Apologies if this has already been posted. Read it over coffee this morning and it was stronger than I expected. Great description of Hillary as a candidate out of time plus the comparison of Bernie to Cato the Elder is gold. Plus, the version of Trump's appeal laid out here is chilling. Too easy to think it is all just racism.
This was a good analysis. My support of Hillary is pragmatic in nature. 1. Mathematically, Bernie faces almost an impossible road. If he really loses FL by 30 points tomorrow, I don't see how it happens. 2. Bernie's plans are far too expensive for my tastes. I don't want a revolution. I want progress. We can't have a trillion in new spending and let the deficit go untouched. 3. Anyone but Trump
I think people are a little too hung up on this, you have to aim pretty high to hit the middle in this government...
But what's the middle? Isn't Obamacare already the middle? I don't want medicare, personally. I like that there's something available for those that don't have health through their company. But don't force me on it.
Apologies if this has already been posted. Read it over coffee this morning and it was stronger than I expected. Great description of Hillary as a candidate out of time plus the comparison of Bernie to Cato the Elder is gold. Plus, the version of Trump's appeal laid out here is chilling. Too easy to think it is all just racism.
This was a good analysis. My support of Hillary is pragmatic in nature. 1. Mathematically, Bernie faces almost an impossible road. If he really loses FL by 30 points tomorrow, I don't see how it happens. 2. Bernie's plans are far too expensive for my tastes. I don't want a revolution. I want progress. We can't have a trillion in new spending and let the deficit go untouched. 3. Anyone but Trump
Look all over the world, what Bernie is proposing is hardly revolutionary.
Apologies if this has already been posted. Read it over coffee this morning and it was stronger than I expected. Great description of Hillary as a candidate out of time plus the comparison of Bernie to Cato the Elder is gold. Plus, the version of Trump's appeal laid out here is chilling. Too easy to think it is all just racism.
This was a good analysis. My support of Hillary is pragmatic in nature. 1. Mathematically, Bernie faces almost an impossible road. If he really loses FL by 30 points tomorrow, I don't see how it happens. 2. Bernie's plans are far too expensive for my tastes. I don't want a revolution. I want progress. We can't have a trillion in new spending and let the deficit go untouched. 3. Anyone but Trump
Look all over the world, what Bernie is proposing is hardly revolutionary.
Yes, but Europe is facing far more potent economic and employment crisis' than we are. I'm not sure we should strive to be Europe, in general. I would be okay with some progressive improvements. For example: 1. Reducing the student loan rates down to the discount rate. That seems like a no brainer. Although don't forget part of that interest rate goes to the servicing entity (I'm fairly certain). So there has to be some sort of vig in there to make it cost neutral. 2. Providing free community college (2 year degree). Now I actually think this should be done at the state level to start, not the federal. I'd like to see what it does to the quality of education, dropout rates (those are sunk costs since society doesn't get the benefit of the more educated person), cost of tuition, etc.
I would be opposed to something so dramatic being done at the federal level to start. Remember our schools are all state run and the model has, generally, worked. Creating a federal mandate is pretty dramatic and likely would not get out of Congress.
Apologies if this has already been posted. Read it over coffee this morning and it was stronger than I expected. Great description of Hillary as a candidate out of time plus the comparison of Bernie to Cato the Elder is gold. Plus, the version of Trump's appeal laid out here is chilling. Too easy to think it is all just racism.
This was a good analysis. My support of Hillary is pragmatic in nature. 1. Mathematically, Bernie faces almost an impossible road. If he really loses FL by 30 points tomorrow, I don't see how it happens. 2. Bernie's plans are far too expensive for my tastes. I don't want a revolution. I want progress. We can't have a trillion in new spending and let the deficit go untouched. 3. Anyone but Trump
I think people are a little too hung up on this, you have to aim pretty high to hit the middle in this government...
But what's the middle? Isn't Obamacare already the middle? I don't want medicare, personally. I like that there's something available for those that don't have health through their company. But don't force me on it.
Obamacare should be the middle way, but it's pretty seriously flawed. If the government propvided health care isn't enough you will be able to supplement it with private coverage like in Canada. The major point is that with single payer we can actually address some of the reasons out healthcare is so vastly overpriced.
Apologies if this has already been posted. Read it over coffee this morning and it was stronger than I expected. Great description of Hillary as a candidate out of time plus the comparison of Bernie to Cato the Elder is gold. Plus, the version of Trump's appeal laid out here is chilling. Too easy to think it is all just racism.
This was a good analysis. My support of Hillary is pragmatic in nature. 1. Mathematically, Bernie faces almost an impossible road. If he really loses FL by 30 points tomorrow, I don't see how it happens. 2. Bernie's plans are far too expensive for my tastes. I don't want a revolution. I want progress. We can't have a trillion in new spending and let the deficit go untouched. 3. Anyone but Trump
Look all over the world, what Bernie is proposing is hardly revolutionary.
Yes, but Europe is facing far more potent economic and employment crisis' than we are. I'm not sure we should strive to be Europe, in general. I would be okay with some progressive improvements. For example: 1. Reducing the student loan rates down to the discount rate. That seems like a no brainer. Although don't forget part of that interest rate goes to the servicing entity (I'm fairly certain). So there has to be some sort of vig in there to make it cost neutral. 2. Providing free community college (2 year degree). Now I actually think this should be done at the state level to start, not the federal. I'd like to see what it does to the quality of education, dropout rates (those are sunk costs since society doesn't get the benefit of the more educated person), cost of tuition, etc.
I would be opposed to something so dramatic being done at the federal level to start. Remember our schools are all state run and the model has, generally, worked. Creating a federal mandate is pretty dramatic and likely would not get out of Congress.
I guess I should have been more clear, I was thinking primarily about Canada and single payer health care.
