Does Bernie Know Dems Need A Miracle?

[CJD]

(03-04-2020, 09:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: As long as we get rid of these Boomers, I'll be happy. It's time for Gen X to take the reins.

What about the Silent Genners? :)

[Benton]

(03-04-2020, 08:58 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I don't know what's going to happen in 2024. 

Maybe Elizabeth gives it another try, but I think Biden and Bernie are done (assuming Trump wins re-election). 

I suppose Pete can give it another try, but I just don't see him ever winning the presidency. His main form of communication is platitudes and "elegant" speak with absolutely no substance to it. That may have worked in the 90s or early 2000s, but I can't imagine it working in the 2020s. In order to drive support to the polls nowadays you have to actually stand for something.
Or you have to be associated with Obama.

I could see Stacey Abrams and AOC running. I'm not sure how they'll do in a nationwide arena, but it'll definitely be fun to watch. But overall, you're right that we have no slam dunk candidate in 2024.

As for who the Republicans are running, there's three schools of thought that I've seen:

1. Nikki Haley
 I'd never heard of her before she resigned from her position as Ambassador to the UN, but apparently Republicans, especially Never Trumpers, love her...I don't know why, exactly, but the most noteworthy position she's seemed to take (based on a quick googling) is to remove the confederate flag from the South Carolina state house which is nice...unfortunately she didn't do it because she opposed the southern glorification of traitors but rather because Dylann Roof "hijacked" the ode to racism for...his own ode to racism, I guess? Not a super hot take, but for a Republican it's at least a start...

2. Donald Trump Jr.
This one I have a harder time believing. His father is at least witty, brutal and effective in his critiques of America and the media. Jr. is like a cheap knockoff of his father and is somehow even dumber. But if you're looking for a place to channel your sick cultism for the Trump brand, I guess DJTJ is where Trumpists will be forced to go...

3. Mike Pence
This one I find kind of laughable, but a lot of people have polled that this is their pick for the next election. I find it hard to believe it possible to get a religious radical in the White House, but then again...if Trump can win, anybody can.

It's gonna be a long decade...

I can see one and three, at least from a party perspective. If we wind up with four more years of the projected path were on (it's not good), I think the trumpers will fade away. Right now, he can post a lot of Obama numbers and they believe it because they want to. Honestly, the only way I can see 2 is if bernie wins. If that happens, Republicans will go down the same path that led us to trump, which would open the door for junior.

Haley stands a chance as a moderate republican . Pence is more the traditional and he'd probably pull in a few trumpers.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-04-2020, 08:58 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I don't know what's going to happen in 2024. 

Maybe Elizabeth gives it another try, but I think Biden and Bernie are done (assuming Trump wins re-election). 

I suppose Pete can give it another try, but I just don't see him ever winning the presidency. His main form of communication is platitudes and "elegant" speak with absolutely no substance to it. That may have worked in the 90s or early 2000s, but I can't imagine it working in the 2020s. In order to drive support to the polls nowadays you have to actually stand for something.
Or you have to be associated with Obama.

I could see Stacey Abrams and AOC running. I'm not sure how they'll do in a nationwide arena, but it'll definitely be fun to watch. But overall, you're right that we have no slam dunk candidate in 2024.

As for who the Republicans are running, there's three schools of thought that I've seen:

1. Nikki Haley
 I'd never heard of her before she resigned from her position as Ambassador to the UN, but apparently Republicans, especially Never Trumpers, love her...I don't know why, exactly, but the most noteworthy position she's seemed to take (based on a quick googling) is to remove the confederate flag from the South Carolina state house which is nice...unfortunately she didn't do it because she opposed the southern glorification of traitors but rather because Dylann Roof "hijacked" the ode to racism for...his own ode to racism, I guess? Not a super hot take, but for a Republican it's at least a start...

2. Donald Trump Jr.
This one I have a harder time believing. His father is at least witty, brutal and effective in his critiques of America and the media. Jr. is like a cheap knockoff of his father and is somehow even dumber. But if you're looking for a place to channel your sick cultism for the Trump brand, I guess DJTJ is where Trumpists will be forced to go...

3. Mike Pence
This one I find kind of laughable, but a lot of people have polled that this is their pick for the next election. I find it hard to believe it possible to get a religious radical in the White House, but then again...if Trump can win, anybody can.

It's gonna be a long decade...

I'm going to go on a wild idea and think that the Republican ticket in 2024 goes back towards sanity.

Romney/Kasich or a Romney/Weld ticket.

All guys who have run against or spoken against Trump.


/end blind optimism post

[Dill]

(03-04-2020, 10:02 AM)Benton Wrote: I can see one and three, at least from a party perspective. If we wind up with four more years of the projected path were on (it's not good), I think the trumpers will fade away. Right now, he can post a lot of Obama numbers and they believe it because they want to. Honestly, the only way I can see 2 is if bernie wins. If that happens, Republicans will go down the same path that led us to trump, which would open the door for junior.

