>>Right - now tell that to the GOP, who keeps trying to make massive cuts to these programs.

The Medicare "cuts" attributed to GOP are via PAYGO, a law dating back to 1990 requiring new proposals to be cost-neutral or offset by reductions from other funds. Run the math and the GOP $1.4T deficit effort does seem to trigger the maximum permitted 4% cut to Medicare and other programs, with $25B being the Medicare 4%.

However, PAYGO does have an out clause: government can waive this requirement on itself. There's binary political disruptive reasons why it can't go in the current bill but they could do it via the Senate with 60 votes- as long as DNC co-operates. Which in any normal morality it would have to after decrying the alternative.

>>..except that the GOP is as I type this attempting to get rid of the individual mandate - which is the glue that holds it all together.

It *should* be the glue holding it together, until you check out who's actually paying the penalties and all the exceptions and escape hatches. I despaired at the weakness of the mandate with the extensions and avoidances. Sure enough, Obamacare was in a death spiral when Trump came along and had it been Clinton, huge additional funds would have been needed- which also would trigger PAYGO fwiw.

>>Just because its a repeated explanation does not make it a valid reason. "lesser of two evils" is not only untrue it's ridiculously obviously untrue.

Sorry but you're not an oracle who gets to determine the facts and there's no dispute. By Bill's logic, HRC was the worse candidate. If you wanted to argue his point, you could try- he has laid out precise objections more than once.

>>The Alabaman GOP will be too busy endorsing child molesters (like they're doing right now).

Do you mean Moore? What do you say about Franken, in that case? What about Bill Clinton, if mere accusation is enough to damn Moore because he's on the other side of the binary divide from you? I'm sure that everybody agrees it's abhorrent and disqualifies him- if it's true. But how awful the world would be if candidates could be taken down at will by accusation of impropriety days or weeks before the vote.

>>..then the problem is with the loopholes that allow this behavior right?

US law requires corporates and individuals to pay tax on worldwide income. What's happening is that the income gets booked under a foreign company in a lower tax jurisdiction. It's not income of the US entity until repatriated, and they're not repatriating it. Meanwhile the stash appears in the financial statements where it boosts share value despite not a cent of US tax paid on it.

Could this be tightened? Certainly- but then the sneak lawyers and accountants would come up with something else, all driven by perverse incentives caused by abnormally high corporate tax. Taxation is Rube Goldberh enough without provoking additional complications!