What the “padiddley” is that? Off the medications again, Paul? You’re writing gobbledygook – what are you trying to say?
Well, dear readers, that’s shorthand for our topic today. Many a question has been asked regarding this topic, so I guess it’s time to remove the mirrors and clear the smoke. Here’s the key to the cryptic title:
- ACA = Affordable Care Act.
- 12MO = Twelve (12) months.
- MEC = Minimum Essential Coverage
Decrypted, the “unabridged” title would read something like, “The Affordable Care Act requires all U.S. Income Taxpayers to have twelve (12) full months Minimum Essential Coverage of health care, less they be assessed the healthcare tax.” That’s simply too long for a title; thus, the shorthand.
OMG! — ANOTHER TAX?
As you may be aware: yes, there is another tax that’s been around for a couple of years, now. For this tax season – covering tax year 2015 – 
things are a little different, and the IRS is getting serious.
Since it’s inception, the healthcare tax and the ways to avoid being liable for it, has been pretty haphazard in the reporting department. Delays for some entities to report, not-so-strict requirements for others – the IRS, more or less, turned a blind eye to inaccurate and erroneous reporting of healthcare coverage by taxpayers in the past.
This tax season, the IRS believes that it has the administration of the healthcare coverage requirements and the assessment of the healthcare tax all in order, and it’s shifting from the “blind eye” to two, very 
observant, audit-quality eyes. For tax year 2015, “they mean business.”
Now, if it took the government agency, that’s in charge of administering the tax laws regarding healthcare, a couple of years to “get it all together,” how much longer would be needed for taxpayers to “come up to speed”? According to the IRS, taxpayers should already be up to speed, and should be providing it with complete, accurate reporting of their healthcare situation. (Gee, thanks, Sam.)
THE NUTS & BOLTS, EXPAT-STYLE
The information that I’ll present here is directed, primarily, to the U.S. 
taxpayer living in the Philippines (or any other country outside of the U.S.). While our Stateside audience will find the information presented here useful, they’ll also find it to be incomplete. This article doesn’t delve into the complexities of health insurance purchased at the marketplace or state-run sources, and the possible credits that may be available as a result of participation in certain methods of obtaining healthcare coverage.
Here’s the basic “fact of life”: A U.S. taxpayer must have one of the following items in order to be considered as compliant with healthcare requirements:
- Twelve (12) full months of healthcare coverage that meets or exceeds the required, government defined Minimum Essential Coverage (MEC);
- The equivalent of twelve (12) full months of MEC; or
- An IRS-approved exemption from having twelve (12) full months of MEC.
Notice the words, “twelve (12) full months.” It means what it says – each and every month of the tax year being reported must be a full, complete month. Partial months (e.g., 30 days of a 31-day month) do not “cut the mustard” when tallying one’s healthcare coverage to determine compliance.
Also notable, is the inference as to who must have the coverage. In this instance, the word, “taxpayer” is a generalization which really means, “the taxpayer and all members of the taxpayer’s “tax family,” who are included in the tax return as either a spouse, a tax dependent, and/or a tax beneficiary or person enabling tax benefits for the taxpayer.
ENTER, THE TAX FORMS
A new tax form is appearing in many mailboxes this year – those of many taxpayers and that of the IRS. It’s the Form 1095-(series).
The letter in the series, either “A,” “B,” or “C,” indicates the type of coverage provider:
- Form 1095-A, Health Insurance Marketplace Statement, is generally provided to individuals enrolled in health insurance coverage through the Marketplace;
- Form 1095-B, Health Coverage, is generally provided to
individuals enrolled in a government-sponsored health program or in other types of coverage, and may be provided to individuals enrolled in certain types of health insurance provided by their employer; and
- Form 1095-C, Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage, may be provided to individuals enrolled in certain types of health insurance coverage provided by their employer.
This is a FYI” form only, and does not have to be filed with an income tax return. While a recipient of this form must retain it just in case the IRS requests to see it at some point in the future, the recipient 
simply uses the information on the Form 1095-(series) to complete the healthcare section/form that is part of an income tax return. “Copy/Paste” – it’s that simple.
Form 1095-(series) will provide the recipient with the following information, along with identifying the recipient (called the “Responsible Individual”) by name, address, and taxpayer identification number (SSAN):
- A letter code that identifies the type of coverage in which “covered individuals” were enrolled (e.g., “D”=Individual Market Insurance);
- If healthcare coverage is “Employer Sponsored Coverage,” it will provide the employer’s name, address, and taxpayer identification number (EIN);
- If healthcare coverage is from an “Insurer or Other Coverage Provider,” it will provide the provider’s name, address, telephone number, and taxpayer identification number (EIN);
- The names and SSNs for each “covered individual” – each member of the recipient’s “tax family” whose healthcare is covered by the provider;
- The dates of birth for each “covered individual,” if that individual’s SSN is not available;
- Whether the “covered individual” was covered for the twelve (12) full months of the tax year (via check-the-box); and
- If not covered for the twelve (12) full months of the tax year, the identification of each full month during which the “covered individual” had coverage (via check-the-box).
The Form 1095-(series) looks extremely similar to the Form 1040 Health Insurance Worksheet, and to Form 8965, Part III Coverage Exemptions Claimed on Your Return for Individuals, and guess what? Those locations are where the Form 1095-(series) information is entered by individuals who do not have twelve (12) full months of coverage.
Individuals, whose Form 1095-(series) indicates that all members of his/her “tax family” were “covered individuals” with twelve (12) full months of coverage, need not worry about extra forms or worksheets. Those individuals only need to “check the box” on the appropriate line of their tax return (e.g., line 61 for Form 1040) to indicate “Full-year coverage” of health care (“SALY” – “Same As Last Year”).
I’M HERE & NO FORM 1095-WHATEVER
Living overseas can have a number of benefits when it comes to income tax returns. One of them is the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion (being able to exclude earned income received by a taxpayer residing and/or working overseas from being taxed). Another just happens to deal with the topic du jour. Coincidently, both of these two are related, as you will see.
The benefit? Citizens living abroad and certain noncitizens are exempt from the twelve (12) full months of Minimum Essential Coverage requirements. For eligibility to claim this exemption from “12MO MEC,” the individual must meet the same “living abroad” criteria as those claiming the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion (ah, the relationship!) That means an individual must either:
- Be a “bona fide resident” of the country in which he/she resides for the entire twelve (12) months of the tax year, and have their “tax home” located in a country outside of the U.S.; or
- Be “physically present” in a country (or countries) outside of the U.S. for at least 330 days of a twelve (12) consecutive month period within a 15 month time frame that encompasses part or all of the tax year.
If you meet either of those two prerequisites, you are eligible to claim Exemption Code “C” – U.S. Citizens living abroad and certain noncitizens.
Claiming this exemption (or any other valid exemption) occurs in Form 8965, Part III (mentioned above), where the name and SSN of the “exempt” individual is entered, along with the Exemption Type code “C.” For each of the “exempt” individuals so identified, the term of the exemption – whether for the full year or for certain months of the year – are entered via “check the box.”
