were commenting the other time about how 'interesting' it might be?

lilbean | March 13, 2017

This popcorn is mighty tasty!!

bigd | March 13, 2017

"How about 24 million more uninsured Americans?" So you are saying it drops from the 27 million in 2016 under Obamacare https://www.bloomberg DOT com/graphics/2016-obamacare/ Good job Govt :-)

Silver2K | March 13, 2017

no one likes a wise guy bigd! :)

Silver2K | March 13, 2017

lilbean | March 13, 2017
This popcorn is mighty tasty!!
----------------------------

kit kat is better!

SCCRENDO | March 13, 2017

@bigd. The perpetual joker about issues that seriously impact other people's lives. Let me repost the link for you
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39261503

bigd | March 13, 2017

allcapsguy you really don't understand it do you ?

SCCRENDO | March 13, 2017

@bigd. I really do understand it. Do you??????

RedShift | March 13, 2017

@bigd

We don't understand. Please explain it to us.

Uncle Paul | March 13, 2017

I understand it...I just can't stand it.

Raggning on the President...Rag, Rag, Rag.

I hated it under Bush...I hated it under Obama... I hate it under Trump.

The President is elected by our system. Once elected they should move forward with their best intentions, and the general population should go on with their business.

In for more years we get to do it all over again.

J.T. | March 14, 2017

@phawker The liberals are too scared to show any support for Trump, just like the Conservatives were too scared to support Obama.

And what is the scariest thing that could happen under Trump? Success, that's what.

If Trump is successful then in two years the Dems will lose even more seats in Congress. What arguments can they make then about how awful Trump is for the country?

This is exactly why the Republicans threw up obstacles to Obama's agenda every chance they got. They were fighting for their lives!! They didn't care about the direction of the country, they cared about staying relevant and keeping their jobs.

Both parties are guilty of this and it's never going to get any better.

RedShift | March 14, 2017

@JT

Really :-)

Let's postulate the obstructionists are quaking in their shoes about how well Trumpcare is turning out. Or the plan to make Mexico pay for the wall. Or travel ban 2.0. Or the countless self goals via intemperate tweets and other things.

Better to be on the safe side, no? I mean, as you pointed out, Republicans were doing much the same.

Even a moderate conservative like you, with the false equivalency? :-)

SamO | March 14, 2017

False equivalency is what cowards and scoundrels hide behind. J.T. would NEVER do such a thing. He can defend his position rather than simply attacking the "liberal" strawman.

J.T. | March 14, 2017

Try to imagine the people who put Trump over the top. Blue collar, no college education, middle America, heartland people.

Are they for or against the travel ban?
Do they care if 24 million people who can't afford health care don't have any?
Do they want the wall built and will they accept any explanation that Trump gives them that even suggests that Mexico will pay for it?
Do they love or hate his war with the press?

As far as his core supporters are concerned he has been very successful.

Add to that, the stock market is up.
The Captains of Industry are showing confidence.
Jobs are being created (doesn't matter if it's because of Obama or because warm temps helped the housing industry to an early start.)

So, it really doesn't matter if you guys are happy with Trump. You were never voting Republican anyway. But, if Trump continues to appeal to his base and then adds a few more with an improving economy, the GOP is going to be hard to beat in 2018 . . . and then what will you guys say? Wait till 2020!!

Please don't read this as a support of Trump or his policies. I'm just looking at things as they are, not as I wish them to be.

RedShift | March 14, 2017

@JT

Some good points, with the except of Trumpcare. It will hit many who voted for Trump hard.

I never said you were a Trump supporter :-)

RedShift | March 14, 2017

*exception not except

SCCRENDO | March 14, 2017

@JT. A nice summary for you. I guess this is why out enthusiasm is not high
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/14/politics/donald-trump-policy-numbers-impac...

massimob30 | March 14, 2017

SO_S90D - I agree it's too early to tell, and the government employment numbers are always wrong (no matter who is President.

SCCRENDO - Trump/Ryan care is due to Obama and Dems lying about their original bill. We are here because Dems failed. We should pass the bill to see what's in it, remember that nugget from Pelosi ? She should be deported for saying something so stupid.

Silver - You're right, we are a free society. It's just that when Republicans criticize the President, they are referred to as Klan members. Democrats haven't been this upset since Lincoln freed the slaves.

Rxlawdude - It sounds bad on it's face, but look how many people signed up for healthcare compared to the number of uninsured. Even when you force people to buy it, the so-called epidemic wasn't much of an epidemic after all. It is very hard to legislate human behavior, more people are willing to pay the fine than sign up for Obamacare.

RedShift - Yes, it seems we are waiting to see what Trump was rambling about. If he produces nothing, then he must shut his mouth. What I do find interesting is a FISA was warrant granted in October 2016, who it was targeting will be a story on it's own.

David N | March 14, 2017

Is there butter for the popcorn?

Silver2K | March 14, 2017

You don't have to add.
You have a choice of buttered or non buttered. Plus Kit Kat!

Silver2K | March 14, 2017

Chuck Norris can make parallel lines meet

SCCRENDO | March 14, 2017

@massimo. Obamacare was a significant step forward in getting people insured. It needed some fixing and that is what the Republicans should be focusing on. They are cutting funding, giving a tax break to wealthier people and throwing people off insurance. Those that remain will pay higher premiums, higher deductibles and likely get less care particularly certain groups like lower income people over 60. And you think we should wait and see. How about us taking away your health insurance and waiting to see how you do??

rxlawdude | March 14, 2017

@massimo, the only thing the GOP needs to do to really fight "rising costs" is repeal EMTALA. Can't wait for them to touch THAT third rail.

