Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[TradeTheBeal!]

 

7 minutes ago, Larry said:

You know, it's amazing that the CIA hasn't just assassinated him.  

 

Amazing.

 

^] In December 2015, during an all-expenses paid trip to Moscow, Blumenthal attended RT's 10 Years On Air anniversary party attended by President Vladimir Putin, then-Lieutenant General Michael Flynn of the United States and English politician Ken Livingstone.

 

 

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

If Biden isn't spending on super Tuesday, what will he spend on?  Or is he out of money?

 

Like @tshile noted, B.

[bearrock]

20 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

That is what happens when you are looking outside of your own personal interests sometimes. I am sure they have family, friends, others who are struggling with the healthcare issue and see M4A as a the best way forward.  This isn't me necessarily agreeing, but what I am noticing is a lot of the "me-first" views are not working the same way they used to even in situations where the individuals voting might be in a decent situation for themselves at that given time.

 

I'm not sure the average voter understands what Bernie's proposal is.  Whoever came up with medicare for all deserves a raise (and our scorn for deceptive advertisement).

[NoCalMike]

2 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

I'm not sure the average voter understands what Bernie's proposal is.  Whoever came up with medicare for all deserves a raise (and our scorn for deceptive advertisement).

 

The average voter doesn't even understand capitalism vs. socialism vs the mixed system America uses either.

 

 

[bearrock]

14 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

The average voter doesn't even understand capitalism vs. socialism vs the mixed system America uses either.

 

 

 

And when they hear all the (valid/invalid, true/untrue) criticisms of the Sanders' plans during the general, will they stick with him?  I guess I'm somewhat baffled at Sanders' viability in the general given that the American public as a whole has generally not shown an appetite for extremely progressive agenda in the past (otherwise we would have more progressive policies in place already).  Has so much changed in the last 4 years?  Or has the voice just become more vocal within the Democratic party?

[NoCalMike]

4 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

And when they hear all the (valid/invalid, true/untrue) criticisms of the Sanders' plans during the general, will they stick with him? 

 

Well I think most general elections show they aren't won based on detailed policy. I think ideas win out over policy most of the time. Trump offered little to nothing on actual policy during the debates, but his ideas rallied the base.

 

With Bernie, when it comes to the healthcare issue itself, I think the idea that "healthcare should be a right not a privilege for those who can afford it" is the idea that people go with, and when it becomes a debate about policy, eyes start to glaze over, but the core idea itself still polls well. 

 

I also disagree that people have not shown an appetite for progressive policies.  To the contrary, a lot of progressive ideas poll favorably until you start using terms like "Gov't run" or "Socialism" or "taxes"  And that is where the low information average voter thing comes into play.  

[Llevron]

9 minutes ago, bearrock said:

I guess I'm somewhat baffled at Sanders' viability in the general given that the American public as a whole has generally not shown an appetite for extremely progressive agenda in the past (otherwise we would have made more progressive policies in place already).  Has so much changed in the last 4 years?  Or has the voice just become more vocal within the Democratic party?

 

Honestly I think a lot of this is due to Trump activating people. Just my small circle but I know a lot more young people paying attention even if it’s just superficially because they are appalled by him in particular. That and I think the more aware people become of others the more the slide left. I don’t mean that as a negative for anyone that doesn’t feel that way. I’m just thinking of all the bleeding hearts and hippies out there with access to the internet and google. They are able to see more than just what’s in their circle and maybe that leads them more left? 

 

I dunno I’m just rambling with that last bit 

5 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 a lot of progressive ideas poll favorably until you start using terms like "Gov't run" or "Socialism" or "taxes"  And that is where the low information average voter thing comes into play.  

 

Add to that, the socialist hand has been far overplayed to the point where it’s almost meaningless. Bernie calls himself one and look where he is. 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[NoCalMike]

Another thing to consider, the anti-establishment sentiment is not, nor ever was exclusive to the right.  i think a lot of the talking heads on cable news assumed that because Trump was so awful that in 2020 everyone would line up to be a good little neo-liberal and get things back to usual.  The problem is, the anti-establishment attitude is still very much alive and well, however this time it is picking up steam on the other side of the aisle and there is a lot of folks who by virtue of witnessing the disbelief of Donald Trump actually winning, think this might be the time to get off the couch and go see if they can't help get an actual leftist elected.  Elections are about inspiring people.  That is how the Democrats usually win.  Obama ran a progressive campaign which energized the based and brought out new voters.  He governed differently.  Trump ran as anti-establishment.  The closest you can attach "anti-establishment" to him is his unpredictability, but his actual policy is as corporate-right wing as they come.   Now in 2020, the pendulum is swinging back and a lot of the Democratic base is maybe growing tired of the usual stuff and is willing to take a chance?