THAT’S ALL THERE IS, EXPATS!
Not really that difficult; the process can be confusing, however. This is especially true if you learn about it through the rumor mill or the bamboo grapevine. I’ve seen expat bloggers build beautiful mountain ranges out of this little molehill, with about 90% of their consternation being derived from “what if’s” that would never happen.
To think: All of the weeping and gnashing of teeth caused by immaterial and moot “what if’s” could have been prevented had someone sought an authoritative source, such as a tax form instruction pamphlet, and discovering exactly what they needed to know. Oh well, I’ll hear from them when their tax returns are due. Then, they’ll want some advice on how to pull their fat from the fire.
Now the million (or at least many thousands) dollar question.
One retires and bugs out of the US in May or June. Must they carry a crappy American policy because they’ll only be out of the country 7 or 8 months, that particular year, if they’re fully covered up until the time they leave?
Hi Todd – I don’t know what dollar value can be ascribed to the question, but here are my couple of centavos (centimos) worth in reply ?:
“It all depends ….”
As I’m oft to repeat: “When it comes to taxes, there are no simple, easy answers to questions!” That being said, we’ll take a look at a few possible scenarios that address your question. Remember, the “goal” for avoiding the healthcare tax is having twelve (12) full months of Minimum Essential Coverage (MEC).
Scenario #1.
Taxpayer with MEC while residing in the U.S. leaves and begins life in the Philippines on June 15, 2016, and continues to live in the Philippines permanently (or near-permanently) from that date forward.
Scenario #2.
Taxpayer with MEC while residing in the U.S. leaves and begins life in the Philippines on June 15, 2016 and, discovering that life in the Philippines isn’t as great as it was back in the States, returns to the States in June 2017.
Scenario #3.
Taxpayer with MEC while residing in the U.S. leaves and begins life in the Philippines on June 15, 2016 and, for whatever reason, returns to the States to live after a few months of Philippine living.
For both scenarios #1 and #2, the taxpayer is considered not to be liable for the healthcare tax for tax year 2016, while the taxpayer in scenario #3 may be liable. The reasoning:
Scenario #1 –
The taxpayer will continue to live in the Philippines and, provided his/her “tax home” is in the Philippines, will be eligible to be considered a “bona fide resident” of the Philippines for tax years 2017 and beyond.
For tax year 2016, the taxpayer has five (5) full months of MEC and, by residing outside of the U.S. for the next twelve (12) consecutive months, will be considered to meet the “physical presence” test requirements. So, for the months of June through December 2016, the taxpayer will have an exemption from the MEC requirements. Thus, with five (5) full months of MEC and seven (7) months of exemption, the taxpayer is considered to have healthcare coverage for the entire year of 2016.
As a “bona fide resident” of the Philippines from 2017 into the future, the taxpayer will continue to have the exemption until he/she no longer meets the “bona fide resident” test requirements.
Scenario #2 –
The taxpayer, similar to the one in scenario #1, has the five (5) full months of MEC and, being considered to have met the “physical presence” test requirements for June 2016 through June 2017 (twelve [12] conservative months), is considered to be exempt from the MEC requirements for June 2016 through June 2017. Thus, for tax year 2016, the taxpayer is considered to have twelve (12) months of healthcare coverage.
For tax years 2017 and beyond, the taxpayer will be exempt from the MEC requirements for the first six (6) months, but will need to acquire MEC for the remaining six (6) months of 2017, else he/she may be liable for the healthcare tax.
Scenario #3 –
The taxpayer has MEC for the first five (5) full months of 2016, but unless he/she continues to have MEC for the remainder of 2016, will be liable for the healthcare tax based on each full month that the taxpayer didn’t have MEC or a combination of MEC and an exemption from the MEC requirements. (There are several different types of exemptions available – the taxpayer would need to investigate each to see if one was applicable.)
Hope that the situation you are considering has been addressed in the above scenarios. Remember, “… no simple, easy answers”! ?
Scenario one pretty much covers my question, as I intend to make the Big Move in May(ish). Stay a few months in the Philippines before moving on elsewhere. Then visiting the US the following October (in 2017, for not more than 35 days).
Thanks. That’s the best writeup I’ve seen that addresses what no one else has done with regards to the partial year thing.
Hi Todd – Remember that if you can establish your “tax home” outside of the U.S. (as long as it is outside of the U.S., it doesn’t matter if it is in one place permanently or travels along with you as you seek greener pastures), you can attempt to acquire “bona fide resident” status for the purposes of the ACA exemption.
Just like in Scenario #1, you could achieve “bona fide resident” status as early as 2017 and reap its benefits in 2017.
Unlike achieving the ACA exemption via “physical presence,” the “bona fide resident” status would allow you to visit the U.S. any number of times that you wanted to during a single year. The only associated requirement is that while you are in the U.S., you fully intend on returning to your “tax home.” So, you wouldn’t have to “count days” in October 2017.
If, for some reason, you never return overseas but stay in the U.S., then that would be called, “changing your mind.” At the moment of “changing your mind,” you would lose “bona fide resident” status.
So if you go home for more then a month you need to have health insurance or pay the penalties? If you had Medicare could you even use it in the Philippines?
Hi Wally – Again,
“It depends ….”
If you are considered to be a “bona fide resident” of a country outside of the U.S., you are exempt from the MEC requirements regardless of how many times you visit the U.S. so long as you retain your “bona fide resident” status.
If you are considered to meet the “physical presence” test requirements, you can visit the U.S. for up to 35 days within the test’s twelve (12) consecutive month period and retain your exemption from MEC requirements. Otherwise, you would be liable for the healthcare tax based on the number of full months in which you didn’t have MEC.
As for Medicare: Medicare can be used only within the U.S., and cannot be used in the Philippines. As such, Medicare ALONE cannot be claimed as MEC for the full months that you are outside of the U.S. You must either possess another source of MEC or meet the requirements for an exemption from the MEC requirements in order to not be liable for the healthcare tax.
Where does medicare comes into play on this state of quandary.
Hi Cornell – By itself, Medicare, outside of the U.S., doesn’t count as MEC.
In some situations, such as for those taxpayers living abroad who are enrolled in a healthcare plan sponsored by the U.S. Government that requires enrollment in Medicare Part B, Medicare plays an indirect role. (I.e., you drop your Medicare Part B and you lose your government-sponsored healthcare.)
Unbelievable. Not ACA as Roberts made it the law. All politics aside. It is fact. The law.
Be exact. You say it then back track into wordy land. Resident (13 A) outside US for X amount of time= No need for other coverage.
It’s not that automatic, Rusty. You have to pass one of the two tests, and document it. Most important, your “tax home” has to be located overseas. Some series 13 visa holders retain a stateside tax residence and file state income tax returns. They don’t qualify for “bona fide resident” status, and must rely on meeting the “physical presence” requirements, otherwise they are liable for the healthcare tax.
Thanks Paul. Now that’s what I wanted to hear. A short concise explanation for my pea brain.