But all your points are fair. I just don't agree about the use of the word revolutionary, it implies an almost impossibility. Would changing be hard, yes....but not so hard that it can't be done
Apologies if this has already been posted. Read it over coffee this morning and it was stronger than I expected. Great description of Hillary as a candidate out of time plus the comparison of Bernie to Cato the Elder is gold. Plus, the version of Trump's appeal laid out here is chilling. Too easy to think it is all just racism.
This was a good analysis. My support of Hillary is pragmatic in nature. 1. Mathematically, Bernie faces almost an impossible road. If he really loses FL by 30 points tomorrow, I don't see how it happens. 2. Bernie's plans are far too expensive for my tastes. I don't want a revolution. I want progress. We can't have a trillion in new spending and let the deficit go untouched. 3. Anyone but Trump
Look all over the world, what Bernie is proposing is hardly revolutionary.
Yes, but Europe is facing far more potent economic and employment crisis' than we are. I'm not sure we should strive to be Europe, in general. I would be okay with some progressive improvements. For example: 1. Reducing the student loan rates down to the discount rate. That seems like a no brainer. Although don't forget part of that interest rate goes to the servicing entity (I'm fairly certain). So there has to be some sort of vig in there to make it cost neutral. 2. Providing free community college (2 year degree). Now I actually think this should be done at the state level to start, not the federal. I'd like to see what it does to the quality of education, dropout rates (those are sunk costs since society doesn't get the benefit of the more educated person), cost of tuition, etc.
I would be opposed to something so dramatic being done at the federal level to start. Remember our schools are all state run and the model has, generally, worked. Creating a federal mandate is pretty dramatic and likely would not get out of Congress.
I guess I should have been more clear, I was thinking primarily about Canada and single payer health care.
But all your points are fair. I just don't agree about the use of the word revolutionary, it implies an almost impossibility. Would changing be hard, yes....but not so hard that it can't be done
Fair. I was thinking about the litany of proposals on his website and how he plans to pay for them. Payroll taxes, trade taxes (which he calls speculation, although I wouldn't classify stock trading as speculation), and a dramatic increase in the marginal income tax for upper middle class. It's a tough sell nationwide, I gotta tell you.
Regarding the single payer, I could get behind it eventually, but I'd like to evaluate the results of Obamacare first. The political reality is that Obama spent a TON of progressive capital on that issue and approval on it is barely 50/50. Of course part of that negative 50 could be people who want single payer. But the chances of a single payer getting through during the next four years are really nil. We need the dust to settle to make the next move. My 2 cents.
Apologies if this has already been posted. Read it over coffee this morning and it was stronger than I expected. Great description of Hillary as a candidate out of time plus the comparison of Bernie to Cato the Elder is gold. Plus, the version of Trump's appeal laid out here is chilling. Too easy to think it is all just racism.
This was a good analysis. My support of Hillary is pragmatic in nature. 1. Mathematically, Bernie faces almost an impossible road. If he really loses FL by 30 points tomorrow, I don't see how it happens. 2. Bernie's plans are far too expensive for my tastes. I don't want a revolution. I want progress. We can't have a trillion in new spending and let the deficit go untouched. 3. Anyone but Trump
Look all over the world, what Bernie is proposing is hardly revolutionary.
Yes, but Europe is facing far more potent economic and employment crisis' than we are. I'm not sure we should strive to be Europe, in general. I would be okay with some progressive improvements. For example: 1. Reducing the student loan rates down to the discount rate. That seems like a no brainer. Although don't forget part of that interest rate goes to the servicing entity (I'm fairly certain). So there has to be some sort of vig in there to make it cost neutral. 2. Providing free community college (2 year degree). Now I actually think this should be done at the state level to start, not the federal. I'd like to see what it does to the quality of education, dropout rates (those are sunk costs since society doesn't get the benefit of the more educated person), cost of tuition, etc.
I would be opposed to something so dramatic being done at the federal level to start. Remember our schools are all state run and the model has, generally, worked. Creating a federal mandate is pretty dramatic and likely would not get out of Congress.
I guess I should have been more clear, I was thinking primarily about Canada and single payer health care.
But all your points are fair. I just don't agree about the use of the word revolutionary, it implies an almost impossibility. Would changing be hard, yes....but not so hard that it can't be done
Fair. I was thinking about the litany of proposals on his website and how he plans to pay for them. Payroll taxes, trade taxes (which he calls speculation, although I wouldn't classify stock trading as speculation), and a dramatic increase in the marginal income tax for upper middle class. It's a tough sell nationwide, I gotta tell you.
Regarding the single payer, I could get behind it eventually, but I'd like to evaluate the results of Obamacare first. The political reality is that Obama spent a TON of progressive capital on that issue and approval on it is barely 50/50. Of course part of that negative 50 could be people who want single payer. But the chances of a single payer getting through during the next four years are really nil. We need the dust to settle to make the next move. My 2 cents.
Your caution and criticism is fair. It is refreshing to have someone in the race who isn't playing it conservative and swinging for the fence. (minus Trump of course)
And your assessment on getting single payer through is unfortunately probably right. Unless of course the unthinkable happens and Bernie wins.....and gets a super majority. Which at this point I believe anything is possible in this election cycle.
Apologies if this has already been posted. Read it over coffee this morning and it was stronger than I expected. Great description of Hillary as a candidate out of time plus the comparison of Bernie to Cato the Elder is gold. Plus, the version of Trump's appeal laid out here is chilling. Too easy to think it is all just racism.
This was a good analysis. My support of Hillary is pragmatic in nature. 1. Mathematically, Bernie faces almost an impossible road. If he really loses FL by 30 points tomorrow, I don't see how it happens. 2. Bernie's plans are far too expensive for my tastes. I don't want a revolution. I want progress. We can't have a trillion in new spending and let the deficit go untouched. 3. Anyone but Trump
Look all over the world, what Bernie is proposing is hardly revolutionary.
