Regarding that last paragraph, I think introducing those market reforms would have a huge benefit. I don't think you, Romney's plan, or PPACA has a perfect solution, but more and more I think we have a disastrous situation where a large area of our economy has been engineered such that providers and consumers have no way to know costs and no reason to care. That's not a functioning market.

"whoever is president doesnt have a lot to do with changing actual production/consumption,"

I respectfully disagree.

I was indicating that whoever is president doesnt have a lot to do with changing actual production/consumption, except in one area- Trump made people more excited about living, and therefore wanting to improve things, spend more, et. Obama and Hillary were real drags on my emotional state, and probably others' too.

Sure.

The producers produced because they had the economic sense to do so. And the consumers consumed because they were hired and made the means to buy the goods.

I assume this is what you had in mind.

How about the economy is booming because the producers produced, and the consumers consumed

"The problem comes when they all know they're involved in something crooked and agree to look the other way. "

Agreed.

"When you talk about finger-pointing and antics, I hope that is channeled into more keeping an eye on one another."

If there was actually an eye towards creating better policy, I might be okay with it, but it is just one hypocritical statement after another.

"What's the alternative to taking action? Letting a fiscal and monetary crisis get even worse?"

I didn't say I didn't want them to take action, only that I doubted they would before the whole thing exploded in their faces. Why? Because if Democrats (and some Republicans) were interested in the long game of American freedom, they wouldn't be instituting many of the policies they have which require extensive government apparatus and high taxes to implement.

"They should have admitted aloud that it was based on a reasonable idea from conservative think tanks and they just want to change its name."

Uh, not sure where you heard that but I'd sure like a source. If you are referring to the Massachusetts healthcare plan Romney got beat over the head for, it was fundamentally changed by Democrats after Romney left office. It is no longer any semblance of what the original policy suggested.

"They should go further by making it easier to get info about negotiated pricing..."

I agree. And the best way to do that is to fundamentally alter the way people go about obtaining healthcare insurance. Most especially, we need to get government - and all its waste and bureaucracy - out of healthcare entirely. No restrictions imposed by States to create and maintain monopolies. No requirements that hospitals admit anyone into the Emergency Rooms. Let people buy insurance a la carte so they can get what they can afford which matches their needs - not a bunch of stuff they aren't going to use but have to have because the government says so. And make insurance a private decision rather than an employer one. That lets people take their insurance with them even if they move or change jobs. No more need for COBRA.

They will try anything. Most of it will be lies. Like Biden running with the lie that the economy is booming because of Hussein's genius policies. His entire platform is based on lies. It never bothered Biden, nor his voting base.

But in an election year, much will be made of the rising prices, as the dems will try anything to destroy trump

"You'd make a great commentator on CNN."
I would hate that job. I only saw them at the gym, and now I have gym with no big TVs.

Assuming that the objective is to win.

Still in denial, just like Hitlery.
Spouting fiction, just like the entire mainstream media has been since mid-2016.
When the facts do not match their deluded reality, they just lie and libel.
Just add 2 letters to get libe__l.

You'd make a great commentator on CNN. You may want to contact them.

"comes a new push to reduce gov't intrusion and to reduce borrowing and gov't expenditures back to Obama-era levels or lower. "

Back to Obama era levels? You must be joking. He was the one who hiked up gov borrowing to the trillions.

Gov intrusion? Have you been sleeping during Obama's tenure? He was the one who burdened all and every segment with regulations. It is thanks to president Trump that some of them have been lifted and the economy can breath again.

"There's an element of society I never come into contact with who doesn't accomplish much but can be riled up by a circus.

Yes, that is the base of the left.

I love that Ayn Rand quote. I wonder if it would have not been true during the bronze and iron ages. You really could profit unjustly by going and stealing another people's stuff because value was in land and supplies. In the modern world, it's harder to benefit from the spoils of war. So, as she says, people who are free to produce for themselves have no incentive to focus their efforts on war because their producing things for themselves is more profitable than the spoils of war.

"How do you know all these things "
It's just guesses. Regarding what President Trump likes and dislikes, I suspect he ran for president as a publicity stunt and didn't want to job. I've never met him, though, or anyone who knows him. My impressions are all from interviews with people who know him.
"[President Trump] did not win on a fluke ":
He lost by nearly 3 million votes. There is no reason to think it will break in his favor again. It's kind of amazing that he only lost by 3 million. There's an element of society I never come into contact with who doesn't accomplish much but can be riled up by a circus. I cannot imagine Trump losing the popular vote again by anything less than 3 million unless the Democrats nominate a socialist, which it seems like they might. It's as if facing a situation where they'll almost certainly win, they look for creative ways to lose. I still have distant hope that out of all this nonsense comes a new push to reduce gov't intrusion and to reduce borrowing and gov't expenditures back to Obama-era levels or lower.

No, it is not wroth analyzing.

It did not matter that prices were rising under Obama?

That you had to take wheelbarrow load of money to buy even the essential food items in the supermarket?

"I omitted the world not, but you got my meaning that he will not run in that scenario. I think he will probably will not serve another term because I see so many scenarios where that happens. Maybe the most likely one is he wants to go back to running his businesses, he doesn't enjoy the job, and he faces pressure from traditional Republicans. If he runs, I don't see him winning. He won on a fluke before despite losing by nearing 3 million votes. The fluke won't necessarily break in his favor again. Anything is possible, but it's not in my crystal ball. "

Oh really?

How do you know all these things you are serving up to us on a plate, oh wise one? "Observations" on the personal life of the president, e.g. what he likes and dislikes?

Trump will win. He did not win on a fluke but by the votes of people who are sane and have normal brain functions. The same will happen in 2020, given the corrupt and corrosive "ideas" of the Dem candidates whose only motivation is to push the country back to the swamp state as it was under Obama.