According to one IRS article doesn’t everyone have a stateside residence? The article said one’s state residence is where they: 1. Have a bank account. 2. Are registered to vote.
Please don’t write Moby dick when answering. Again my pea brain can only accept one paragraph.
No. All the IRS requires is that you provide them with a current address to which they can send correspondence, and that you file your tax return (if required to do so) and pay any taxes that you may owe.
Thanks Paul Keating great article.
Thanks, Luke! We aim to please! 😆
I am asking since I am bound to go home once I reached the magic number. I am a retired U.S. Marine, has a retireeTricare insurance coverage. I know medicare does not cover outside the U.S., does Tricare in the same category also? Thanks.
Tricare Standard (or Tricare Overseas if living/visiting outside the US) meets the MEC. I asked this question before I left the US. Also, you can download the form from the MyPay website. I have already done so. OB
Thanks, OB!
Hi again, Cornell – What OB writes is correct. So long as you maintain your Medicare Part B, TRICARE For Life (TFL) enrollment isn’t terminated and you continue to be considered as having the required MEC for each full month that you are enrolled in TFL.
As a retired Marine (“once a Marine, always a Marine” Oorah!), DFAS will provide you with a 2015 Form 1095-B that provides evidence of your having MEC for the twelve (12) full months of 2015 provided by TRICARE.
Explain this bob plz
Hi Mike – I did not write this article, so I am not the guy who can explain. It was written by Paul Keating. Sorry I can’t help you on this.
Hi Mike – I can explain. Just let me know what “this” is. ?
i find your articles to be very disturbing because of how you substitute platitudes and party propaganda for truth. Let us start here: it is true that the Democrats tax and spend. But this is also true: Republicans borrow and spend, and defer payments on that debt to future taxes. Two examples, which are widely known and thus must be addressed by any writer on the subject are: Ronald Reagan, the first president to go over 1 trillion dollars in debt. Much of our tax money is going to pay his debt. Then there is Bush. For invading the wrong country, he borrowed over 2 trillion dollars. How do we pay that debt? Taxes of course. Most of our National debt, and therefore our taxes, comes from Republicans. Why do you never address this issue? Afraid you will have to THINK instead of relying on preconceived stereotypes? Tell me you are not a typical Republican bigot.
Funny, I never saw any political party mentioned in the article until your comment.
I didn’t either. I think there was a cartoon that made fun of President Obama, but this was pretty much a fact based article and a good one!
to express the philosophy of a political party, even without naming it, is to categorize one self as an apologist for that party. it is just an example of refusing to take responsibility for not thinking through on the real issues.
Let me clarify this;
“Bush invaded the wrong country”…
Then Obama invaded 6 more “wrong countries”…
Kennedy failed to free Cuba.
Nixon lost the war in Vietnam.
Jimmy Carter lost face in Iran and so on.
Are you trying to say that the US has only morons for presidents?
If there is any doubt of who the moron is, that is certainly you!
Wake up and smell the coffee, it’s very late in the morning.
no i do not say the USA only has morons for presidents. but when people start blaming others for problems, they must ensure they are blaming the right people. if you want to see a real moron, moron, look in the mirror.
William – I try to operate a site that is welcoming and fosters a good discussion. You don’t want to play within the rules, though. Because of that, your further comments will be by moderation only. You disagree with Paul, but isn’t it possible to disagree without calling names?
Water off a duck’s back, Bob, water off a duck’s back. (And the skin on that back is exceptionally thick, thanks to the scarring from earlier placed knives! :lol; )
Sorry for using the word moron, I really didn’t mean to offend anyone.
This said, when there is a CONSISTENT SUCCESSION of “failed or wrong” political decisions as well as financial decisions, don’t you think that it was meant to be this way?!
That in reality all our recent history was a succession of extremely well planned events, be it “wrong or fails”. All of them or at least most of them… counter-intuitive!
In politics, there are no failures. If the public perceived an event as a failure, you can be certain that it was planned ahead to be that way.
Please remember presidents have to make deals to get anything done. Raegan had to make deals with Tip O Neal. Obama has raised the debt a lot right? Didn’t he have to for whatever reason?
It doesn’t matter what party they are from. Deals must be made.
Just a small correction, Bob.
The Vietnam situation was going well with the Vietnamization of the RVN defense. Things were on the offensive when the last U.S. forces left, and the great push south and east by NVA forces was repelled and turned around.
All was going well until Congress passed a resolution that basically forbade sending money, medicine, arms, ammunition, or any kind of aid that could be used by military forces to all countries in Southeast Asia. With their supplies of everything dwindling, and no relief that had been promised by President Nixon was allowed to flow to the RVN, courtesy of that resolution.
I won’t mention the name of the political party that held power in both houses of Congress.
Paul, the US never had the intention to win the war in Vietnam.
I beg to differ, Bob. We won the war on the ground. The war was lost at the bargaining table. This member of the US and his brethren in the armed forces had every intention of winning.
The Jane Fondas and John Kerrys of the US had no intention of winning the war.
It was a drug war, notice that I didn’t say a ‘war on drugs’. Communists took over and Vietnam was eliminated in a drug war.
The US won big time!
Oh yeah; and the Middle East is all about oil.
Was told all that stuff in the 70’s, when the “poor, damaged veterans” were coming back and were deemed unable to readjust to society because of their mental problems caused by the “wide-spread” use of drugs; and were refused any assistance. At best, we were to be pitied, because we was damaged.
No progress here. Take your medicine, Bob, and G’nite.
I didn’t know that about Congress and medicine, etc. Thanks Paul.
I think Bushes big mistake was removing Saddam. Saddam kept a lid on what is now Isis. We/I just didn’t know about it. But I guess he was told to do it.
We’ll never really know, Rusty.
Your right we’ll never know. However, Trump (no matter what people think of him) has exposed all that goes on in making political decisions.
One political pundit said Trump didn’t just talk about a wall. He built it and pulled the whole dirty political process over it.
He was saying shame on Trump. I said Good. We’ve know this but now everyone else should too.
Hi William – “I am not a typical Republican bigot.” There, are you satisfied? (I think not.)
Unlike some commentators to these articles, I don’t spew political rhetoric or label anyone who disagrees with my words with a pejorative term.
Try this on for size:
1) Pay your own way, William, and I’ll pay my own way.
2) Let’s get our government to stop its excessive spending, so that the debt won’t increase as we try to pay it down.
3) Stop looking for handouts, and accept the “hand ups” that are offered to you.
4) Let’s look to the U.S. Constitution when considering any spending, and eliminate the largesse that been handed out over the years as a politician’s means of remaining in office.
5) As unfortunate a circumstance as it may be, providing for the national defense (i.e., going to war) incurs Constitutionally approved debt. Live with it.
6) For the latest tax years reported, the number of individuals paying the IRS additional money to “pay down the debt” have decreased. Why have you stopped?
Have a nice day, William. See you in the soup line.
Then what do u make of it
It has no affect on me, Mike, so I don’t care. I have lived outside the USA for so long that I am not part of it.