Yes, but Europe is facing far more potent economic and employment crisis' than we are. I'm not sure we should strive to be Europe, in general. I would be okay with some progressive improvements. For example: 1. Reducing the student loan rates down to the discount rate. That seems like a no brainer. Although don't forget part of that interest rate goes to the servicing entity (I'm fairly certain). So there has to be some sort of vig in there to make it cost neutral. 2. Providing free community college (2 year degree). Now I actually think this should be done at the state level to start, not the federal. I'd like to see what it does to the quality of education, dropout rates (those are sunk costs since society doesn't get the benefit of the more educated person), cost of tuition, etc.
I would be opposed to something so dramatic being done at the federal level to start. Remember our schools are all state run and the model has, generally, worked. Creating a federal mandate is pretty dramatic and likely would not get out of Congress.
I guess I should have been more clear, I was thinking primarily about Canada and single payer health care.
But all your points are fair. I just don't agree about the use of the word revolutionary, it implies an almost impossibility. Would changing be hard, yes....but not so hard that it can't be done
Fair. I was thinking about the litany of proposals on his website and how he plans to pay for them. Payroll taxes, trade taxes (which he calls speculation, although I wouldn't classify stock trading as speculation), and a dramatic increase in the marginal income tax for upper middle class. It's a tough sell nationwide, I gotta tell you.
Regarding the single payer, I could get behind it eventually, but I'd like to evaluate the results of Obamacare first. The political reality is that Obama spent a TON of progressive capital on that issue and approval on it is barely 50/50. Of course part of that negative 50 could be people who want single payer. But the chances of a single payer getting through during the next four years are really nil. We need the dust to settle to make the next move. My 2 cents.
Your caution and criticism is fair. It is refreshing to have someone in the race who isn't playing it conservative and swinging for the fence. (minus Trump of course)
And your assessment on getting single payer through is unfortunately probably right. Unless of course the unthinkable happens and Bernie wins.....and gets a super majority. Which at this point I believe anything is possible in this election cycle.
Well hell.. a Bernie win + a super majority would mean we are Sweden by next April. The Great Experiment will be well on its way.
Apologies if this has already been posted. Read it over coffee this morning and it was stronger than I expected. Great description of Hillary as a candidate out of time plus the comparison of Bernie to Cato the Elder is gold. Plus, the version of Trump's appeal laid out here is chilling. Too easy to think it is all just racism.
This was a good analysis. My support of Hillary is pragmatic in nature. 1. Mathematically, Bernie faces almost an impossible road. If he really loses FL by 30 points tomorrow, I don't see how it happens. 2. Bernie's plans are far too expensive for my tastes. I don't want a revolution. I want progress. We can't have a trillion in new spending and let the deficit go untouched. 3. Anyone but Trump
Look all over the world, what Bernie is proposing is hardly revolutionary.
Yes, but Europe is facing far more potent economic and employment crisis' than we are. I'm not sure we should strive to be Europe, in general. I would be okay with some progressive improvements. For example: 1. Reducing the student loan rates down to the discount rate. That seems like a no brainer. Although don't forget part of that interest rate goes to the servicing entity (I'm fairly certain). So there has to be some sort of vig in there to make it cost neutral. 2. Providing free community college (2 year degree). Now I actually think this should be done at the state level to start, not the federal. I'd like to see what it does to the quality of education, dropout rates (those are sunk costs since society doesn't get the benefit of the more educated person), cost of tuition, etc.
I would be opposed to something so dramatic being done at the federal level to start. Remember our schools are all state run and the model has, generally, worked. Creating a federal mandate is pretty dramatic and likely would not get out of Congress.
I guess I should have been more clear, I was thinking primarily about Canada and single payer health care.
But all your points are fair. I just don't agree about the use of the word revolutionary, it implies an almost impossibility. Would changing be hard, yes....but not so hard that it can't be done
Fair. I was thinking about the litany of proposals on his website and how he plans to pay for them. Payroll taxes, trade taxes (which he calls speculation, although I wouldn't classify stock trading as speculation), and a dramatic increase in the marginal income tax for upper middle class. It's a tough sell nationwide, I gotta tell you.
Regarding the single payer, I could get behind it eventually, but I'd like to evaluate the results of Obamacare first. The political reality is that Obama spent a TON of progressive capital on that issue and approval on it is barely 50/50. Of course part of that negative 50 could be people who want single payer. But the chances of a single payer getting through during the next four years are really nil. We need the dust to settle to make the next move. My 2 cents.
Your caution and criticism is fair. It is refreshing to have someone in the race who isn't playing it conservative and swinging for the fence. (minus Trump of course)
And your assessment on getting single payer through is unfortunately probably right. Unless of course the unthinkable happens and Bernie wins.....and gets a super majority. Which at this point I believe anything is possible in this election cycle.
Well hell.. a Bernie win + a super majority would mean we are Sweden by next April. The Great Experiment will be well on its way.
Apologies if this has already been posted. Read it over coffee this morning and it was stronger than I expected. Great description of Hillary as a candidate out of time plus the comparison of Bernie to Cato the Elder is gold. Plus, the version of Trump's appeal laid out here is chilling. Too easy to think it is all just racism.
This was a good analysis. My support of Hillary is pragmatic in nature. 1. Mathematically, Bernie faces almost an impossible road. If he really loses FL by 30 points tomorrow, I don't see how it happens. 2. Bernie's plans are far too expensive for my tastes. I don't want a revolution. I want progress. We can't have a trillion in new spending and let the deficit go untouched. 3. Anyone but Trump
Look all over the world, what Bernie is proposing is hardly revolutionary.
Yes, but Europe is facing far more potent economic and employment crisis' than we are. I'm not sure we should strive to be Europe, in general. I would be okay with some progressive improvements. For example: 1. Reducing the student loan rates down to the discount rate. That seems like a no brainer. Although don't forget part of that interest rate goes to the servicing entity (I'm fairly certain). So there has to be some sort of vig in there to make it cost neutral. 2. Providing free community college (2 year degree). Now I actually think this should be done at the state level to start, not the federal. I'd like to see what it does to the quality of education, dropout rates (those are sunk costs since society doesn't get the benefit of the more educated person), cost of tuition, etc.