It is the left that is pushing this stupid idea of war.

Nobody wants war but they are "seeing signs" in the Trump admin that the president wants it.

The left is the deep state. What the deep state wants, the left wants.

It is the ultimate means of creating chaos and reap the benefits of it. Of course they want it.

I like the analogy of the goons so focused on ruining someone else that they run right into manure. The thing about impeachment makes sense, and actually isn't a bad thing. I say that b/c they won't impeach without evidence for fear of political fallout and they're looking for a smoking gun. All things considered in the world of politics, this situation of politicians keeping an eye one one another, even if it's for political motivations, is good. The problem comes when they all know they're involved in something crooked and agree to look the other way.

When you talk about finger-pointing and antics, I hope that is channeled into more keeping an eye on one another.

" I think its more than highly unlikely. Why? Because it would mean a serious rollback of Democrat power"
They (without any regard to party) wait until there's a crisis that allows them to do things they couldn't do otherwise. "You never let a serious crisis go to waste." What's the alternative to taking action? Letting a fiscal and monetary crisis get even worse? The only result will be action to fix the problem, along with initiatives they couldn't do outside a crisis and lots and lots of bellyaching and "hoocudanode".

"Republicans couldn't even repeal Obamacare"
They should have admitted aloud that it was based on a reasonable idea from conservative think tanks and they just want to change its name. It was laughable how some politicians were running on repealing it while assuring voters the replacement would have the same spirit of PPACA and even use the same language.

The only positive reform came from a Trump campaign promise to make providers reveal prices. The kept the promise, and starting Jan 2019 you can now get a price list from any providers. They should go further by making it easier to get info about negotiated pricing, and add things to make it easier for providers and consumers to work out deals independent of insurance. I truly believe Trump is a clown, but whoever made that promise and kept it should be given more authority to enact reforms.

That is great news! To your health 🍻

Just remember, an Impeachment without any real evidence to provide during the actual Senate Trial will expose the Democrats as the partisan hypocrites they are. Nancy Pelosi is cagey enough to understand that which is why she hasn't initiated Impeachment proceedings. That's why the Democrats were so intent on the Mueller report - they know that they have to get at least 18 Republican Senators to side with them on Conviction in order to get Trump out and they know that isn't going to happen without a smoking gun. And not only was there no smoking gun or anything even close, now we're finding out that there actually WILL be criminal indictments against a variety of Democrats caught trying to manipulate the 2016 elections.

It reminds me of a part from Back to the Future when Marty is being chased all over by Biff. https://youtu.be/tNNXVpk72uA Biff and his goons are so intent on ruining Marty that they ignore the manure truck in front of them - and pay the price.

"I suspect Comey, people involved in the Steele Dossier, and President Obama are not guilty of crimes."

Well, we'll wait and see the IG's report and the investigation now being opened up by Barr to investigate these matters. But as we are now seeing, those involved are now all pointing fingers at each other in an attempt to deflect investigation off themselves. This isn't a matter of third-party criticism, this is their own antics exposing that they know they are getting busted and the only card left is to try to rat on someone bigger than them to get a plea deal.

"I definitely see the US entitlement and debt crisis you describe, but I think politicians will take action..."

Given that people have been warning about the debt crisis for decades and nothing has been done, I think its more than highly unlikely. Why? Because it would mean a serious rollback of Democrat power - and they aren't going to let that happen. When was the last time politicians cut programs? Republicans couldn't even repeal Obamacare...

just had my 2nd heart attack at age 71 (lived thru both because I have an athletic heart, but I have genetic heart disease from my mom's side of family), followed by open heart bypass surgery (quintuple...all 5 coronary arteries were replaced)… just got a 30 year lease on life...would have been left to die under socialized medicine...

That's an interesting scenario. I can see Congress impeaching President Trump and it helping Trump by being seen as politically motivated. I also see Democrats running radical candidates, also helping Trump. I suspect Comey, people involved in the Steele Dossier, and President Obama are not guilty of crimes. Act as if they are guilty is similar to Trump's critics hoping and pretending he would be found guilty of something.

I can see a European recession, debt crisis, and contagion, but related to entitlements not immigration policy. I think the scenario where China challenges the US militarily is very unlikely, BUT the consequences are so great we should take the unlikely scenario seriously.

I definitely see the US entitlement and debt crisis you describe, but I think politicians will take action, making the hard decision of cutting entitlements, military, mass incarceration, investments in research and technology while increasing taxes slightly. This will avert the crisis. Politicians will use it as "an opportunity" to cut programs they don't like or enact taxes they'd like to enact anyway.

"Trump cant give up and NOT run by 2020. But, that said, he will lose"
If he realizes he's likely to lose, has a successful business that he enjoys to go back to, and faces pressure from Republicans to elect a more traditional Republican, I can see it happening. I think a moderate traditional Republican could easily beat Sanders or anyone promoting socialistic policies.

"If we "destroy some oil platforms" will will have attacked Iranian land bases as well. They fought against Iraq and fought them to a stand stil over their encroughing across the border way bask in the 90'. "
In the 80s, though, the US destroyed some oil platforms and the attacks on oil freighters stopped.

"Trump will run and win in 2020. "
I omitted the world not, but you got my meaning that he will not run in that scenario. I think he will probably will not serve another term because I see so many scenarios where that happens. Maybe the most likely one is he wants to go back to running his businesses, he doesn't enjoy the job, and he faces pressure from traditional Republicans. If he runs, I don't see him winning. He won on a fluke before despite losing by nearing 3 million votes. The fluke won't necessarily break in his favor again. Anything is possible, but it's not in my crystal ball.