Soup. Have a bowl, and a free slice of bread.
I have my 1095C for part of the year and a 1095B for the rest of the year. We will will also to check the box of the bonafide resident/ 330 day out of 365 category. I think that we are covered.
Hi Gary – If your Form 1095-C and Form 1095-B provide evidence of your having MEC for the full twelve (12) months of 2015, then you only need to check the box on Form 1040, line 61 (or the appropriate line of Form 1040A) to indicate that you have the required MEC.
If less than 12 full months of MEC is indicated in your Forms 1095-(series) combined, then you’ll have to assess your situation and determine whether you are a “bona fide resident” or if you meet the “physical presence” test requirements. With that information, you would then complete a Form 8965 to reflect your situation and file it with your tax return.
Hi Paul, very entertaining article this week everybody arguing love it
Keep them coming I’m glad I’m British ,
Derek in pasig
Hi Derek – comments and arguments are an article author’s bread and butter. I’ve struck gold on this one! 😆
Same here I am also not part of this, I have not been back for 2 years and I am a resident of the Philippines (have my ACR to prove it. Plus I am covered under Phil Health.
Hi Paul,
Good article! I am not sure about the reaction. For me your article focused on what to do about the ACA, not how you felt about it. I used to be a Republican for the record and am now unaffiliated. I do not think President Obama has been a great president, but I feel he was better than the two alternatives he ran against. I did not feel offended by the cartoon I referenced earlier. President Obama is a public figure and I felt the cartoon was humorous.
Peace
Jay
Thanks, Jay – I’m not connected with any political party, though one has found one of my email addresses as treats me as brethren. 😉
Can’t really compare a sitting President with a couple of “also rans” as the unfortunate office seekers never had a chance to prove how useless or how useful they would have been in office. Sort of like comparing a fact against a speculation.
That cartoon (or should I call it a “meme”?) came from a “left-wing” publication – I thought it would be a safe bet to use, considering its pedigree!
😆
Paul,
I just hope Obamacare gets repealed next year.
No time like the present, PD! 😆
Hi Paul,
I defended your article for not being partisan politically, but your responses to comments have shown your political opinion which is fine.
I think it is highly likely that we will have a President Cruz or President Rubio unless Donald Trump runs as a populist independent much like H. Ross Perot. If that happens we will have another President Clinton. Congress will probably remain Republican so it seems that ACA may be repealed. You probably should thank President Obama and ACA because it gives you more business.
Peace
Jay
Just opinion, Jay, just opinion. No politics are associated with common sense.
Were I to “label” myself, I’d call myself a “Constitutionalist.”
Jay,
Here we go again. Another believer of whatever they say on the tube. Please explain how they can repeal Obamacare? What does it take to repeal a law?
Please also explain how Reid held up the Republican’s bills but the Republicans can’t do the same.
Rusty
Repeal a law = pass a bill to do so in both House and Senate, then have the President sign it.
Any party or group in power can do as they wish.
Do you understand all that has to be done to repeal a law? Obamacare is a law, right? Roberts made it the law.
The politicians say; “I’m going to repeal, and replace, Obamacare.” Don’t fall for the politician’s smoke.
Vote our Paul for president. He’ll straighten things out.
Hi Rusty,
It take a lot to add an amendment to the US Constitution, but ACA is not a Constitutional Amendment.
On who will be President, I think the older I get the more I agree with Palawan Bob. I am not sure it matters who Republican or Democrat, we are all screw anyway can I get an “Amen” from Palawan Bob!
Hi Rusty,
Sorry for the double reply, but I meant to say it takes a lot to repeal an Amendment to the US Constitution, but again ACA is not part of the US Constitution.
I meant “Paul” the accountant who writes articles for LIP. I wasn’t referring to Rand Paul. That’s a totally different subject.
Rusty
PS- The president doesn’t have the power to repeal a federal law. It all starts in the congress and thus it is very remote that it would ever happen.
That I would. Say “Goodbye” to the Departments of Education, Energy, and Health and Human Services for a start. Other departments would also be on the table for axing, sending their administration back to the States where it rightfully belongs.
Then, on day #2, ….
Good for you Mr. President. Now after day 1 ends and employment is at 40% what are you going to do?
That’s the problem with starting any agency. It is true some, or maybe all, of those jobs would be absorbed by the states. But the media would have anyone who axed those jobs looking like a heartless SOB.
40% employment is speculation – don’t think the population employed by the “axed federal departments” would even come close to 60%.
At any rate, the Constitution says that it’s the States’ problem, not the federal government’s to cure by making federal jobs.
As to the media: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” If you think shrinking the size of government will bring out the media cat calls, just wait until PBS and the various “Arts” stop receiving federal handouts (high on Day #2’s list of losers). 😆
I have no idea how much unemployment there’d be by closing various departments. I do know that whatever it would be that the media would make it sound 100 times worse.
The media would show president Paul on his 200′ yacht. Throwing lavish parties. Parties with young half naked babes giving Paul grapes.
Then the media would show unemployed Juanita sitting on her broken down porch. A porch that was so beautiful but is now broken down because president Paul axed her job. Her kids college plans are ruined. Their 401 K is shot. They have no heat or water. They’ve lost their BMW and can’t look for work. They no longer can afford Grey Pu Pon on their hot dogs. All because president Paul axed her job.
Hi Paul,
I will play the if I were POTUS Game with you.
If I were POTUS, I would on Day 1 send Seal Team 6 to Donald Trump and the rest of the Deadbeat Billionaires to collect the billions of dollars he did not pay when he went bankrupt 4 times! I think he has the money now to as you said earlier “pay his own way.”
You were correct when you said it is not fair for me to judge the job that John McCain or Mitt Romney would have done. I stand or usualy sit properly admonished.
Next Wednesday, I am your “substitute scribe” again. Come to the “Dark Side” we have coffee, pandesal and Filipino peanut butter….mmmm Filipino peanut butter. If you get a chance and find my article interesting read and give your two cents. I always like getting your take on things!
Peace
Jay
Hi Jay – Looks like you’ve been dipping your hand into the myth jar.
Mr. Trump has never filed for personal bankruptcy in his life.
The bankruptcy cases he was “involved in” were “Chapter 11” corporate reorganization bankruptcies (versus “Chapter 7” liquidation bankruptcies) that merely reorganized corporations in order to establish a debt payment plan to help eventually extinguish the debt through payment. Tax liabilities are not forgiven or reduced by a “Chapter 11” reorganization – they remain as debt and are included in the debt payment plan.
Had any tax “hanky-panky” been played by Mr. Trump, he – as a high profile case – would have most certainly been broght up on charges.
His reorganizations, btw, resulted in employment opportunities that were filled by taxpayers contributing their share to the U.S. Treasury. So, in a way, those “Chapter 11” bankruptcies resulted in increased income tax revenues for the U.S. Government.
Paul said: So, in a way, those “Chapter 11” bankruptcies resulted in increased income tax revenues for the U.S. Government.