[Cooked Crack]

 

Yep. Get rid of caucuses. I don't want to see one in hopefully 2028.

[bearrock]

31 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

With Bernie, when it comes to the healthcare issue itself, I think the idea that "healthcare should be a right not a privilege for those who can afford it" is the idea that people go with, and when it becomes a debate about policy, eyes start to glaze over, but the core idea itself still polls well. 

 

Which is the part that concerns me the most.  Healthcare is a human right.  Great.  But what does that mean exactly?  There are so many different permutations of how to implement that.  People support the idea, but what do they think that idea means?

 

Quote

I also disagree that people have not shown an appetite for progressive policies.  To the contrary, a lot of progressive ideas poll favorably until you start using terms like "Gov't run" or "Socialism" or "taxes"  And that is where the low information average voter thing comes into play.  

 

But then how much of that support for progressive policy was real support?  Is there anyone who would say no to truly free stuff?  If benevolent beings from Planet Xenon said they would bankroll free childcare for us all, would we say no? (Thank you Marianne Williamson!). 

 

If the progressive policies are popular until people realize that we have to raise taxes to pay for it and government has to run it, what did they support to begin with?  Free stuff that runs itself?

 

Take the current plate of Sanders' plans.  People like MFA, free tuition, student loan forgiveness, and universal childcare.  But a huge cornerstone of funding that is tax on billionaires at 7% to 8%.  That's enough taxes to deplete a person's asset in 12 to 14 years.  Even if you don't have a mass exodus of the wealthy (and you will), how long until the billionaire well runs dry?  20 years?  30 years?  So how do you pay for all the new programs then?  Are we gonna be like the boomer generation and say to our kids we got this huge bill that needs to be paid every year, but we kinda didn't budget for it long term, so mind picking up the tab?

 

Or the MFA plan.  One thing that gets a huge positive response is that every other country does universal care at half the cost per person.  Great!  Fantastic!  We can do that here!  Heck, I'm happy when my premiums don't go up every year, I don't even need 50% savings.  Except President Sanders is gonna take that 50% savings and increase the benefits to levels heretofore unheard of in a government run healthcare plan.  Is that the trade off people want?  What if people would rather have some options?  What if someone says "You know, I don't need a super duper platinum plan if there's a good solid dependable silver plan for half the price.".  Do people really understand what they are signing on for?

[The Sisko]

 

10 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Our predecessors said the same thing about Civil Rights. 

 

Their predecessors said the same thing about being a group colonies trying to get independence from the premier super power in the world.

 

If human history was dominated by saying "it will never happen, so why bother", human history would be different.

Exactly! Just ask George McGovern about it.

 

31 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

I also disagree that people have not shown an appetite for progressive policies.  To the contrary, a lot of progressive ideas poll favorably until you start using terms like "Gov't run" or "Socialism" or "taxes"  And that is where the low information average voter thing comes into play.  

OMG! I hope nobody tells the GOP about this tactic or we’ll be sunk in November.😉

[NoCalMike]

Ok without responding to your entire post (sorry, I am about to leave work for the day).

The problem with "until they realize you have to raise taxes..." criticism of healthcare, is that the second part of that equation is that your net costs go down......is almost never mentioned.  Yes your taxes may go up, so you are contributing into the system, but you will have zero co-pays, zero premiums, zero deductibles.  So if you can get past the big bad satanic term "taxes" and understand that your costs go down.  It becomes an entirely different conversation. 

 

Bernie has tried to explain this time after time, but the media doesn't want to be honest about the topic.

And look, I am all for analyzing and diving deep into the details of any & all plans being proposed on not just healthcare, but every issue, however I just want questions born out of honest critique and inquiry and not the gotcha-style "taxes, omg, taxes.....people did you hear that? TAXES!" type questions.

1 minute ago, The Sisko said:

 

OMG! I hope nobody tells the GOP about this tactic or we’ll be sunk in November.😉

 

I don't think the GOP listen to much outside of Fox News these days, so you're good homie. 

[The Sisko]

I hear you Mike. However, most of the voters that actually bother to show up aren’t listening to anything more complicated than “Immigrants bad” “USA, USA, USA” “Taxes bad” “govt. services = welfare, except your farm subsidies and other rural welfare” etc. 

 

I honestly don’t know what, if anything can get us out of this predicament.

 

 

5 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

I don't think the GOP listen to much outside of Fox News these days, so you're good homie. 

Not sure if serious.