Because those who don't buy insurance will still show up in ERs. And us insured suckers wind up paying for them, or we lose our community hospitals that went bankrupt due to freeloaders.

lar_lef | March 14, 2017

Although i admitre Ivanka and agree with some of Trump's policies, some humor if not flagged.

I, Ivanka of Ivanka’s collection (and incidentally the daughter of the President) have decided to change my fashion approach. This because of churlish criticism of the quality and appeal of my existing line and boycotting of it by stores due to the pressure of certain women’s groups motivated by petty political reasons.
Therefor I have introduced a whole new stunning collection -- my up-to-date chastity belt fashion. Ideal when your conservative hubby or boyfriend wishes to preserve the wife’s or partner’s faithfulness while he is attending chamber of commerce meetings, biker trips, rodeos, bowl games, and other male-bonding functions.
Your man and you will both feel safer when you are embraced by one of my modern chic chastity belts that are a must item in your wardrobe closet. Forget the sober gray cumbersome prone to rusting iron chastity belts of the days when knights – or lesser types—kept their dames faithful while they were on the crusades, warring on behalf of their sires, engaging in jousts, or whatever, and the dames were knitting, sewing, sweeping the castle floors, or performing other domestic tasks. Anything except engaging in romantic liaisons which the chastity belt put the kibosh on.
Today's contemporary updated chastity belts come in a wonderful assortment of colors, fabrics, and materials so that there is something for every taste. So appealing is your modern day chastity belt that many of you girls will wear it (or them since you may prefer a number to match your mood or clothing) even when the male in your life is at the office.
The chastity belts are available in a wide choice of light, comfortable materials: plastic, polyester, you name it, and their designs make it difficult to choose from the many belts available. Striped (I recommend particularly the "tigress belt"), polka-dotted, paisley or solid colored for the more conservative chastity belt aficionado. The spectrum of colors is breathtaking. From fiery red (the "Lolita" model) through "ocean blue," " beryl green," "midnight black" – fifty shades of protection to match your outfits, your eyes or, in a real tribute that your significant other will treasure – his eyes (or other parts) -- hopefully not glued to another femme while you are remaining faithful to him.
You can say goodbye to the old key-in-the-lock chastity belt unless you are an old-fashioned lass at heart or want to go the fantasy route with your knight, ogre, whathaveyou, opening the belt prior to ravishing you. Coded push buttons on the belt (slightly more expensive than the turnkey model) do the job sans the old iron maiden feel.
There is also a chained model if you go in for the sado-masochistic. At the other extreme is the model with bows for devotees of the little girl look.
Finally, there is a line of music box chastity belts that come with a variety of available tunes, from classic to latest rap. There is even one designed by someone with a sense of humor. It plays "All Alone by the Telephone." For the matrons, I recommend the model playing "I'll be Loving You Always."
My father is not so crazy about my new line of fashion, although he is pleased it did not appear in his pre-presidential days.

Silver2K | March 15, 2017

She seems like a great woman, but unfortunately society goes by "guilty by association".
She stayed by her son's side instead of moving to the white house and relocating his schooling. I thought that was awesome

lar_lef | March 15, 2017

I agree with Silver
I would add that the women in Tump's family seem superior to the men.
lar_lef.

SCCRENDO | March 15, 2017

@lar_lef. Perhaps that applies to society in general.

RedShift | March 15, 2017

Would you be comfortable with giving permanent residency to Bin Laden's son/daughter? Buy burgers with that brand name?

Though it might seem a bit exaggerated the same principle is at play here. Both sides are guilty of following that mindset.

SCCRENDO | March 15, 2017

@redshift. If they committed no crime and are eligible one should not hold the sins of their father over them

J.T. | March 15, 2017

@SCCRENDO >>>>>one should not hold the sins of their father over them

If I'm wrong, I apologize, but weren't you the one that assumed Trump was racist because of an article about his father?

SCCRENDO | March 15, 2017

No I didn't. I assumed he was racist because he is. I did mention that he had a racist father as well.

J.T. | March 15, 2017

I learned from Avenue Q that everyone's a little bit racist.

SCCRENDO | March 15, 2017

@JT. Probably. But some are a lot more than others. looks like that racist immigration ban is still not working out so well for him
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/15/politics/travel-ban-blocked/index.html

J.T. | March 15, 2017

As long as his supporters like him trying, that's all he needs.

RedShift | March 15, 2017

@JT

Not really. You can be half a president (less than half, by headcount) only for so long, before the effect of the policies start to grate on those on the borders of the support group.

I haven't seen anything so far in terms of effective policies that will increase his support base. Only those that might make the support wane. Right now, with less than 2 months in, there have been no effect of policies on the ground yet. A year from now, it will become clearer. If the intelligence of all the policy action holds up, I actually think 2018 might become a turning point.

J.T. | March 15, 2017

@RedShift One of the most important qualities people look for in a representative is "shares our values." Everything Trump has done, whether it works or not, resonates with his core base.

Add a few people who get a job, increase their portfolio or hate big government and 2018 is locked up.

Pages