Exactly Paul. I clerked, in the Summer time, in a law office and saw first hand all that goes into those filing.
Rusty
Hi Paul,
Nice try! I am not a CPA like you, but…no matter how pretty a dress and how much make up you put on a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy it is still a Chapter 11 Pig Bankruptcy. There ain’t enough liquor in Paul Thompson’s liquor to get me to dance with that pig, but Trump danced with it 4 times! I pay people I owe.
Donald Trump’s business borrowed money and when they borrowed more than he was willing or able to pay back. He used the power of the LAW to avoid paying his creditors the money they were owed. I understand it is legal, but it ain’t right. You used the term, “restructured the loan”. My understanding of that means his business paid pennies on dollars. It is like I owe you a $100 and go to you with $10 and make you sign “paid in full” while holding a gun on you. Chapter 11 is not a good thing!
Well, Jay, what can I say? That Kool-aid sure works fast. You shouldn’t have taken such a large gulp.
“Chapter 11” bankruptcies do not eliminate debt. What they do is help reorganize the business that’s “in Chapter 11” so that it can pay off its debt.
A debt payment plan is drawn up and agreed to by the business’ creditors as well as the business itself. The legal system remains involved to make sure all goes according to the plan, and to rule on any interpretations of the plan’s elements that either the debtor business or its creditors might espouse that, in the opinion of the court, do not fully agree with the court’s interpretation.
While the creditors are not paid in full immediately, they agree to the plan so that they get paid a little later than they originally expected.
Jay,
Lets suppose a loved one gets addicted/hooked on something. I suppose Jay is saying; “Not my family we’re perfect.” The bills you owe are more than you can afford. Do you A) Put a gun to your head or a loved ones. B) Walk away from the loved one. Or (C) Say; “It’s not over until I solve the problem.
You hate bankruptcy but John’s bar to GM has used it. So what do you do? What would you do if you were Trump? Do you use the big non caring banks that get billions from Uncle Sam or the little guy cleaning for you?
Rusty
President Jay,
It would be nice if all the billionaires paid their fair share. But do they really care? Wouldn’t they just raise the prices for whatever they own? Then wouldn’t those that buy drugs or go to Wal Mart just pay more for the products?
To me it is a no win situation.
Then there is my wife’s nephew who has dengue. He’s in a hospital in Cebu. They want 40,000 pesos to continue treatment. 40,000 from someone who is lucky to have a quarter of that to live on a month
PapaDuck,
Just remember the president has lots of authority but not the authority to repeal a federal law.
Rusty
But the President has full authority to cancel any and all executive orders that were issued by any and all previous presidents.
But not the ACA as that is federal law, right?
I’m not a fan of that law. I just can’t believe Roberts finally made it law.
That the Republicans didn’t hold it up like Reid has done to potential laws. That the Republicans just merely said we won’t vote for it. Were they really winking at how much $ the insurance companies would make?
Parts of the ACA are law that was passed by congress, but other parts were implemented by executive order.
I’m not a constitutional lawyer but when Roberts voted with the majority doesn’t that mean all the ACA is federal law?Executive order or not?
Maybe we need to ask president Paul?
Hi Rusty and Bob,
Whether or not it is a law or executive order if both the POTUS and Congress want to repeal it they can. I think it is highly likely that there will be a Republican President and a Republican Congress next year. I think both the Democrat Candidates have such high negatives that the only way they can win is if Donald Trump runs as a third party candidate which he might because of his ginormous ego.
I liked Paul’s original article very much! No matter what happens in the future, ACA is important this year and people who are affected by it have to realize that.
The last time the Republicans were in control, like the Democrats, they spent like drunken sailors.
I feel there has to be a split government.
The Supreme Court merely ruled in favor of the government on a case brought before them which, among other issues, claimed that the ACA’s inclusion of a penalty assessment for not having health care coverage was an unconstitutional act to collect revenue because it didn’t originate in the House bill.
Chief Justice Roberts didn’t cause anything to be or not to be a law. He merely presided over the court and ruled with the majority that certain aspects of the ACA before the Court were constitutional.
The rationale that he penned as part of the majority’s ruling was “weird and weak” but not as poorly decided as many cases of earlier Supreme Court rulings.
OK. I can’t disagree with president Paul. There is no higher authority.
But someone did say; “Why did he do it?” That good conservative. Why?
Rusty – I sort of take offense to that “drunken sailor” quip.
Having been one on many occasions in a former career, I can assure you that my spending habits in absolutely no way mirror those spending habits of Congress.
In my nautical ways, when I ran out of money, I stopped spending. 😆
Smile!!! I guess the press just shames the Republicans into spending as much as they can. Drunken or not. I wonder if the printing press, that cranks out the money, gets paid over time?
When you are president will you point that printer towards me?
One last item on this Supreme Court anecdotal sub-thread: Chief Justice Roberts was labeled a “conservative” by the “progressive-leaning” news media.
To those professing and practicing conservatism, the Chief Justice is a “conservative-leaning” moderate. He, in no way, espouses conservatism unless some facet of conservatism can be cited and/or employed to his benefit or add positively to his argument.
I didn’t know that about Roberts. Now that ruling makes sense. It sure didn’t at the time.
Paul, I would like to contact you privately and contract you for my first “expat” tax return.
Sure thing, Doug. You can contact me at [email protected] and we can set things up to do things right!
Answers to these and other questions are available at the e-magazine on line. ?
For some living outside the United States, being enrolled in ACA (Obamacare) might still be worthy of consideration. This is due to the huge subsidies being provided by the government when one has a low income. Yes, it’s true Obamacare will not cover you outside the states, however for some serious illnesses where you can still travel back to the U.S, that may be your best option.
For example, let’s say you are 59 and your income is $22,000 a year (from pension or investments), and that allows you to live pretty good in the Philippines. For less than $100 a month, you could enroll in an Obamacare silver plan, providing you can provide a U.S. mailing address (use relatives address ?) when enrolling. Now, if you are diagnosed with cancer in the Philippines, you have the option of treatment in the Philippines (probably paid out of pocket), or in the U.S., where you are covered by a very low max out of pocket plan.
I have investigated this, and as far as I can tell, the above suggestion is completely legal. Also, you don’t have to limit your vacation days in the U.S. if enrolled in Obamacare, and you won’t need to have travel insurance.
FYI – I’m enrolled in a silver plan that just paid a $70,000 claim, and I paid only $500 of it. I’m in Illinois and planning to keep the coverage when I move to Philippines later this year. Hopefully I’ll never use it again… but nice to know it’s there as an option.
Hi Mike – As I often say, to each his own. I can’t suggest whether or not there is any benefit for someone else whose complete situation I do not know.
I know that for myself, I am a bit more self-reliant, and have adjusted my healthcare situation so that my wife and I are fully covered (including catastrophic) and we don’t have to rely on any insurance or plans connected to the ACA.
