Hillary won more votes for President

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

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.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/hillary-clinton-2016-whats-wrong-with-hillary-213722

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.

rgambs said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

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.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/hillary-clinton-2016-whats-wrong-with-hillary-213722

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.

mrussel1 said:

rgambs said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

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.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/hillary-clinton-2016-whats-wrong-with-hillary-213722

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.

mrussel1 said:

rgambs said:

mrussel1 said:

rgambs said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

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.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/hillary-clinton-2016-whats-wrong-with-hillary-213722

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.

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

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.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/hillary-clinton-2016-whats-wrong-with-hillary-213722

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.