[NoCalMike]

3 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

I hear you Mike. However, most of the voters that actually bother to show up aren’t listening to anything more complicated than “Immigrants bad” “USA, USA, USA” “Taxes bad” “govt. services = welfare, except your farm subsidies and other rural welfare” etc. 

 

I honestly don’t know what, if anything can get us out of this predicament.

 

 

Well that goes back to my original point to a different poster, which is that elections are usually a battle of ideas not policy.  More-so now than ever.  Hillary Clinton ran policy circles around Trump constantly.  Did it matter? Not enough apparently. 

 

If the race ends up Bernie vs. Trump.......we will have to see who wins the "idea war?" if you will. 

[RemoveSnyder]

 

 

[Larry]

45 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

I also disagree that people have not shown an appetite for progressive policies.  To the contrary, a lot of progressive ideas poll favorably until you start using terms like "Gov't run" or "Socialism" or "taxes"  And that is where the low information average voter thing comes into play. 

 

The corpse of Obamacare would like to have a word with you.  (You might have to lean close, to hear it.)  

[bearrock]

15 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Ok without responding to your entire post (sorry, I am about to leave work for the day).

 

No prob.  Thanks for indulging in the discussion and hope you have a good day at work.

 

Quote

And look, I am all for analyzing and diving deep into the details of any & all plans being proposed on not just healthcare, but every issue, however I just want questions born out of honest critique and inquiry and not the gotcha-style "taxes, omg, taxes.....people did you hear that? TAXES!" type questions.

 

 

I guess therein lies my apprehension.  I'm sure there's a solid block Sanders supporters who know the deal or will not waver even with the "OMG TAXES" attacks.  But if his current support folds in enough people who are gonna later say "wait, you have to raise what????", I'm fearful of Sanders losing enough support from both the moderates and the low information voters to lose.  If we're gonna have a policy and price tag discussion, now is the time to have it.  And in great detail.

[goskins10]

7 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Which is the part that concerns me the most.  Healthcare is a human right.  Great.  But what does that mean exactly?  There are so many different permutations of how to implement that.  People support the idea, but what do they think that idea means?

 

 

But then how much of that support for progressive policy was real support?  Is there anyone who would say no to truly free stuff?  If benevolent beings from Planet Xenon said they would bankroll free childcare for us all, would we say no? (Thank you Marianne Williamson!). 

 

If the progressive policies are popular until people realize that we have to raise taxes to pay for it and government has to run it, what did they support to begin with?  Free stuff that runs itself?

 

Take the current plate of Sanders' plans.  People like MFA, free tuition, student loan forgiveness, and universal childcare.  But a huge cornerstone of funding that is tax on billionaires at 7% to 8%.  That's enough taxes to deplete a person's asset in 12 to 14 years. 

 

Those %s I believe are progressive. So it's not 7 top 8% on their entire estate. Also, it assumes they make no additional money. But let's assume worst case scenario - it's 8% of all assests per year flat. If that's the case then a couple of things - yes they will no longer be $Bs at some point but they will also pay lower taxes when they get there so their money will not be "depleted". So they have $80M instead of $8B? ANd this is only if they are doing nothing but living off that money, meaning they are not contributing to the economy anyway. I mean the whole reason we are supposed to give those tax cuts to the rich is so they can build the economy. Those of old enough to have lived through Reagan have seen 3 times now that has NOT happened. But even if you still believe it, then if they are still making money then that wealth is not disappearing over night. 

 

If they are still making money then the rate of assests going down will be dependent on how much they make. Most $Bs make pretty good money. I would hazard a guess it's pretty close to offsetting the losses in taxes and then some. And all this assumes it's a flat tax rate not a progressive tax rate the guarantees you never lose your total assets. 

 

So this nothing but hyperbole - and the best part is the largest number of people buying it could not put $1000 together tomorrow without having to make life decisions like pay skipping rent or their utilities or jr's daycare. Yet they protect those $Bs who could not care less abotu them. Just need them to stay poor and keep working for them! 

 

 

7 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Even if you don't have a mass exodus of the wealthy (and you will), how long until the billionaire well runs dry?  20 years?  30 years?  So how do you pay for all the new programs then?  Are we gonna be like the boomer generation and say to our kids we got this huge bill that needs to be paid every year, but we kinda didn't budget for it long term, so mind picking up the tab?

 

This is a fear statement that has been proven false. And if they truly go away then it more likely means there is more opportunity for others. But this fear statement keeps being thrown out as if it were fact when it is just not a fact. Forbes did a study in 2017 that showed only 5% of Billionaires moved after making their money 

 

This becasue even if their taxes are raised this is still the best place to make money. That is not going to change. You may pay more in taxes but you can still make more here. More than most any other place on earth. And this is still one of the safest places on earth to live. 