I would be opposed to something so dramatic being done at the federal level to start. Remember our schools are all state run and the model has, generally, worked. Creating a federal mandate is pretty dramatic and likely would not get out of Congress.
What about Canada? We're managing okay too.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Apologies if this has already been posted. Read it over coffee this morning and it was stronger than I expected. Great description of Hillary as a candidate out of time plus the comparison of Bernie to Cato the Elder is gold. Plus, the version of Trump's appeal laid out here is chilling. Too easy to think it is all just racism.
This was a good analysis. My support of Hillary is pragmatic in nature. 1. Mathematically, Bernie faces almost an impossible road. If he really loses FL by 30 points tomorrow, I don't see how it happens. 2. Bernie's plans are far too expensive for my tastes. I don't want a revolution. I want progress. We can't have a trillion in new spending and let the deficit go untouched. 3. Anyone but Trump
Look all over the world, what Bernie is proposing is hardly revolutionary.
Yes, but Europe is facing far more potent economic and employment crisis' than we are. I'm not sure we should strive to be Europe, in general. I would be okay with some progressive improvements. For example: 1. Reducing the student loan rates down to the discount rate. That seems like a no brainer. Although don't forget part of that interest rate goes to the servicing entity (I'm fairly certain). So there has to be some sort of vig in there to make it cost neutral. 2. Providing free community college (2 year degree). Now I actually think this should be done at the state level to start, not the federal. I'd like to see what it does to the quality of education, dropout rates (those are sunk costs since society doesn't get the benefit of the more educated person), cost of tuition, etc.
I would be opposed to something so dramatic being done at the federal level to start. Remember our schools are all state run and the model has, generally, worked. Creating a federal mandate is pretty dramatic and likely would not get out of Congress.
What about Canada? We're managing okay too.
I don't know enough about Canada's economy to agree or disagree with that. But I'm pretty certain that you don't have free university. You also have a lower marginal income tax rate than what Bernie is proposing. He is talking 39% I believe, for households about 250K. If you are in a big city, that is not rich for a family.
Elizabeth Warren explains how as First Lady, Clinton sat with Warren and afterwards labored to have her husband, President Bill Clinton, veto the bill. President Clinton did so, and Hillary Clinton claimed credit for this action in her autobiography.
Then, a few years later when Hillary Clinton had just become a senator, the bankruptcy bill returned, causing Warren to opine that the bill was “like a vampire — it will not die.” This time, however, Hillary Clinton voted in favor of what was essentially the exact same bill she had lobbied against.
Warren contrasted Clinton’s time as First Lady with her newfound role as a senator, saying “As Senator Clinton, the pressures are very different.”
Warren summed up the situation succinctly at the end: “She has taken money from [the credit companies], and more to the point, she worries about them as a constituency.”
Apologies if this has already been posted. Read it over coffee this morning and it was stronger than I expected. Great description of Hillary as a candidate out of time plus the comparison of Bernie to Cato the Elder is gold. Plus, the version of Trump's appeal laid out here is chilling. Too easy to think it is all just racism.
This was a good analysis. My support of Hillary is pragmatic in nature. 1. Mathematically, Bernie faces almost an impossible road. If he really loses FL by 30 points tomorrow, I don't see how it happens. 2. Bernie's plans are far too expensive for my tastes. I don't want a revolution. I want progress. We can't have a trillion in new spending and let the deficit go untouched. 3. Anyone but Trump
Look all over the world, what Bernie is proposing is hardly revolutionary.
Yes, but Europe is facing far more potent economic and employment crisis' than we are. I'm not sure we should strive to be Europe, in general. I would be okay with some progressive improvements. For example: 1. Reducing the student loan rates down to the discount rate. That seems like a no brainer. Although don't forget part of that interest rate goes to the servicing entity (I'm fairly certain). So there has to be some sort of vig in there to make it cost neutral. 2. Providing free community college (2 year degree). Now I actually think this should be done at the state level to start, not the federal. I'd like to see what it does to the quality of education, dropout rates (those are sunk costs since society doesn't get the benefit of the more educated person), cost of tuition, etc.
I would be opposed to something so dramatic being done at the federal level to start. Remember our schools are all state run and the model has, generally, worked. Creating a federal mandate is pretty dramatic and likely would not get out of Congress.
What about Canada? We're managing okay too.
I don't know enough about Canada's economy to agree or disagree with that. But I'm pretty certain that you don't have free university. You also have a lower marginal income tax rate than what Bernie is proposing. He is talking 39% I believe, for households about 250K. If you are in a big city, that is not rich for a family.
Under Bernie my taxes would go up 8.1% and that is a good deal less than I pay in insurance premiums now. On top of the premiums the deductibles are over 6000 each so all usage comes out of pocket. That is what Bernie is hoping to do for the middle class, give us a fighting chance.
If people who have employer coverage don't think that effects their wage, they are crazy. It will take a little while, but wages should go up when employers don't have to shell out so much for coverage. Then again, the free market often fails us on issues like this, maybe the majority of employers will stash the surplus abroad.
Apologies if this has already been posted. Read it over coffee this morning and it was stronger than I expected. Great description of Hillary as a candidate out of time plus the comparison of Bernie to Cato the Elder is gold. Plus, the version of Trump's appeal laid out here is chilling. Too easy to think it is all just racism.
This was a good analysis. My support of Hillary is pragmatic in nature. 1. Mathematically, Bernie faces almost an impossible road. If he really loses FL by 30 points tomorrow, I don't see how it happens. 2. Bernie's plans are far too expensive for my tastes. I don't want a revolution. I want progress. We can't have a trillion in new spending and let the deficit go untouched. 3. Anyone but Trump
Look all over the world, what Bernie is proposing is hardly revolutionary.