[The self-reliant part, btw, came into being way back on my first job when I was paid a whopping $1.25 @ hour (the federal minimum wage at the time as the employer was connected to interstate commerce). I realized after the first two pay checks that I could do much, much better; and would have to do that much better if I wanted to enjoy the lifestyle I wanted. The employer, however, did provide healthcare for me but I could see that in my dream life, I’d have to rely on myself for that and much more as “nice employers” weren’t that many.]
Then why bring up Obama care in the phils then
Hi Mike – Why bring it up? Because readers asked for it.
Besides, just because one is “in the phils” doesn’t mean that one is not required to have twelve (12) full months of Minimum Essential Coverage as required by the Affordable Care Act or else pay the “healthcare tax.”
U.S. citizens and resident aliens are required to have the MEC for the entire tax year, have an exemption from the MEC requirements for the entire tax year, or have some combination of those two for the entire tax year, regardless of where they live in the world.
The readers want to know about the additional tax associated with the ACA, and how their personal situation will be affected by it. They also want to know if there are any exemptions to the MEC requirements that they could seek, and if so, how they’d go about claiming it.
Sufficient interest was expressed by the readership (including off-line questions), so I bring the topic up.
i want to move to the philipinnes some day
Hi Tom – C’mon in, the water’s fine. Hope you find it to your liking. 😉
Hey Paul, quick question … how do you establish your “tax home” outside the US? I live here, but my financial institutions are in the US. Thanks … OB
Hi OB – For income tax purposes, the tax code differentiates between where you earn your money (your “tax home”) and where you live (your “abode”).
Generally, one’s “tax home” is the main area where you work or operate a business, regardless of where you reside. In the case of your not being employed or not operating a business, its the main area where you reside and where you would work or operate a business had you the opportunity to do so.
That’s the short answer. Here’s what the IRS has to say on the matter:
“Your tax home is the general area of your main place of business, employment, or post of duty, regardless of where you maintain your family home. Your tax home is the place where you are permanently or indefinitely engaged to work as an employee or self-employed individual. Having a ‘tax home’ in a given location does not necessarily mean that the given location is your residence or domicile for tax purposes.
“If you do not have a regular or main place of business because of the nature of your work, your tax home may be the place where you regularly live. If you have neither a regular or main place of business nor a place where you regularly live, you are considered an itinerant and your tax home is wherever you work.
“You are not considered to have a tax home in a foreign country for any period in which your abode is in the United States. However, your abode is not necessarily in the United States while you are temporarily in the United States. Your abode is also not necessarily in the United States merely because you maintain a dwelling in the United States, whether or not your spouse or dependents use the dwelling.
“‘Abode’ has been variously defined as one’s home, habitation, residence, domicile, or place of dwelling. It does not mean your principal place of business. ‘Abode’ has a domestic rather than a vocational meaning and does not mean the same as ‘tax home.’ The location of your abode often will depend on where you maintain your economic, family, and personal ties.”
Thanks Paul. Now I see why they need tax accountants. OB
We’re here to serve, OB!?
Hi Paul,
On the Kool-Aid thing. I don’t know whose Kool-Aid you think I have drunk, because I have not decided who I am going to vote for or even which party Republican or Democrat. I only know who I am not going to vote for.
If someone is going to be saying we need to stop giving handouts to the poor, I don’t want it to be a rich guy who has stiffed his creditors for 100’s of millions during his 4 Chapter 11 bankruptcies. All the time he was stiffing his creditors he continued to live in multi-million dollar mansions, diving Bentley’s, etc.
40% of the people including you apparently are going to vote for whoever the Republicans put up. 40% of the people are going to vote for whoever the Democrats put up. I my friend am part of the middle 20% that will decide who wins.
Peace
Jay
Hi Jay – The tongue-in-cheek quip about Kool-aid wasn’t meant to be harsh. Just whose it is I don’t know. It’s certainly not from any political party.
The flavor du jour appears to be “class envy cocktail,” which is a mixture of “bankruptcy confusion banana” and “stick it to the rich strawberry.”
As for the bananas, I’ll mention one last time that a “Chapter 11” bankruptcy does not eliminate debt, but reschedules that debt’s payment using a mutually agreed on (debtor and creditors) plan that is approved by the Bankruptcy Court. No one gets stiffed. Period. End of story; live with it.
The strawberries, though delicious to enjoy and share with others, can be labeled for what they really represent: the cardinal sin of envy. Viciously postulating how the rich got rich, and how the economic spectrum can be measured by rich versus poor, doesn’t add a single penny, pence, ceentavo, centimo, or whatever minimal valued coin of currency to anyone’s pocket.
It’s those same rich people who are the business owners that provide jobs and wages for others. Without their investment in a business, there wouldn’t be those jobs.
On the tax side of the house, the rich shoulder the task of contributing a disproportionate amount of tax revenue to the government. Based on the IRS’ latest figures that provide a breakout of taxation in the U.S. (the latest figures available are from 2011, btw), the top 10% of income earners paid 68% of all federal income taxes, even though they only earned 45% of all income. The top 50% of income earners paid 97% of all federal income taxes. In contrast, the bottom 50% of income earners only paid 3% of all federal income taxes, even though they earned 12% of all income. That, to me, says that the rich are paying “their fair share” plus a sizeable portion the “fair share” that belongs to the rest of the population.
There are high and very high net worth taxpayers who don’t pay much in income taxes. However, one must realize that these taxpayers are living off of their accumulated wealth (on which they paid “their fair share plus” while earning it). Their income is relatively minor in size, if they have income at all. Instead of focusing their lives on obtaining high income, their lives are focused more on “enjoying the fruits of their labor.”
It’s not a crime to be rich, but the same cannot be said for penalizing the rich for being rich. Aesop’s tale of the Ant and the Grasshopper comes to mind.
Class envy on a majority rule basis is extremely unhealthy for an economy. Symptoms of the illness are apparent today, with moving industries to more tax-favorable and more business-friendly locales, and the vast increase in the number of annual U.S. citizenship renunciations being at the forefront. No one wants to be punished by the public for their private achievements, and eliminating the chances of punishment is a consideration that those, who receive such treatment, take extremely seriously.
Enough about that.
As to me, personally, I will vote for the candidate who best espouses my personal beliefs. I’m not a party person, and speculating that I or anyone else will “pull the lever” based on party affiliation alone is pure hogwash. If the “Whig” candidate, or the “Federalist” candidate, or the “Whatever Party” or “Independent” candidate believes in what I believe in (I believe in the U.S. Constitution, btw), then that candidate will most probably get my vote. “Most probably” you question? Yes, most probably – seeing how a vote is one’s private and personal selection, I have the right to shield my vote from the eyes of the public.
Again, enough said.
Forgot to mention: I would want another president in the mold of Calvin Coolidge.
Hi Paul,
We disagree on politics. No big deal to me. I don’t think any less of you. My whole family is Republican. In NC Republican run everything and have cut spending on Public Education to the bone. That puhed me out of being Republican.
Peace
Jay
No offense has ever been taken on this end, Jay –
I was raised in an extremely vigorous Democrat household, with the patriarch of the extended family (my Father) and all of his siblings being staunch FDR supporters. Each of that generation, save for my Mother (who outlived them all and was able to witness the destructive results of the progressive policies as they were implemented), took their beliefs with them to the grave.
