Politics 2020 Debate part 2

You're not trying to win party votes. You're trying to win undecided.
Attacking Obama's record is fine.
Pretending like he was perfect is trying to give the country 8 years. Instead of 4.

 

Gladly.

It's the same smarmy argument the right has about Social Security. Those that have the means shouldn't get it.

See, I believe John McCain, regardless of how much money he earned privately, deserved every bit of the $58K he got annually from Social Security. He paid into the program.

On it's face, the argument almost seems logical. But really it's attempting to change an insurance program into a welfare program. We all know what happens to welfare programs, they get cut.

UBI isn't a welfare program. Saying who deserves it based upon income makes it welfare.

 

I love watching the Democrats promise what they will do. The health care promises are especially interesting. Obama in his lame attempt to create health care utopia. took the employer provide health care away from perhaps 20 million retirees. Not many were pleased to say the least.

Now the dems are going for broke, take away the health care of all Americans that get health care provided by their employer. Prior to Obama care, the percentage of people that get heath care with their employment was about 67% of the total population. That fell to around 56% of the population during the Obama care years. It is now nearly back up to 60% of the total population, or perhaps 200 million people when you consider the dependents.

I just can't imagine voters that have health care through their job voting for one of these dudes that promises to take that benefit away and replace it with some thing unknown or something known like medicare. Medicare is so bad , you really need other insurance to actually have something. Then there is the reality that no doctor can survive with 100% medicare patients, because the payments do not cover cost, forget about providing income.

Taking the employers out of the healthcare picture does not save any insurance company profits, as most are self insured.
This is a mathematical loser for everyone and quality health care loser for the working people. Both the workers and the Company owners will see this as a downer. All of these candidates promise the employers health care costs to be replace with much higher taxes to cover the costs of healthcare for more people beyond their own employees.
Who the hell will support this? I love the attempt. MAGA!

 

Normally I would agree. Not this time around.

 

Over my years of voting, nearly 50, Ive never voted a straight party line ticket like so many have over the years, and thats really ok. Was a born & bred a democrat and mostly voted that way and then I voted republican for some years, and currently am an independent as I will not jump on any one band wagon anymore as the parties are both to one way or the highway.
I agree with both winning the base and the undecided's. I would guess that most mid west, se and southern dem's are undecided at this point but it's still early, but a good percentage will, imo, embrace a more moderate/centrist candidate as the only way too win back the wh. Union Dems in the area's I mentioned will not embrace a democratic socialist candidate at this point in time. So, Joe imo has the percentages in his favor.

 

I'll read it closer. It's a start I'll say that.

 

Don't normally do two dinner parties in a week but tonight was planned long before debate schedule. (Im)peach galette

 

Politics suck!

Fuck all the Candidates!

 

The idea that anybody would select any one of these clowns to be the leader of the free world is mind-boggling.

My favorite moment was Warren completely losing her sanity and decorum, hopping up and down, sputtering drool from her mouth while Delany pointed out the simple math that proved her ideas would actually bankrupt the country, in the unlikely event she could ever get them enacted.

I wonder how she'd represent America if Putin mocked her a bit?

And Sanders seems to hate the entire world, hanging on the edge of having a stroke every time he "speaks".

Tulsi and Biden absolutely eliminated Harris from serious contention, but Tulsi's homophobia and China Joe's bribes and senility will eliminate them.

2020 is more than secure for Trump, it's guaranteed.

 

How did that work for Hillary once the general rolled around?
Oh right she lost to Trump.

Wait. That's because she was a woman and a man would've beat Trump with the exact same strategy right?

 

Pete is probably tied for first place along with two or three others in my book. In fact, I'd say he holds a very slight lead at this point in my opinion.

 

Lanny, do you see him as really, having a chance to win the dem nomination?
He seems like a decent and very smart person, Im just notb sure most dems would see him winning the WH?

 

The End of The American Dream of Home Ownership
The Deep State has been using healthcare as a weapon to bankrupt the middle class and has been the leading cause of repossessions of homes since 2010. The big banks have become big landlords through thousands of shell companies renting homes. But Trump's economy has nearly stopped them in their tracks. People are buying homes again, especially minorities who were formerly unemployed.

The Deep State's Hail Mary is socialized medicine. Everything they control they do so through the government or the media. This is huge for them and they will do whatever it takes including starting a race war to prevent Trump's re-election.

But are there really enough Ameerican citizens of voting age that are stupid enough to fall for it?

Justin Haskins: How much would 'Medicare-for-all' REALLY cost the middle class? The answer is shocking

By Justin Haskins | Fox News
2020 Democrats are 'losing everybody' with their unpopular policies, Sen. Rick Scott says

During the most recent round of Democratic presidential debates, nearly all the leading candidates reiterated their commitment to transition the U.S. health insurance industry to a "Medicare-for-All," government-run model. Some promised to do it more quickly than others, but in the end, the result would be the same: the federal government would control health care within a decade.