 

7 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Or the MFA plan.  One thing that gets a huge positive response is that every other country does universal care at half the cost per person.  Great!  Fantastic!  We can do that here!  Heck, I'm happy when my premiums don't go up every year, I don't even need 50% savings.  Except President Sanders is gonna take that 50% savings and increase the benefits to levels heretofore unheard of in a government run healthcare plan.  Is that the trade off people want?  What if people would rather have some options?  What if someone says "You know, I don't need a super duper platinum plan if there's a good solid dependable silver plan for half the price.".  Do people really understand what they are signing on for?

 

You are making assumptions that Sanders can get that done, even if that is what he wants which I am not sure is true. There will be compromise to get anything passed, even if both houses were super majorities for the democrats which is extremely unlikely. 

 

And health care for as a right, means that medicare care should not be means based. You should be provided the health care you need at no additional cost. Most of this could be paid for by the premiums and deductables you currently pay. Large companies could pay a flat amount per person - something much lower than they pay now - and it would all be plenty enough to pay for most plans. But let's say it's not, i personally am OK to pay net $1000 a yr more if it means we don't risk a medical bankruptcy somewhere down the road and I can get all the health care I need.

 

People tend to ignore that having access to single payer heathcare also means will go to the doctor more creating a healthier society. 

 

And yes, I think most people know exactly what they are signing up for. It is hideous that we have not figured out a way to get this done as a country. I travel all over the world and have been for almost 20 yrs., I have had find health care in other countries including Italy, China, and others. I paid virtually nothing for the care i received . It was accurate, timely, and cost almost nothing. Paid for medication only. 

 

[skinsmarydu]

11 hours ago, LD0506 said:

 

None of us can allow ourselves to sit back and just trust that the system will work, there has been far too much evidence in recent years that there is no limit to what some will do to corrupt the vote.

 

Everyone should be checking to make sure they are registered, don't just assume it.

Just a follow up to this...I got a letter from my county that my husband had been removed from the voter rolls due to his passing not even 3 weeks after (with all of their stupid condolences).

Georgia is suppressing voters at breakneck speed. They can't do jack **** in 3 weeks for anything else. 

[visionary]

1 hour ago, Llevron said:

 

Honestly I think a lot of this is due to Trump activating people. Just my small circle but I know a lot more young people paying attention even if it’s just superficially because they are appalled by him in particular. That and I think the more aware people become of others the more the slide left. I don’t mean that as a negative for anyone that doesn’t feel that way. I’m just thinking of all the bleeding hearts and hippies out there with access to the internet and google. They are able to see more than just what’s in their circle and maybe that leads them more left? 

I'd say people are in general exhausted and tuned out from what is going on.  I think everyone is much less energized now than in 2018. 

[PF Chang]

2 hours ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

Blue check mark. Award winning journalist.

 

 

Aaron Mate is a total joke, and so are the rest of the tankies at the Grayzone. His award is as convincing as Ron Swanson winning Pawnee Woman of the Year.

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

 

[bearrock]

3 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Those %s I believe are progressive. So it's not 7 top 8% on their entire estate. Also, it assumes they make no additional money. But let's assume worst case scenario - it's 8% of all assests per year flat. If that's the case then a couple of things - yes they will no longer be $Bs at some point but they will also pay lower taxes when they get there so their money will not be "depleted". So they have $80M instead of $8B? ANd this is only if they are doing nothing but living off that money, meaning they are not contributing to the economy anyway. I mean the whole reason we are supposed to give those tax cuts to the rich is so they can build the economy. Those of old enough to have lived through Reagan have seen 3 times now that has NOT happened. But even if you still believe it, then if they are still making money then that wealth is not disappearing over night. 

 

If they are still making money then the rate of assests going down will be dependent on how much they make. Most $Bs make pretty good money. I would hazard a guess it's pretty close to offsetting the losses in taxes and then some. And all this assumes it's a flat tax rate not a progressive tax rate the guarantees you never lose your total assets. 

 

So this nothing but hyperbole - and the best part is the largest number of people buying it could not put $1000 together tomorrow without having to make life decisions like pay skipping rent or their utilities or jr's daycare. Yet they protect those $Bs who could not care less abotu them. Just need them to stay poor and keep working for them! 

