J.K.Logic Wrote: Now that he is president, do you think he will stand by this campaign promise? Personally I think he will, for the most part. Though he does have somewhat of an uphill battle in some senses, with politicians like Paul Ryan wanting to gut the programs. I do agree with him (at least here) that it simply isn't fair to cut any of these, as we collectively have been paying in for years. It's not fair to the American taxpayers that have been paying in.
That's the million dollar question.
I actually think the opposite. I have a feeling that President Trump would sign anything the Congress sends him and then try to spin it to his advantage. I just can't see him vetoing something that the House and Senate sends him which privatizes Medicaid and cuts Social Security.
It would be great to be proven wrong, but I just have a feeling that he's not going to live up to these campaign promises if the Congress sends him bills that cut these programs.
J.K.Logic Wrote: Is there a viable plan announced yet from the GOP as to what the replacement will be?
They aren't anywhere near that. The only thing Republicans in Congress seem to agree on is that they don't like Obamacare. Once you get past that they are all over the place.
I've been following their debates closely and will be sure to keep us all updated, but it really seems that a small number of Republicans in the Senate are starting to get cold feet about completely dismantling Obamacare without having a replacement plan ready to go in its place.
J.K.Logic Wrote: Also I doubt many are doing this exclusively. I wonder what figures taxing out of state buyers in states with no sales tax would even amount to anyways? Can't be much. Maybe I'm naive on this..
I can guarantee you that tens of thousands of people from Washington cross the border every single day to take advantage of our tax free status. Heck - there's a town of 160,000 just across the river from us that work in Oregon, but live in Washington to avoid paying income tax.
J.K.Logic Wrote: For general and smallish retail purchases (maybe purchases under X amount, say $1000?), I think the extra bureaucracy involved would be more of an annoyance and a deterrent for people to travel freely from state to state than it would be a boon for your state to be proud of.
But maybe for buying large tickets items like cars and boats and whatnot, I can see the logic there. I don't think I should have to show state ID for buying a pair of pants at the mall, for this situation. But maybe if I'm buying a brand new car, perhaps I should.. but then maybe even not.
I see your point of view and can't say I necessarily disagree in theory, but my issue is just with fairness. The reason some states have no sales tax is because their income or other taxes are higher. And knowing that people are taking advantage of that just rubs me the wrong way.
bryce28 Wrote: It would make more sense for the states that don't charge a sales tax to send the money they collect from out of state shoppers back to that shopper's state of residence, as the 5 states that don't currently charge sales tax are already collecting taxes through other means.
Meaning the state that's really losing out is not the state without sales tax in this scenario, but the state with a sales tax, relying on that sales tax income, is missing out.
I don't think this should happen, but if the loophole were to be closed off, I think it should go like that.
I can't say I agree here. I live in Portland, OR and there's a bustling metropolis just across the river in Vancouver, WA whose residents take advantage of our tax free status on sales tax while at the same time living in a state with no state income tax.
The people from Washington use our roads and other services that Oregonians pay for via income and property taxes for free while at the same time taking advantage of our sales tax laws which benefit them.
I understand that it's not the biggest issue for people who don't live in states with no sales tax, but I totally understand where Richard is coming from.
If the Lake Oroville Dam crisis in northern California teaches us anything, it should be that waiting until the last minute to fix something only makes things worse. This is true not only for dams, but for bridges, highways, and buildings in earthquake prone areas. I fully understand that paying for things before something bad happens isn't always politically popular, but I believe that it will save billions of dollars in the long run if we don't want to it's too late to fix something that needs to be fixed.
This could actually be a win-win for everyone involved if we think about the bigger picture. Fixing, replacing, and building new roads, bridges, dams, and buildings in earthquake prone zones will employ hundreds of thousands of people while also making things safer for everyone. It would also cost far less than waiting until a disaster strikes before taking action.
Is there any reason other than politics that we don't do this as a country? We built the interstate highway system in a matter of years, but upgrading it to be able to adapt to the 21st Century is politically toxic? That just doesn't make sense to me.
Senate Republicans voted along party lines 51-48 to begin the process of repealing Obamacare. The vote in and of itself does not repeal Obamacare, but it does green light the process known as budget reconciliation that will allow the Senate to repeal vast swaths of the law with a simple majority.
Republicans have set a self imposed deadline of January 27th to repeal Obamacare and come up with a replacement to the law, which might be far easier said than done. Many Republicans are already expressing cold feet about rushing through the repeal process before having a clear replacement plan, but it is unknown if enough will go against their party leaders and actually prevent a repeal vote from going forward.
This is a very touchy subject, but I'm interested to see what people are thinking now that the repeal process is actually under way. Roughly 20 million Americans health insurance plans are on the line and I just hope that Congress takes a deliberate approach towards this because peoples lives are on the line. If Republicans are able to come up with a plan that will be better than Obamacare then I am all for it, but if millions of Americans lose or are priced out of their coverage then I have to admit that I will be sorely disappointed because peoples lives shouldn't be a pawn in a political game between the two major parties.
I have to agree with you. Far too many seniors have become reliant on their Social Security checks for their only source of income and I'm not sold that allowing the free market to determine the size of their monthly check is the best option out there.
Donald Trump promised big changes to the Department of Veterans affairs as President during the campaign and whether or not those changes become a reality rely in part of whether or not Congress wants to go along with him.
Mr. Trump has suggested major changes to the way the department is run with some likely to easily pass and others possibly being more difficult. For example, Mr. Trump wants to establish a 24/7 White House hotline for veterans to voice complaints about the VA and to form a commission that will look into “all the fraud, cover-ups, and wrongdoing that has taken place in the VA.” Both those can be done without Congressional approval and can be up and running on day one if Mr. Trump wishes.
Other promises will prove to be more difficult because it will require Congressional approval. Mr. Trump has promised to make it easier to get rid of VA employees, which is much easier said than done due to the bureaucracy of the department. He's also promised to make it easier for veterans to get the care they need "wherever and whenever they need it," but that will also require the Congress to completely overhaul the current structure of the VA and will prove to be a herculean task, to say the least.
The hardest promise that Mr. Trump will be able to deliver on is the "wherever and whenever" promise due to the way the system is set up, but it is within Congresses authority to change that system if they so choose.
The Republican Party will hold both houses of Congress and the Presidency come January and that means there are potentially big changes coming to the Medicare program that millions of seniors rely on.
While we don't know exactly what the Trump Administration and the Republican Congress have planned for Medicare, we do know that Tom Price, the person he nominated to head the Department of Health and Human Services, is a strong proponent of privatizing the program and giving seniors a fixed dollar amount to buy health coverage instead. If President Trump and Congress went along with that proposal than that would effectively end Medicare as we know it.
Anything can happen in Washington once a police proposal is formally submitted and it's far from clear if the Republicans really want to use the political capital they currently have to push through such monumental changes to a largely popular program, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if we see some big changes coming to Medicare sometime in the next two to four years.
This is unfortunately a tiny drop in the bucket and I don't see it having that much of an effect on the people who need it the most. The most recent estimates show that there's currently $1.2 trillion (with a T!) in student debt and a $108 billion forgiveness program isn't going to have any substantial impact in bringing getting that number under control.
I'm personally of the belief that the Department of Education needs to completely reevaluate what institutions they give this money to. If a for profit online university has less than a ten percent graduation rate then why are they still eligible to operate and receive Federally guaranteed student loans?
Just about any businesses would be shut down if it had a 90% fail rate. Why are predatory universities the exception to this rule?