Yes, but Europe is facing far more potent economic and employment crisis' than we are. I'm not sure we should strive to be Europe, in general. I would be okay with some progressive improvements. For example: 1. Reducing the student loan rates down to the discount rate. That seems like a no brainer. Although don't forget part of that interest rate goes to the servicing entity (I'm fairly certain). So there has to be some sort of vig in there to make it cost neutral. 2. Providing free community college (2 year degree). Now I actually think this should be done at the state level to start, not the federal. I'd like to see what it does to the quality of education, dropout rates (those are sunk costs since society doesn't get the benefit of the more educated person), cost of tuition, etc.
I would be opposed to something so dramatic being done at the federal level to start. Remember our schools are all state run and the model has, generally, worked. Creating a federal mandate is pretty dramatic and likely would not get out of Congress.
What about Canada? We're managing okay too.
I don't know enough about Canada's economy to agree or disagree with that. But I'm pretty certain that you don't have free university. You also have a lower marginal income tax rate than what Bernie is proposing. He is talking 39% I believe, for households about 250K. If you are in a big city, that is not rich for a family.
Under Bernie my taxes would go up 8.1% and that is a good deal less than I pay in insurance premiums now. On top of the premiums the deductibles are over 6000 each so all usage comes out of pocket. That is what Bernie is hoping to do for the middle class, give us a fighting chance.
If people who have employer coverage don't think that effects their wage, they are crazy. It will take a little while, but wages should go up when employers don't have to shell out so much for coverage. Then again, the free market often fails us on issues like this, maybe the majority of employers will stash the surplus abroad.
I'm not sure how you can know that. The plan that is detailed doesn't give specifics about co-pays, co-insurance and all the other nuances that come into managing a healthcare plan. It also isn't clear whether he will have to play with standard deductions which, if you are a homeowner, substantially reduces your effective tax rate.
Question: in the democratic circles was Rahm considered to be Hillary running mate?
Aren't you a Democrat?
Yeah true blue blindly pull democratic ticket every election.
Okay, so you pull the red one once in a while. Point is, my knowledge of inner circle discussions of VP is the same as yours. I have no clue. Although I did hear she was considering Rahm, Saul Alinsky, Jeremiah Wright, and Donald Rumsfeld.
Apologies if this has already been posted. Read it over coffee this morning and it was stronger than I expected. Great description of Hillary as a candidate out of time plus the comparison of Bernie to Cato the Elder is gold. Plus, the version of Trump's appeal laid out here is chilling. Too easy to think it is all just racism.
This was a good analysis. My support of Hillary is pragmatic in nature. 1. Mathematically, Bernie faces almost an impossible road. If he really loses FL by 30 points tomorrow, I don't see how it happens. 2. Bernie's plans are far too expensive for my tastes. I don't want a revolution. I want progress. We can't have a trillion in new spending and let the deficit go untouched. 3. Anyone but Trump
Look all over the world, what Bernie is proposing is hardly revolutionary.
Yes, but Europe is facing far more potent economic and employment crisis' than we are. I'm not sure we should strive to be Europe, in general. I would be okay with some progressive improvements. For example: 1. Reducing the student loan rates down to the discount rate. That seems like a no brainer. Although don't forget part of that interest rate goes to the servicing entity (I'm fairly certain). So there has to be some sort of vig in there to make it cost neutral. 2. Providing free community college (2 year degree). Now I actually think this should be done at the state level to start, not the federal. I'd like to see what it does to the quality of education, dropout rates (those are sunk costs since society doesn't get the benefit of the more educated person), cost of tuition, etc.
I would be opposed to something so dramatic being done at the federal level to start. Remember our schools are all state run and the model has, generally, worked. Creating a federal mandate is pretty dramatic and likely would not get out of Congress.
What about Canada? We're managing okay too.
I don't know enough about Canada's economy to agree or disagree with that. But I'm pretty certain that you don't have free university. You also have a lower marginal income tax rate than what Bernie is proposing. He is talking 39% I believe, for households about 250K. If you are in a big city, that is not rich for a family.
Under Bernie my taxes would go up 8.1% and that is a good deal less than I pay in insurance premiums now. On top of the premiums the deductibles are over 6000 each so all usage comes out of pocket. That is what Bernie is hoping to do for the middle class, give us a fighting chance.
If people who have employer coverage don't think that effects their wage, they are crazy. It will take a little while, but wages should go up when employers don't have to shell out so much for coverage. Then again, the free market often fails us on issues like this, maybe the majority of employers will stash the surplus abroad.
I'm not sure how you can know that. The plan that is detailed doesn't give specifics about co-pays, co-insurance and all the other nuances that come into managing a healthcare plan. It also isn't clear whether he will have to play with standard deductions which, if you are a homeowner, substantially reduces your effective tax rate.
Well, he hasn't been elected so knowing the exact actual tax rate isn't possible, but a ballpark is good enough. Tax increases, co-pays, co-insurance, and nuances aren't going to add up to that $15,000+ liability we have now. No way.
Apologies if this has already been posted. Read it over coffee this morning and it was stronger than I expected. Great description of Hillary as a candidate out of time plus the comparison of Bernie to Cato the Elder is gold. Plus, the version of Trump's appeal laid out here is chilling. Too easy to think it is all just racism.
This was a good analysis. My support of Hillary is pragmatic in nature. 1. Mathematically, Bernie faces almost an impossible road. If he really loses FL by 30 points tomorrow, I don't see how it happens. 2. Bernie's plans are far too expensive for my tastes. I don't want a revolution. I want progress. We can't have a trillion in new spending and let the deficit go untouched. 3. Anyone but Trump
Look all over the world, what Bernie is proposing is hardly revolutionary.