 

 

I confused the Warren wealth tax with the Sanders' plan.  Sanders' is progressive from 5% of billion, ramping up to a flat 8% on everything above 10 billion.  In order to avoid the decrease in wealth, billionaires will have to generate a 5+% return on their entire asset portfolio.  This is a not a given as it would be rare to have the entire wealth consist of income generating assets.  Especially when you can still make money in the US market without being a US citizen or have a tax base in US (Apple ring a bell anyone?), billionaires would have to be stupid to depreciate their asset by 5% every year when they can still make money in the US market without incurring that penalty.  Furthermore, asset decrease would have to be offset with post-tax dollars, which still puts rate of needed ROI at roughly 8% to 13% (assuming tax rate of the highest bracket doesn't increase further).  That's a pretty aggressive investment approach when you're talking about the whole asset portfolio.  But my criticism is based on the most rosy scenario where billionaires do not leave.

 

As to billionaires becoming millionaires, I'm not shedding a tear over that.  I'm talking about the math.  Sanders is banking on the wealth tax to generate 4.35 trillion over the next decade.  As the billionaires' wealth decrease (which is a stated goal of Sanders), the tax revenue from the wealth tax will dry up too (though the 4.35 trillion is for all wealth over 32 million, so it won't be gone entirely).  Even if just one trillion dollar is gone, that's one trillion dollar that will have to be made up with taxes elsewhere.

 

Quote

This is a fear statement that has been proven false. And if they truly go away then it more likely means there is more opportunity for others. But this fear statement keeps being thrown out as if it were fact when it is just not a fact. Forbes did a study in 2017 that showed only 5% of Billionaires moved after making their money 

 

This becasue even if their taxes are raised this is still the best place to make money. That is not going to change. You may pay more in taxes but you can still make more here. More than most any other place on earth. And this is still one of the safest places on earth to live. 

 

 

 

Billionaires can easily change citizenship to avoid the wealth tax and still make money in US markets (or are we going to impose a wealth tax on non-US citizens and foreign investors?)

 

Quote

You are making assumptions that Sanders can get that done, even if that is what he wants which I am not sure is true. There will be compromise to get anything passed, even if both houses were super majorities for the democrats which is extremely unlikely. 

 

 

So I'm supposed to judge him based on what?  A potential compromise position that he has not bothered to discuss or even hinted as to whether he'll entertain?

 

Quote

And health care for as a right, means that medicare care should not be means based.

 

You're thinking medicaid, not medicare.

 

Quote

You should be provided the health care you need at no additional cost. Most of this could be paid for by the premiums and deductables you currently pay. Large companies could pay a flat amount per person - something much lower than they pay now - and it would all be plenty enough to pay for most plans. But let's say it's not, i personally am OK to pay net $1000 a yr more if it means we don't risk a medical bankruptcy somewhere down the road and I can get all the health care I need.

 

People tend to ignore that having access to single payer heathcare also means will go to the doctor more creating a healthier society. 

 

And yes, I think most people know exactly what they are signing up for. It is hideous that we have not figured out a way to get this done as a country. I travel all over the world and have been for almost 20 yrs., I have had find health care in other countries including Italy, China, and others. I paid virtually nothing for the care i received . It was accurate, timely, and cost almost nothing. Paid for medication only. 

 

Experts disagree on whether Sanders' version of MFA will be cheaper than the current system.  With current system estimated at 3.5 trillion per year on healthcare spending, the range is from 3 trillion to 4.2 trillion.  If it is cheaper, we'll pay less.  If it is more expensive, the additional money will have to come from somewhere.  A natural question, since Sanders often sells other countries' model as support for MFA, why not consider an option where some portion of healthcare is provided to all in a universal, single payer system, and other portion can be optionally insured or paid out of pocket by individuals?  The single payer part of that plan will obviously be cheaper.  And if people are happy with what the mandatory single payer portion provides (or if they get supplemental coverage through union negotiated coverage for example), they can stop there.  If they want to get more coverage, they can find private insurance for it.  Like how medicare works now (given that they call it medicare for all and everything).  Like how pretty much every universal, single payer system works in the rest of the world.  Instead we have to go from the most privatized healthcare system to the most state run?  

 

No one prefers (at least no one should) the US healthcare system to those being implemented in other developed countries.  The problem is that Sanders is not proposing to implement those systems of other developed countries.  He's proposing something much much larger in scope.  Which is fine.  We can have that debate.  But I would not be surprised one bit if there is a large segment out there that doesn't realize what MFA really means (they may, you know, actually think it is current Medicare for all).  The time to have that debate is now, not during the general.

[Llevron]

31 minutes ago, visionary said:

I'd say people are in general exhausted and tuned out from what is going on.  I think everyone is much less energized now than in 2018. 

 

That may be true. I have no idea how to measure that. I know i pay attention less on a daily basis other than what people i trust (you, basically) share with me. 

 

I wonder how easy it will be in the general election to reactivate people if thats the case?