Rdskns2000

Presidential Election :11/3/2020- Trump the Impeached vs Superplanner Lizzie & some other Dems

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

yet he's still probably the odds-on favorite because people will find out some minor nit to pick about each D candidate.  

I don’t think Warren would be a minor nit to pick. But I think that exists at some level no matter the candidate. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

 

 

Yep.  This quote box.  

 

 

Again - You're responding to somebody who's entire post is to state that Pete isn't a corporate shill, he's a moderate, by pointing out that he doesn't want the government to completely take over all health care, he just wants to give people the option of government health care.  

 

A position which seems a lot closer to "moderate" (in fact, I'd argue "moderate left") than "corporate shill", to me.  

 

 

 

It's not my fault if you can't read.

 

Read that quote box again. Now read the quote that post was in response to (which itself didn't quote anything). Find the words "health care" in either, much less this entire argument you're claiming it contained. 

 

You're pulling a Straw Man, and I have no interest in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

You don’t think that flip flop has anything to do with him leading in donations from the healthcare sector?

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/07/20dems-are-taking-money-healthcare/

 

I think corporate shill is deserved.

You may be right, but I think it’s more likely that his advisors saw his surge receding and decided that he would not beat out Bernie and Warren on the left and would be better situated to pick up votes from the middle if Biden or other minor candidates started to fall.  I think that’s why a lot of his positions seem to be  more moderate the last couple of weeks or so and he’s attacking other candidates now.  

Edited by visionary
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn’t Buttigueg call out Warren for providing no details about how to pay for her BIGGEST campaign promise?  And all she had was crickets?

 

Doesnt the fact that neither of the candidates who are pushing MFA are willing to explain how it’s gonna work, bother you?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Doesnt the fact that neither of the candidates who are pushing MFA are willing to explain how it’s gonna work, bother you

Bernie has said he will pay for it with a tax increase that will be offset by us not paying copays and premiums.

 

That Koch Industries funded study said it would be cheaper than our current healthcare system.

 

Warren won’t say it will raise taxes because she doesn’t want to be a GOP soundbite.

Edited by BenningRoadSkin
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

You don’t think that flip flop has anything to do with him leading in donations from the healthcare sector?

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/07/20dems-are-taking-money-healthcare/

 

I think corporate shill is deserved.

 

You do realize that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are in the top tier of that list too.  Are they “corporate shills” also?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Springfield said:

Didn’t Buttigueg call out Warren for providing no details about how to pay for her BIGGEST campaign promise?  And all she had was crickets?

 

Doesnt the fact that neither of the candidates who are pushing MFA are willing to explain how it’s gonna work, bother you?

 

People are gonna pay the government for healthcare instead of insurance companies and healthcare providers directly.  That's the obvious part.  The breadth of the proposed coverage has been put forth in the various versions of MFA (it is the most expensive coverage among single payer systems in the world). 

 

One key detail of payment that has not yet been addressed is how redistributive the funding will be, i.e. - will the rich pay more (probably) and if so, how much more?  There are 7 proposed ways to raise the revenue to fund it (it will take more than one), many of them are pretty redistributive.

 

The central issue with funding is that people have a difficult time agreeing on how expensive the system will be.  We are working with 30 some trillion dollars as a talking point (I think that's from the study funded by Koch brothers), but it could be more, it could be less.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

You do realize that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are in the top tier of that list too.  Are they “corporate shills” also?

They are fifth and eighth on the list, about $50,000 and $60,000 behind the South Bend mayor.

 

Also, and related to this conversation, neither of them have flip-flopped on their stance like medicare for all.

 

I didn't tell you not to vote for Buttigieg, but the guy looks like a corporate shill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

They are fifth and eighth on the list, about $50,000 and $60,000 behind the South Bend mayor.

 

Also, and related to this conversation, neither of them have flip-flopped on their stance like medicare for all.

 

I didn't tell you not to vote for Buttigieg, but the guy looks like a corporate shill. 

 

 

In your eyes.  That’s okay though. 

Edited by Dan T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remembering when Hillary was a "corporate shill", because she wasn't as far left as Bernie.  And remembering how that turned out.  