Yes, but Europe is facing far more potent economic and employment crisis' than we are. I'm not sure we should strive to be Europe, in general. I would be okay with some progressive improvements. For example: 1. Reducing the student loan rates down to the discount rate. That seems like a no brainer. Although don't forget part of that interest rate goes to the servicing entity (I'm fairly certain). So there has to be some sort of vig in there to make it cost neutral. 2. Providing free community college (2 year degree). Now I actually think this should be done at the state level to start, not the federal. I'd like to see what it does to the quality of education, dropout rates (those are sunk costs since society doesn't get the benefit of the more educated person), cost of tuition, etc.
I would be opposed to something so dramatic being done at the federal level to start. Remember our schools are all state run and the model has, generally, worked. Creating a federal mandate is pretty dramatic and likely would not get out of Congress.
What about Canada? We're managing okay too.
I don't know enough about Canada's economy to agree or disagree with that. But I'm pretty certain that you don't have free university. You also have a lower marginal income tax rate than what Bernie is proposing. He is talking 39% I believe, for households about 250K. If you are in a big city, that is not rich for a family.
Under Bernie my taxes would go up 8.1% and that is a good deal less than I pay in insurance premiums now. On top of the premiums the deductibles are over 6000 each so all usage comes out of pocket. That is what Bernie is hoping to do for the middle class, give us a fighting chance.
If people who have employer coverage don't think that effects their wage, they are crazy. It will take a little while, but wages should go up when employers don't have to shell out so much for coverage. Then again, the free market often fails us on issues like this, maybe the majority of employers will stash the surplus abroad.
I'm not sure how you can know that. The plan that is detailed doesn't give specifics about co-pays, co-insurance and all the other nuances that come into managing a healthcare plan. It also isn't clear whether he will have to play with standard deductions which, if you are a homeowner, substantially reduces your effective tax rate.
Well, he hasn't been elected so knowing the exact actual tax rate isn't possible, but a ballpark is good enough. Tax increases, co-pays, co-insurance, and nuances aren't going to add up to that $15,000+ liability we have now. No way.
My issues is that we are only in year 3? of full Obamacare. The next few years is when the cost curve is supposed to start bending down. I don't think Obama lied to me about that. So I'm not inclined to blow up our medical system when we haven't recognized the benefits of universal healthcare yet.
15k+? No one in my company has that liability and we are a mid size company, without the negotiating power of a GE, Verizon, etc. Our most expensive plan is 800 per month, + 3k out of pocket before everything becomes free. However, we give a $2k HSA type card to charge. So the out of pocket is really a grand.
Apologies if this has already been posted. Read it over coffee this morning and it was stronger than I expected. Great description of Hillary as a candidate out of time plus the comparison of Bernie to Cato the Elder is gold. Plus, the version of Trump's appeal laid out here is chilling. Too easy to think it is all just racism.
This was a good analysis. My support of Hillary is pragmatic in nature. 1. Mathematically, Bernie faces almost an impossible road. If he really loses FL by 30 points tomorrow, I don't see how it happens. 2. Bernie's plans are far too expensive for my tastes. I don't want a revolution. I want progress. We can't have a trillion in new spending and let the deficit go untouched. 3. Anyone but Trump
Look all over the world, what Bernie is proposing is hardly revolutionary.
Yes, but Europe is facing far more potent economic and employment crisis' than we are. I'm not sure we should strive to be Europe, in general. I would be okay with some progressive improvements. For example: 1. Reducing the student loan rates down to the discount rate. That seems like a no brainer. Although don't forget part of that interest rate goes to the servicing entity (I'm fairly certain). So there has to be some sort of vig in there to make it cost neutral. 2. Providing free community college (2 year degree). Now I actually think this should be done at the state level to start, not the federal. I'd like to see what it does to the quality of education, dropout rates (those are sunk costs since society doesn't get the benefit of the more educated person), cost of tuition, etc.
I would be opposed to something so dramatic being done at the federal level to start. Remember our schools are all state run and the model has, generally, worked. Creating a federal mandate is pretty dramatic and likely would not get out of Congress.
What about Canada? We're managing okay too.
I don't know enough about Canada's economy to agree or disagree with that. But I'm pretty certain that you don't have free university. You also have a lower marginal income tax rate than what Bernie is proposing. He is talking 39% I believe, for households about 250K. If you are in a big city, that is not rich for a family.
Under Bernie my taxes would go up 8.1% and that is a good deal less than I pay in insurance premiums now. On top of the premiums the deductibles are over 6000 each so all usage comes out of pocket. That is what Bernie is hoping to do for the middle class, give us a fighting chance.
If people who have employer coverage don't think that effects their wage, they are crazy. It will take a little while, but wages should go up when employers don't have to shell out so much for coverage. Then again, the free market often fails us on issues like this, maybe the majority of employers will stash the surplus abroad.
I'm not sure how you can know that. The plan that is detailed doesn't give specifics about co-pays, co-insurance and all the other nuances that come into managing a healthcare plan. It also isn't clear whether he will have to play with standard deductions which, if you are a homeowner, substantially reduces your effective tax rate.
Well, he hasn't been elected so knowing the exact actual tax rate isn't possible, but a ballpark is good enough. Tax increases, co-pays, co-insurance, and nuances aren't going to add up to that $15,000+ liability we have now. No way.
My issues is that we are only in year 3? of full Obamacare. The next few years is when the cost curve is supposed to start bending down. I don't think Obama lied to me about that. So I'm not inclined to blow up our medical system when we haven't recognized the benefits of universal healthcare yet.
15k+? No one in my company has that liability and we are a mid size company, without the negotiating power of a GE, Verizon, etc. Our most expensive plan is 800 per month, + 3k out of pocket before everything becomes free. However, we give a $2k HSA type card to charge. So the out of pocket is really a grand.
I'm not sure that the cost curve is going to bend down, the compromises required to get it through make it a boon for health insurance companies and in the long run that doesn't fix any of the problems we have. My wife is a private practice optometrist and we have always been on the open market for health insurance. It isn't much worse than it ever was for us, but I don't see it getting any better either.