Single-payer health care systems are plagued by countless problems that should make them an unattractive option for lawmakers—including rationing, service shortages, and bureaucratic inefficiencies. But perhaps the question most important to many 2020 voters, especially those with full-time jobs, will be how Democrats plan to pay for a gargantuan government takeover of health care, one that would include paying for nearly all health care services, reproductive care, and even pharmaceuticals.

Many of the leading presidential candidates—from Bernie Sanders and Cory Booker to Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren—have repeatedly and adamantly denied their single-payer plans will raise health care costs for the middle class. In fact, they have promised it will save middle-income earners thousands of dollars.

However, my new analysis of the costs of single-payer health care, which is based on well-established existing studies from think tanks on both sides of the aisle, shows that tens of millions of American families would end up paying significantly more for health care under a model similar to the "Medicare-for-All" plan proposed by Sanders and endorsed or slightly modified by most of the other leading presidential candidates.

My analysis is straightforward. Using IRS data, I calculated how much in additional taxes each IRS income bracket would need to pay to cover the costs of "Medicare-for-all" in 2022, the first year of full implementation under the legislation previously proposed by Sanders. I assumed Democrats would require tax filers to cover roughly the same proportion of the costs for "Medicare-for-All" as they paid for total federal income tax revenues prior to the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. I also assumed businesses would pay $400 billion in new taxes in the first year of implementation, a figure that’s in line with Sanders’ own estimates.

If "Medicare-for-All"’s total cost for the first 10 years is in line with projections produced by the American Action Forum, Mercatus Center, and Urban Institute—roughly $32 trillion to $38 trillion—I estimate 40 million to 60 million households would end up paying more in new taxes than they would receive in health care benefits. Millions of these households would lose more than $10,000 annually, even if it is assumed they would otherwise need to pay a full health insurance deductible and some out-of-pocket expenses under a private health insurance model.

Contrary to the claims made by the leading Democratic candidates, millions of middle-class earners would be hit particularly hard under "Medicare-for-All." For example, filers earning $50,000 to $75,000 would likely need to pay on average $7,773 to $9,171 more in new taxes. Those families earning $75,000 to $100,000 would pay $12,612 to $14,880 more. Most households with more than $100,000 income would pay close to or more than $20,000 in additional taxes.

In many cases, these costs far outweigh the projected average employee contribution for employer-provided health insurance—about $1,965 for individuals and $6,752 for families.

Although some proposals would offset these costs by imposing wealth taxes and additional business taxes not included in my analysis, I found that these would have a relatively small effect on the tax burden imposed on individuals and families. The wealthy and businesses simply do not have enough money to cover the massive costs of single-payer health care.

To illustrate this reality, consider the following: Even if the federal government were to confiscate every penny belonging to every single one of the richest 400 Americans—including billionaires like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos—it would only amount to less than $3 trillion, which is less than 10 percent of the cost of single-payer health care in the first 10 years alone, even under the most optimistic scenarios.

"Medicare-for-All" wouldn’t only create significant problems for the health care industry, it would financially decimate millions of middle-class households, many of whom already have access to health insurance plans they like.

So, why would Democrats support such a disastrous policy? The answer should be obvious to anyone who has been paying close attention to the Left’s array of recent radical policy proposals: because they are primarily concerned with increasing the power of the elites in Washington, D.C., not providing people with affordable health care.

 

Stephen Helfer, a former library assistant at Harvard Law School, in a letter to the Cambridge Wicked Local, asserted that Warren failed to support library staff who faced layoffs in 2009[9]:

Cambridge —Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren says she is a “fighter” for moderate-income Americans (“Warren wins U.S. Senate seat,” CambridgeChronicle, Nov. 8). When given the opportunity to stand up for low-income employees at Harvard three years ago, however, where she has been a tenured professor for almost 20 years, Warren did nothing of the sort.

In 2009, at the depth of the recession, Harvard’s endowment, because of its high-risk investing, decreased 30 percent. The university proclaimed it needed to cut costs and warned low-paid staff of layoffs. Many on campus asked the administration to follow the example of institutions like Beth Israel hospital and request faculty and other high earners to take pay reductions as a means to save jobs.

Several employees at Harvard Law School circulated a petition asking all law school members, who could, to make such a sacrifice. Warren and her husband (also a Harvard Law professor) have combined yearly incomes in the $1 million range and she earned another $200,000 for work she called “part-time” in Washington. During this uneasy period when across campus staff feared for their livelihoods, Warren remained silent.

Harvard president Drew Faust — whose own salary is close to $1 million — and university administrators ignored requests for pay reductions. Ultimately 275 lower-income employees lost their jobs and many more were persuaded to retire. Harvard professors, ever fond of inveighing against “corporate greed” and voicing slogans like “shared sacrifice,” suffered no inconvenience.

Warren now vows to go to Washington to fight for the middle class. But, like so many academics, she is more adept at feathering her own nest than truly helping Americans in need.

–Stephen Helfer, Crawford Street

Helfer served as a library assistant at Harvard Law School for 22 years and retired in 2009.