I, too, leaned toward the progressive idea of “entitlements” as a youth, until President Kennedy came along. Here was a president from the party of handouts who focused his administration on self-reliance and striking out on one’s own, severing the apron strings to which far too many had become firmly attached. His oft quoted statement, “A rising tide lifts all boats,” was etched into my “political ego” and remains their, as a “Kennedy brand” to this day. He espoused that the government wasn’t in charge of the tides, but a people, unfettered by government, controlled them. His ultimate reward for trying to lead the country and its population to greatness, administered in Dallas, shed a new light on his political party for me.
The “Great Society” that immediately followed, coupled with the publicly ignored corruption of his successor’s administration, proved to me that the Democrat Party had left me, and not vice versa. With enhanced “politics as usual” becoming the norm and modus operandi of succeeding governments, I turned to the U.S. Constitution and the Founding Fathers for my political direction, and follow that direction to this day.
Little recognized leadership of men such as James Madison, William Henry Harrison and Calvin Coolidge affected me greatly, and steeled my resolve to help with the attainment of the Republic envisioned by those who revolted against the tyrant and achieved our Independence.
This type of “fanaticism,” if one calls it that, is not owned by any political party, though each professes its ownership. As a “fanatic,” I am driven by the Constitution, and served a career proudly preserving and protecting it from all enemies, “foreign and domestic,” as stated and demanded by the oath of service that I voluntary and wholeheartedly took and live by.
That’s where I come from. The world of “limited federal government” and “an honest day’s wage for an honest day’s labor.” No largesse, no usurpation of States’ and the People’s rights and responsibilities by the federal government; and no impairment of liberty in the misrepresented name of “the common good.” (Liberty is “the common good.”)
(I’m also not afraid to address and resolve the problematic “third rail” of politics.)
Limited Federal government. Stick by your principles. Just so when your president you send money through porky (living in Porkyville) via Mickey transferred by Ranger to me. OK?
Hi Rusty,
I actually agree with what you said about keeping government divided. They do less damage that way. Gridlock is sometimes a good thing! I think it is funny when Republicans bring up President Obama low approval rating of 30 or 40% when the Republican Congress approval rating is not even 10%.
It is Super Bowl Sunday. I must say that your Detroit Lions may be even more frustrating than my Miami Dolphins in that Miami is and has been clueless, but Detroit actually started on a path to being a contender by building a great defense, but then changed directions. IDK.
Peace
Jay
Jay,
I said ever since I was the only one in the US to vote for Goldwater that I’d never vote for a party again. Berry was going to end the Vietnam conflict/war. Everything sounded like a win- win situation. The others said hold on kid that’s not the way the US is run. Grow up kid they said.
So I became an independent. Except there’s really no such thing in my book. I mean who cares if Trump declared bankruptcy for his businesses. If he, and others, can lead the country that will be great. Clinton will win anyway.
Martha Ford is cleaning house. Gone are VPs that have been around for 20 years. Even advertising VPs. This should have been done 40 years ago. Why the Dolphins aren’t winning is a mystery? At least they were winners once.
Hi Rusty,
My father says the best man he ever voted for was Barry Goldwater. I was born in 1965, so other than my Dad’s endorsement I have no knowledge. My Dad is the smartest person I know though so Goldwater must have had something going for him. As the say on X-Files, “You are not alone!” My pops supported the same guy.
I am done with politics for now. My article follows AJ’s and as usual it is brilliant and different!
Peace
Jay
Hi Jay –
On divided government.
Donald Trump is a tantalizing candidate. I think his appeal to a large majority of Americans, including me, who are tired of the same old gridlock that is Washington is simply because he is an outsider, as opposed to the traditional politician.
Traditional pols like Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz are more likely to perpetuate more of the same old thing. They do nothing more than carry the status quo into the future. Trump, on the other hand, is like a breath of fresh air in a stale room. Among the Republican field, I can see him as the only candidate most likely to eschew the traditional ways of Washington that is characterized by endless partisanship disputes. With his billions, he is beholden to no one; thus, he is unlikely to be swayed by Wall Street donations and special interest groups.
A divided government can be good or evil. Partisan debates actually contributes to a healthy government. Competition brings out the best in both camps, and provide the checks and balances that is so necessary in keeping all 3 branches of government on equal footing and from abusing their respective powers granted them by the Constitution.
On the other hand, the endless bickering can also debilitate an otherwise healthy government. They impact negatively on how our allies and adversaries alike see us.
I see Trump and Bernie Sanders going toe to toe in the presidential election.
Hi John,
A little late to the Fiesta; you must still be on Filipino time! Bernie Sanders is a very likeable man, but he is a Socialist. If you don’t want Gridlock don’t “Feel the Bern” as they say. I like Gridlock, so I might go with Bernie. IDK. I am officially suspending my campaign against Donald Trump. I have my own article coming out tonight/tomorow depending on time zone.
Peace
Jay
Hi Jay –
The man from Ohio.
Not late for the fiesta at all, Just kind of ignoring it. I have just been busy keeping a close tab on what’s happening in Iowa and now in New Hampshire. I’ll tell you a secret.
Even though I boldly predicted a Sanders/Trump showdown in the general elections, I was and continue to this day captivated by the only one candidate in the entire GOP field (aside from Trump) after watching him speak during the first Republican debate, in subsequent debates, and at town hall meetings. Although a Democrat, I have rooted for him inwardly from the outset.
He stands out as the most credible in my judgment. In the debates, he is not given to bluster, unlike Rubio who keeps saying that when elected, he will strengthen the military made weak by Obama, when, in fact, the U.S. military is as strong as ever qualitatively.
He doesn’t dance around a question like Rubio does. He answers questions straight up with facts and his past accomplishments, instead of deflecting them like Rubio does and giving non-answers by reciting “War and Peace” from memory. Too often, Rubio would change the subject and attack Obama as if Obama were campaigning for a 3rd term.
The man from Ohio to which I referred in the very first sentence above is John Kasich.
Remember the name, if you don’t like being blindsided.
The only thing good about Kasich is that he’s from Ohio. He’s just another party owned politician. He’ll do whatever they tell him to do.
Will Trump do whatever he’s told to do? Will Trump be a renegade like JFK?
Hi Rusty – As a proud “Buckeye” (as in State, not as in University), I look to its Governor’s achievements in turning a rusting, old social and economic environment into a thriving and “up-and-coming” social and economic powerhouse – accomplished against the will of a majority of both his and his opponent political party.
He has experience in “flipping” governments, and the acumen to “work his magic” again, on the federal level. I may not be in full agreement with everything he utters on the campaign trail, but realize that in this day and age, the utilitarian appeal to the masses in order to obtain their votes – something that he doesn’t really like to do – may have some necessity.
Trust the “Man from Ohio” – his actions will sate your desires.