Hillary Clinton on Monday defended the intervention in Libya that she championed as secretary of state, telling MSNBC's Chris Matthews that the United States "didn't lose a single person."
“Libya was a different kind of calculation. And we didn't lose a single person. We didn't have a problem in supporting our European and Arab allies in working with NATO,” the former secretary of state said during an MSNBC town hall on Monday night.
Clinton may have been referring strictly to the U.S.-backed overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, which indeed saw no loss of American lives and cost just around $1 billion. But her comments ignore the 2012 attacks at the U.S. mission and CIA outpost in Benghazi, which killed four people including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
Hillary Clinton on Monday defended the intervention in Libya that she championed as secretary of state, telling MSNBC's Chris Matthews that the United States "didn't lose a single person."
“Libya was a different kind of calculation. And we didn't lose a single person. We didn't have a problem in supporting our European and Arab allies in working with NATO,” the former secretary of state said during an MSNBC town hall on Monday night.
Clinton may have been referring strictly to the U.S.-backed overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, which indeed saw no loss of American lives and cost just around $1 billion. But her comments ignore the 2012 attacks at the U.S. mission and CIA outpost in Benghazi, which killed four people including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
Ousting Qaddafi was worth it, Clinton said.
Yes it was worth it, as anyone who challenges the world bank and the US dollar as world currency seems to end up dead.
Hillary Clinton on Monday defended the intervention in Libya that she championed as secretary of state, telling MSNBC's Chris Matthews that the United States "didn't lose a single person."
“Libya was a different kind of calculation. And we didn't lose a single person. We didn't have a problem in supporting our European and Arab allies in working with NATO,” the former secretary of state said during an MSNBC town hall on Monday night.
Clinton may have been referring strictly to the U.S.-backed overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, which indeed saw no loss of American lives and cost just around $1 billion. But her comments ignore the 2012 attacks at the U.S. mission and CIA outpost in Benghazi, which killed four people including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
Ousting Qaddafi was worth it, Clinton said.
Yes it was worth it, as anyone who challenges the world bank and the US dollar as world currency seems to end up dead.
Impeach Obama, the war criminal. It's his administration and the buck stops there.
Hillary Clinton on Monday defended the intervention in Libya that she championed as secretary of state, telling MSNBC's Chris Matthews that the United States "didn't lose a single person."
“Libya was a different kind of calculation. And we didn't lose a single person. We didn't have a problem in supporting our European and Arab allies in working with NATO,” the former secretary of state said during an MSNBC town hall on Monday night.
Clinton may have been referring strictly to the U.S.-backed overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, which indeed saw no loss of American lives and cost just around $1 billion. But her comments ignore the 2012 attacks at the U.S. mission and CIA outpost in Benghazi, which killed four people including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
Ousting Qaddafi was worth it, Clinton said.
Yes it was worth it, as anyone who challenges the world bank and the US dollar as world currency seems to end up dead.
Impeach Obama, the war criminal. It's his administration and the buck stops there.
Who killed saddam? I forget which one W or O? Can't really tell them apart without looking at them.
Apologies if this has already been posted. Read it over coffee this morning and it was stronger than I expected. Great description of Hillary as a candidate out of time plus the comparison of Bernie to Cato the Elder is gold. Plus, the version of Trump's appeal laid out here is chilling. Too easy to think it is all just racism.
This was a good analysis. My support of Hillary is pragmatic in nature. 1. Mathematically, Bernie faces almost an impossible road. If he really loses FL by 30 points tomorrow, I don't see how it happens. 2. Bernie's plans are far too expensive for my tastes. I don't want a revolution. I want progress. We can't have a trillion in new spending and let the deficit go untouched. 3. Anyone but Trump
Look all over the world, what Bernie is proposing is hardly revolutionary.
Yes, but Europe is facing far more potent economic and employment crisis' than we are. I'm not sure we should strive to be Europe, in general. I would be okay with some progressive improvements. For example: 1. Reducing the student loan rates down to the discount rate. That seems like a no brainer. Although don't forget part of that interest rate goes to the servicing entity (I'm fairly certain). So there has to be some sort of vig in there to make it cost neutral. 2. Providing free community college (2 year degree). Now I actually think this should be done at the state level to start, not the federal. I'd like to see what it does to the quality of education, dropout rates (those are sunk costs since society doesn't get the benefit of the more educated person), cost of tuition, etc.
I would be opposed to something so dramatic being done at the federal level to start. Remember our schools are all state run and the model has, generally, worked. Creating a federal mandate is pretty dramatic and likely would not get out of Congress.
What about Canada? We're managing okay too.
I don't know enough about Canada's economy to agree or disagree with that. But I'm pretty certain that you don't have free university. You also have a lower marginal income tax rate than what Bernie is proposing. He is talking 39% I believe, for households about 250K. If you are in a big city, that is not rich for a family.
No, not free university, but much, much cheaper for quality, and none of this "universities for the rich" like in the US. I didn't mean to say we're exactly like what Bernie proposes, just that we lean to the socialistic side of things in some important ways and manage it successfully, so I don't see why the US couldn't do the same. But I'm not sure why you think 39% of 250K is that much. FYI, Canadians pay, on average, about 44% of their income on taxes (all taxes put together), and once you're earning around $150,000 you're up to around 38% for income tax (this varies somewhat from province to province, as it includes both federal and provincial income tax). So what Bernie is proposing seems completely normal to Canadians.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Apologies if this has already been posted. Read it over coffee this morning and it was stronger than I expected. Great description of Hillary as a candidate out of time plus the comparison of Bernie to Cato the Elder is gold. Plus, the version of Trump's appeal laid out here is chilling. Too easy to think it is all just racism.