 

It ought to be possible for Democrats to disagree on one policy or another, without pulling out verbal flamethrowers.  

 

That's one of the things I've liked about Pete, in the few times I've seen him.  He seems willing to disagree with the others, without insulting them.  (Although I get the impression that in the debates, he was different.)  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warren wants to avoid the 10 second "I will raise taxes" soundbite that will be cut and played repeatedly on Fox and every where else for the next year.  She is sort of letting Bernie take the hit for what the reality of the MFA plan requires.   Personally, I think she should just come out and say it, everyone knows it is what it is at this point.

 

On a macro level however, I am just tired of the question being used by the moderators as some sort of "ooooh gotcha" thing.  They have been told over and over........and over, that yes MFA will affect taxes for mostly everyone, but it will be a net savings in cost to the individual(s).  This has been studied and shown to be sound.  It is not a question that needs to be asked every single debate as if no one has ever heard of such a thing ever before. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Warren wants to avoid the 10 second "I will raise taxes" soundbite that will be cut and played repeatedly on Fox and every where else for the next year.  She is sort of letting Bernie take the hit for what the reality of the MFA plan requires.   Personally, I think she should just come out and say it, everyone knows it is what it is at this point.

 

On a macro level however, I am just tired of the question being used by the moderators as some sort of "ooooh gotcha" thing.  They have been told over and over........and over, that yes MFA will affect taxes for mostly everyone, but it will be a net savings in cost to the individual(s).  This has been studied and shown to be sound.  It is not a question that needs to be asked every single debate as if no one has ever heard of such a thing ever before. 

"... net savings cost to the individuals?"  Think that is an inaccurate way of putting it.  To a few, some, many or most? But certainly not all.

There will be winners and losers as always in this sort of legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Springfield said:

Didn’t Buttigueg call out Warren for providing no details about how to pay for her BIGGEST campaign promise?  And all she had was crickets?

 

Doesnt the fact that neither of the candidates who are pushing MFA are willing to explain how it’s gonna work, bother you?

 

No, because it's too complex for 15 second sound bites and that's not good enough for people that dont want to read the multiple papers and articles on it, nor the house and senate (Bernies) version of the bill.

 

Theyve tried to explain why its neccesary, I'm convinced a lot of people dont want it for no other reason then believing the government will mess it up, the Willie Lynch Letter of conservative politics.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, nonniey said:

"... net savings cost to the individuals?"  Think that is an inaccurate way of putting it.  To a few, some, many or most? But certainly not all.

There will be winners and losers as always in this sort of legislation.

 

I'd like to hear which individuals or families would lose money not having to pay for insurance or copays with no deductibles besides private insurance companies.  House bill has block Grants to protect hospitals from closing. If the answer is people getting fractions of a percent increase in taxes, how many is that compared to the number of people declaring medical bankruptcy every year in this country?

4 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Bernie has said he will pay for it with a tax increase that will be offset by us not paying copays and premiums.

 

That Koch Industries funded study said it would be cheaper than our current healthcare system.

 

Warren won’t say it will raise taxes because she doesn’t want to be a GOP soundbite.

 

Ya, Bernie has already written the closest the middle class will get to being taxed is a reduction in standard deduction, it's a separate doc he released as part of his original senate bill in how to pay for this.  Every other tax increase is catered to the super rich, theres that much money at the top, but a lot of people jus cant picture what that looks like so it must not make sense.  It's like trying to picture in your head what a light year is.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Remembering when Hillary was a "corporate shill", because she wasn't as far left as Bernie.  And remembering how that turned out

 

Que?

 

We don’t have to re-legislate this but Hillary was called a corporate shill because she and her husband made millions of dollars talking to corporations and forging relationships with them. She had no answers for that because that was the truth and her policies reflected that.
 

That’s one of the reasons she lost. (And once again, a greater proportion of Bernie voters turned out for in the primary versus Clinton supporters turning out for Obama in 2008)

 

6 hours ago, Larry said:

 

That's one of the things I've liked about Pete, in the few times I've seen him.  He seems willing to disagree with the others, without insulting them.  (Although I get the impression that in the debates, he was different.)  


You should start following politics. He’s been running anti-MFA ads.

Edited by BenningRoadSkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.