Rdskns2000

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

Recommended Posts

Wait, so is the Tennessee guy saying that Pete isn’t white or that he isn’t a man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

I think they could quite easily flip MI, WI and PA with chances at AZ, NC and even Florida. 

 

Georgia and Iowa are very much in play as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy said:

They could be and I hope they are. NC is definitely not in play.


I’ve always been of the opinion that N.C. is not in play but the GOP could have two pretty bad state wide candidates running for gov and senate. I still wouldn’t spend much time here but maybe not completely ignore 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I get that.  I was just agreeing with your point.  Military members will end up paying more.  I imagine most vets will also but haven't looked up the numbers for that.  But my current cost is $0 so I'm guaranteed to pay more.

 

3 hours ago, nonniey said:

Renegade portion of that chart that concerns (non reserve) retirees is this. (For me it is 594 a year plus co-pays)

 

Group A: $297 per individual/$594 per family

Group B: $360 per individual/$720 per family

 

Annual Deductible There is no annual deductible. TRICARE Prime Out-of-Pocket Costs ADSMs, ADFMs, and transitional survivors Covered service Group A Group B All covered services $0 $0 Retirees, their families, and all others Covered service Group A Group B Preventive Care Visit $0 $0 Primary Care Outpatient Visit $20 $20 Specialty Care Outpatient Visit $30 $30 Urgent Care Center Visit $30 $30 Emergency Room Visit $61 $61 Inpatient Admission (Hospitalization) $154/ admission $154/ admission.

 

I appreciate having conversations like this, I really do.

 

This is the doc Bernie made on how he plans to raise money to pay for his senate version of the bill, when you have a chance can you see how much if it applies to you?  I know the change in standard deduction will effect me, but it will undoubtedly save me money, my mom will for her meds and, shes on medicare but they going to change what it is, my fiancee is uninsured.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all%3Finline%3Dfile&ved=2ahUKEwij0MHZ9rDlAhXSqlkKHVt2AfwQFjAMegQIBRAC&usg=AOvVaw2tqCxQugfNOPAoT_zhxHsW

 

If we going to talk about treating MFA like mass transit where turning a profit is missing the point, I'd like to hear more about what it would look like when small businesses dont have to offer insurance and the effect that could or should have on wages.  At minimum my paycheck will get bigger jus in not paying for insurance through my employer.  It's a consumer based economy.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 I still wouldn’t spend much time here but maybe not completely ignore 

I would spend a lot of time here. It could turn blue down the line. I’m just realistic about this election. So frustrating, especially when I see women here supporting him. A sad sight to behold.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

 

I appreciate having conversations like this, I really do.

 

This is the doc Bernie made on how he plans to raise money to pay for his senate version of the bill, when you have a chance can you see how much if it applies to you?  I know the change in standard deduction will effect me, but it will undoubtedly save me money, my mom will for her meds and, shes on medicare but they going to change what it is, my fiancee is uninsured.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all%3Finline%3Dfile&ved=2ahUKEwij0MHZ9rDlAhXSqlkKHVt2AfwQFjAMegQIBRAC&usg=AOvVaw2tqCxQugfNOPAoT_zhxHsW

 

If we going to talk about treating MFA like mass transit where turning a profit is missing the point, I'd like to hear more about what it would look like when small businesses dont have to offer insurance and the effect that could or should have on wages.  At minimum my paycheck will get bigger jus in not paying for insurance through my employer.  It's a consumer based economy.

 

One thing noteworthy is it talks about impacting the "average family" of which I am obviously not.  I pay essentially no health care costs whatsoever.  This is not average. 

 

Now looking over your link, the only thing that would affect me is the 4% household income tax.  I don't pay healthcare costs so it would be no saving for me.  It would cost me (very roughly) $3,200 a year.  

 

I will say I have no problem paying more taxes in general if I thought the government would spend my money wisely.  But I have never seen a single thing that makes me believe this would be the case.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Biden is ahead in all of these polls and gaining points in at least some of them.

Edited by visionary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy said:

They could be and I hope they are. NC is definitely not in play.

Not true though. 

 

-Not a lot of polling, but as of now the RCP average has Biden, Warren and Sanders all ahead of Trump there.

-Poll the other day has the Dem ahead of Tillis in the senate race there by 7.

- Hillary only lost by 4.

-Dems only lost the statewide congressional popular vote by 2 last year in an off-year election.

-Dems flipped the state house.

 

Definitely in play as of now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The golden age of capitalism and middle class growth in this country happened under policies that largely resemble what Elizabeth Warren is proposing. 
 

The very loose use of the word “Pro-Business Democrat” seems to really mean “Anti-Taxation Democrats” who fundamentally do not want a capitalist society in which workers can unionize and free market competition allows small-businesses to thrive without the formation of monopolies and duopolies.  
 

The notion that capitalism means deregulation, low taxes and anti-labor policies is the absolutely dumbest take and it’s sad that this isn’t challenged more directly. There is no free market in an economic system that is dominated by a few key industries, in which competition is non-existent and monopolies/duopolies dominate.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete moving towards the middle sure doesn't hurt him, with me.  I like the moderate road.  