This was a good analysis. My support of Hillary is pragmatic in nature. 1. Mathematically, Bernie faces almost an impossible road. If he really loses FL by 30 points tomorrow, I don't see how it happens. 2. Bernie's plans are far too expensive for my tastes. I don't want a revolution. I want progress. We can't have a trillion in new spending and let the deficit go untouched. 3. Anyone but Trump
Look all over the world, what Bernie is proposing is hardly revolutionary.
Yes, but Europe is facing far more potent economic and employment crisis' than we are. I'm not sure we should strive to be Europe, in general. I would be okay with some progressive improvements. For example: 1. Reducing the student loan rates down to the discount rate. That seems like a no brainer. Although don't forget part of that interest rate goes to the servicing entity (I'm fairly certain). So there has to be some sort of vig in there to make it cost neutral. 2. Providing free community college (2 year degree). Now I actually think this should be done at the state level to start, not the federal. I'd like to see what it does to the quality of education, dropout rates (those are sunk costs since society doesn't get the benefit of the more educated person), cost of tuition, etc.
I would be opposed to something so dramatic being done at the federal level to start. Remember our schools are all state run and the model has, generally, worked. Creating a federal mandate is pretty dramatic and likely would not get out of Congress.
What about Canada? We're managing okay too.
I don't know enough about Canada's economy to agree or disagree with that. But I'm pretty certain that you don't have free university. You also have a lower marginal income tax rate than what Bernie is proposing. He is talking 39% I believe, for households about 250K. If you are in a big city, that is not rich for a family.
No, not free university, but much, much cheaper for quality, and none of this "universities for the rich" like in the US. I didn't mean to say we're exactly like what Bernie proposes, just that we lean to the socialistic side of things in some important ways and manage it successfully, so I don't see why the US couldn't do the same. But I'm not sure why you think 39% of 250K is that much. FYI, Canadians pay, on average, about 44% of their income on taxes (all taxes put together), and once you're earning around $150,000 you're up to around 38% for income tax (this varies somewhat from province to province, as it includes both federal and provincial income tax). So what Bernie is proposing seems completely normal to Canadians.
So you bring up a good point that bothers the shit out of me... "universities for the rich". Well those are private universities. Elizabeth Warren rails day and night against 'greedy banks'. What about the greedy university she has worked for? Where is that righteous indignation? They have a 37 BILLION dollar endowment, yet they have to charge students 65K a year for tuition? Aren't they complicit with saddling students with debt? What a fucking joke.
Comments
1. Reducing the student loan rates down to the discount rate. That seems like a no brainer. Although don't forget part of that interest rate goes to the servicing entity (I'm fairly certain). So there has to be some sort of vig in there to make it cost neutral.
2. Providing free community college (2 year degree). Now I actually think this should be done at the state level to start, not the federal. I'd like to see what it does to the quality of education, dropout rates (those are sunk costs since society doesn't get the benefit of the more educated person), cost of tuition, etc.
I would be opposed to something so dramatic being done at the federal level to start. Remember our schools are all state run and the model has, generally, worked. Creating a federal mandate is pretty dramatic and likely would not get out of Congress.
If the government propvided health care isn't enough you will be able to supplement it with private coverage like in Canada. The major point is that with single payer we can actually address some of the reasons out healthcare is so vastly overpriced.
But all your points are fair. I just don't agree about the use of the word revolutionary, it implies an almost impossibility. Would changing be hard, yes....but not so hard that it can't be done
Regarding the single payer, I could get behind it eventually, but I'd like to evaluate the results of Obamacare first. The political reality is that Obama spent a TON of progressive capital on that issue and approval on it is barely 50/50. Of course part of that negative 50 could be people who want single payer. But the chances of a single payer getting through during the next four years are really nil. We need the dust to settle to make the next move. My 2 cents.
And your assessment on getting single payer through is unfortunately probably right. Unless of course the unthinkable happens and Bernie wins.....and gets a super majority. Which at this point I believe anything is possible in this election cycle.
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/13/hillary-clinton-has-long-history-of-collaboration-with-gop-on-foreign-policy/
http://usuncut.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-tells-how-wall-street-changed-hillary-clinton/
Then, a few years later when Hillary Clinton had just become a senator, the bankruptcy bill returned, causing Warren to opine that the bill was “like a vampire — it will not die.” This time, however, Hillary Clinton voted in favor of what was essentially the exact same bill she had lobbied against.
Warren contrasted Clinton’s time as First Lady with her newfound role as a senator, saying “As Senator Clinton, the pressures are very different.”
Warren summed up the situation succinctly at the end: “She has taken money from [the credit companies], and more to the point, she worries about them as a constituency.”
If people who have employer coverage don't think that effects their wage, they are crazy. It will take a little while, but wages should go up when employers don't have to shell out so much for coverage.
Then again, the free market often fails us on issues like this, maybe the majority of employers will stash the surplus abroad.
15k+? No one in my company has that liability and we are a mid size company, without the negotiating power of a GE, Verizon, etc. Our most expensive plan is 800 per month, + 3k out of pocket before everything becomes free. However, we give a $2k HSA type card to charge. So the out of pocket is really a grand.
My wife is a private practice optometrist and we have always been on the open market for health insurance. It isn't much worse than it ever was for us, but I don't see it getting any better either.
Monday: Claim we didn't lose a single person in Libya
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/hillary-clinton-libya-deaths-220762
Hillary Clinton on Monday defended the intervention in Libya that she championed as secretary of state, telling MSNBC's Chris Matthews that the United States "didn't lose a single person."
“Libya was a different kind of calculation. And we didn't lose a single person. We didn't have a problem in supporting our European and Arab allies in working with NATO,” the former secretary of state said during an MSNBC town hall on Monday night.
Clinton may have been referring strictly to the U.S.-backed overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, which indeed saw no loss of American lives and cost just around $1 billion. But her comments ignore the 2012 attacks at the U.S. mission and CIA outpost in Benghazi, which killed four people including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
Ousting Qaddafi was worth it, Clinton said.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."