Yes, he has great financial accomplishments but is he the leader we need (especially in foreign affairs/national security) for today? He hasn’t shown me any of that during the debates. Or is he just another “I’ll do whatever they tell me to person.”
I guess it really doesn’t matter as the military complex/big businesses dictate what goes on. They’d all find that out. Certainly Obama did, right? He wanted to change things, right? Which they allowed as long as it didn’t affect the powers to be.
btw, that’s (only good thing is being from Ohio) TWO. “Drunken sailor” being “One”! 😆 😆 😆
Aren’t most politicians “party-owned”?
On Trump, I think he will be his own man based on the strong personality he has projected so far. He won’t be a pushover, that’s for sure, but it’s hard to tell. Many of them sound like cowboys on the campaign trail when it comes to national security, but once they reach the Oval Office, they mellow down some.
On foreign affairs and national security, there is no one in either the GOP or Democrat fields more qualified than Hillary Clinton, having both served in the Committee on Armed Services, with subcommittees on emerging threats, capabilities, and readiness.
And, of course, as the Secretary of State under Obama, she is familiar with the nuances of international affairs as well as the long term blue print for U.S. diplomatic and development efforts abroad.
Regarding Kasich’s lack of experience on the subject, neither does Trump. I did hear Kasich say just last night at the victory speech that [as C-in-C, he will deal with present and emerging threats], but “not in the extreme”.
Not in the extreme. I take this to mean applying U.S. military might responsibly, not recklessly as Trump might do. To put it another way, to utilize military power without jeopardizing our relationship with our allies, nor will serve as a recruiting tool by fanatical adversaries that would inevitably result in endangering American lives and interests abroad and the national security of the United States forever under threat.
Yes, party candidates are party owned except Trump. When dealing with foreign affairs it is more important to me that someone is ready to deal (successfully in our favor) at the bargaining table. That is it. The bargaining table.
Who is better at negotiating? Clinton has been in there for at least 25 years. During those 25 years have the problems gone away? Have they been allowed to feaster?
Blaming someone, or party for this and that, isn’t leadership. So it all boils down to leadership and taking responsibility.
Right now the cat (IsiL) has been allowed to roam for to long and it looks like they’ll have to stopped. Looks like Saddam had them in check. So, unfortunately that may mean boots on the ground at first. Then to the bargaining table.
As soon as someone puts on the uniform they are a target. Somebody can something was said and that put the military at risk. Nope. Not in my opinion. Isis, and other extremists, will take someone out no matter what. Even civilians.
No, the “problems” have not gone away, if you are talking about the Middle East problem. It’s been worsening exponentially since the 50s. It has worsened considerably, in fact, since the ill-advised U.S. foreign policy of propping up the Peacock Throne was implemented, which resulted in the self-exile of Iran’s spiritual leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, against the wishes of the Iranian majority.
That event has ignited so much Iranian hatred toward Americans that, since then, we have been called the Great Satan. With such resume in the Middle East, it’s not hard at all to imagine why we’ve had so much problem today in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Even supposed allies are sometimes suspicious about our intent. Think Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan.
It didn’t help that our super power status, and the way we’ve wielded the big stick in the past did not sit well with the weak, from Latin America to Africa to Southeast Asia to the Middle East. Then came the Gulf Wars. While the first Gulf War was an undeniably justified and morally correct coalition struggle that received U.N. backing, the second was none of the above.
The second Gulf War was, to me, the final straw that broke the camel’s back. The idea of transforming Saddam-led Iraq by force of arms as the “beacon of democracy” throughout the Arab/Muslim world as envisaged by administration neocons before and during the ramp up to the Iraq invasion turned out to be a failure.
Who was the Commanders-in-Chief who presided over that war, the second Gulf War?
So, to put the blame on Hillary Clinton for this nation’s Middle East problems as the consequence of bad foreign policies of the past is ridiculous. I don’t remember her being president at any time during the 25-year time frame you speak of.
As far as responsibility for negotiating at the bargaining table, that is the chief responsibility of the Secretary of State. Appointed by the Chief Executive and confirmed by the Senate, the appointee must have a proven record.
While you prefer someone who is “ready” to deal at the bargaining table, I, on the other hand, prefer someone who has the expertise in foreign affairs – by actually having held the position of Secretary of State – and someone who knows how to get it done right, to represent the U.S. at the bargaining table.
But, there won’t be any bargaining table in the foreseeable future, because there won’t be any large scale boots on the ground, as I am understanding, to combat ISIS in Iraq and Syria as long as a Democrat president occupies the White House.
The strategy could change over time, but, at present, large scale boots on the ground is off the table. The U.S. will continue to lead an international coalition that will relentlessly pound ISIS from the air, combined with Special Operations forces that will train and equip regional forces such as the Kurds and the Sunnis against ISIS.
The U.S. strategy is to turn the war into a fight among the various proxies and factions in the region, instead of making it exclusively a U.S. fight. This, however, could get complicated as a simmering conflict between Russia and Turkey, a NATO member, could develop into a shooting war over Aleppo.
Putin is emboldened by his successful move into Ukraine without any military response from NATO because Ukraine, unfortunately, is not a member of NATO. Turkey, however, is.
I am also skeptical of presidential candidates who would espouse assassination of foreign leaders no matter how loathsoe that leader maybe, or the killing of wives and children of terrorists.
Finally, the blame game. I’m glad you brought it up. If you haven’t noticed, there is one glaring difference in the substance of the two parties’ respective presidential debates. I noticed that while Republican candidates, except perhaps Kasich, spend an inordinate amount of time attacking and blaming Obama in their attempt to divert attention from their own deficiencies, Sanders and Clinton, on the other hand, debate exclusively about issues that matter to the nation domestically and internationally.
That is a sign of leadership and taking responsibility, to borrow your own words.
According to your believes the United States should just deal with situations in its own borders. Not care at all about other countries. Sounds good. Let other countries deal with its own problems.
If, however, they want the Unites States help then that comes with a price, right? Or did you work for free? I’m going to guess that you did. Which is very commendable. I’m sure others appreciated what you did for them.
A dishwasher, a plumber, a builder, etc., either perform or are out the door, right? So, how many years should one be Secretary of State before one says they just can’t do the job? Before they stop blaming others and take responsibility?
I’m not sure where you got the idea that I believe the U.S. should just deal with situations in its own borders and not care about other countries.
I laid out some ill-advised foreign policies (interventionism) the U.S. has followed at various times in the past that came back to haunt us to this very day, but as a counterpoint to your assertion that during the 25 years “Clinton has been in there, the problems have not gone away”.
In no way, however, am I suggesting that the U.S. should be an isolationist country. However, we were at one time, and it got us into trouble. Following WWI, America followed a path of isolationism and non-involvement in European and Asian affairs as a result of our participation in that Great War and subsequent loss of many American lives.
The national trauma was such that our Army was smaller than Portugal’s when Germany blitzkrieged into Poland in 1939. Pearl Harbor changed all that.
I strongly believe that in today’s world, the U.S. should maintain its position as the world leader, but certainly not the world’s policeman.