 

That one poll that shows him close to the top tier sure looks like an extreme outlier, though.  All the other ones visionary posted have him still in single digits.  

Share this post


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

 

That one poll that shows him close to the top tier sure looks like an extreme outlier, though.  All the other ones visionary posted have him still in single digits.  


National polls vs state poll. He’s doing much better in Iowa than he is nationally.

Edited by No Excuses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, No Excuses said:

The golden age of capitalism and middle class growth in this country happened under policies that largely resemble what Elizabeth Warren is proposing. 

 

Yes.  

 

There is always going to be justified give & take between what should/shouldn't be regulated, and what the tax rate should be etc etc etc....but generally speaking the economic system worked much better for everyone leading up to the Reagan revolution and then completely diverted course.

 

It's always been a bit ironic to me that all these MAGA folks (at least the ones of the baby boomer and over in age) are lost on this kind of thing in their yearning for things to go back to the way they "used to be." I know I probably shouldn't be immediately jumping to the conclusion that "used to be" is code for race-related stuff, but there just seems to be such a huge disconnect between what these people understand the policies of "used to be" actually were versus what the modern day GOP claim them to be, when it specifically comes to the economy. You have all these red state middle class voters advocating for the opposite of how things "used to be" when their parents could afford to raise a family on a single income.  Their nostalgia is no replacement for actually connecting the dots on when the economy made a major shift. 

Edited by NoCalMike
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

" I know I probably shouldn't be immediately jumping to the conclusion that "used to be" is code for race-related stuff, but there just seems to be such a huge disconnect between what these people understand the policies of "used to be" actually were versus what the modern day GOP claim them to be, when it specifically comes to the economy


Nah, you should jump to that conclusion since that’s thats when their views on those issues changed. When they started seeing unfamiliar faces in spaces they thought was theirs, it all changed. Obviously race isn’t the only reason – people from lower social classes and women also – but seeing people with melanin started them.

 

But that’s what the elites of capitalism thrive on, spotlighting those differences and turning us against each other.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, No Excuses said:

The golden age of capitalism and middle class growth in this country happened under policies that largely resemble what Elizabeth Warren is proposing. 

 

True.  But "correlation does not equal causation".  

 

Did the Golden Age of America happen because the top income tax bracket was 70-90%?  

 

Or because America was the only first world economy who's production hadn't been bombed to **** in WW2?  Obviously, that's not the case any more.  

 

- - - - 

 

Although I did read an article, a decade ot so ago, that stuck in my head.  The author was making the assertion that higher corporate tax rates actually contribute to more "trickle down" than low rates do.  

 

He compared two imaginary companies, 1960 Inc, and 2010 Inc.  Both of them just made a profit of $10M last year, and are deciding what to do with it.  

 

Now, 1960 Inc has three choices.  

 

They can give it to the CEO/Owners.  But those folks are already in the top income tax bracket.  So, if they pass out the money, the IRS is going to take 90% of it.  

 

They can leave the money in the company's bank account, for later.  But if they do that, that's corporate profit, and the IRS will take 35% of it.  

 

Or they can sink the money into the company.  Roll it over so to speak.  Expand the factory, add more trucks to the fleet, get bigger computers, advertice, something.  If they do that, then it's a business expense, and there's no tax on it at all.  And yeah, they could spend it on gold plated toilets for the executive floor.  But if they spend it on the company (and if they spend it right), then maybe next year they'll be trying to decide what to do with $12M in profit.  

 

However, for 2010 Inc, the choices are different.  

 

If they decide to hand out the money to the owner/CEO, then the money is now safe from the corporation.  (If the company gets sued, a year from now, then the lawsuit can't get at that money, because it's not the company's money any more.)  And if they do their tax planning right, then the IRS may only get 5-10% of it.  (When Mitt Romney published his tax returns, when he ran for President, he voluntarily chose to pay 9% in taxes.  He had enough deductions to only pay 4%, but chose to pay 9% so it looked like he was more heavily taxed.)  So why not hand out the money?  

 

His assertion was that the old, pre-Reagan, tax code gave companies a vast incentive to reinvest their profits back into the company, to avoid the tax man.  And that doing so tends to help out the company's workers, and other companies that supply the company.  

 

Granted, it's a simplistic argument.  But those are the only ones I can follow, when it comes to economics, anyway.  It seemed to make sense to me.  

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Pete moving towards the middle sure doesn't hurt him, with me.  I like the moderate road.  

 

That one poll that shows him close to the top tier sure looks like an extreme outlier, though.  All the other ones visionary posted have him still in single digits.  

 

Pete's larger issue is his polling with black people

 

All the position shifts wont matter if he doesnt address that issue

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, StillUnknown said:

 

Pete's larger issue is his polling with black people

 

All the position shifts wont matter if he doesnt address that issue

After leaking that focus group study yesterday where their summary is black people are homophobic, I think he is done with that too.

 

He is an elitist, corporate shill, pompous asshole. 

Edited by BenningRoadSkin

Share this post


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

After leaking that focus group study yesterday where their summary is black people are homophobic, I think he is done with that too.

 

He is an elitist, corporate shill, pompous asshole. 

 

What was this?

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.