Haley stands a chance as a moderate republican . Pence is more the traditional and he'd probably pull in a few trumpers.

The Trump name may fade away, but we are going to have his angry, disinformed "base" with us for another generation, fighting to keep government out of their medicare and voting for anyone who demonizes immigrants.

[treee]

The thought of Biden and Trump "debating" makes me want to hurl.

[Dill]

(03-03-2020, 11:43 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Ok, lot's of confusion here on what is socialism and what isn't. Let's begin with a primer: Socialism is an economic theory in which collective, public ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods occurs.

Medicare/medicaid, and by extension medicare-for-all as a single-payer healthcare system, still utilizes private individuals and companies to produce and distribute the goods/services for healthcare. This means that it is not a socialist program.

Socialized medicine, like the National Health Service that exists in the UK, is a different thing. The doctors work for the NHS. That is government (public) control of the means of production and distribution of goods. This is a socialist program and is not what is being proposed by anyone of any consequence in this country.

Brad: you're wrong in your understanding of socialism.

Benton: you're wrong in your understanding of socialism.

Anyone else who is using a definition other than the one I provided above: you're wrong in your understanding of socialism.

When you overuse the term socialism to describe social welfare policies you are playing into Cold War era fear-mongering where anything and everything that didn't fit our way of life was deemed socialist/communist.

Just want to second Bels here, and point to what I think is the source of confusion--namely the widespread conflation of the concept of "SOCIALIZING COSTS" with SOCIALISM, the theory and the practice.

All governments SOCIALIZE COSTS in one way or another. E.g., when we are taxed to build a public highway system, or to pay for national defense. Our local communities SOCIALIZE the cost of public education and fire and police protection. 

And yes, the cost of the Social Security check I receive every month has been SOCIALIZED, so I'll hopefully get more than I paid in, from you guys still working.

But the public still doesn't own Amazon or Anglo-American Platinum or Pfizer or Cargill or Sinclair Oil or General Motors or Continental Grain or Weyerhauser or Koch Industries or US Steel or even the Steelers for that matter. We are not a "socialist" country by a long shot. And SOCIALIZING some costs within our political-economic system does not alter its fundamentally capitalist character because the policies which re-distribute a fraction of US wealth do not individually or collectively transfer ownership of or control over privately owned MoP to the public--even when the government wholly manages them. If anything, they are designed to optimize the working of that very capitalist system by preventing larger costs to it from social instability. 

So the existence of programs like SS and Medicare do not make a part of our government/economy "socialist" the way that free economic zones could be said to make make part of China's economy capitalist (because in those zones policy DOES transfer ownership from public to private). I'll go a step further than Bels and say that even if the government does wholly manage such polices, it makes about as much sense to call such policies "socialist" as to call them "communist." Even when actually inspired by real socialists/ socialist theory.

If the goal is to accurately describe and understand such programs in effective social scientific terms, it would be so much more accurate to say "WE SOCIALIZE SOME COSTS" than to say "WE ALREADY HAVE SOCIALISM/SOCIALIST POLICIES" and such like.  

[Truck_1_0_1_]

I clearly don't have a dog in this fight (geography has a big part in that), but I want to say a quick little something:

Free healthcare is not only awesome, but it is NECESSARY in 2020 and beyond; if Canada didn't have free healthcare, there's a good chance I would've died from my cancer, in 2010.

My family has never had money (my parents have never had crippling debt, but also have never had money to spend and spend; they went a good 22+ years before they took their first vacation together, since before my sister was born {1984} and we've NEVER had a new vehicle or anything like that), thus we would've had to have turned to credit and debt, in order to facilitate my cancer appointments and treatment.

Free healthcare allowed me to be seen by someone, then seen again for a biopsy, then be seen by my cancer doctor, 1 week after I was diagnosed (the 2nd, "most popular," cancer hospital in Toronto, at that), plus a radiologist.

Free healthcare allowed me to have CT Scans, an MRI and my surgery, all within a 3-4 week span.

Not to keep repeating, but free healthcare allowed me to go back for treatment and follow-up appointments, every 3 months for 3 years (6 months for 2 years following that).

I have not looked up everything I went through, for a typical American with no health insurance or anything, but I can think it was in the realm of thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars (maybe exaggerating, again, I'm not entirely sure).

There is no way in hell my family could've afforded to pay for that, not to mention I was full-time in University AND worked 40+ hours a week, at that time (I don't know how I managed everything lol), thus, there's a chance that I may have passed away, if living in the US.

Why people don't see that free healthcare can literally be LIFESAVING, is beyond ridiculous and more-than anything, selfish; "I want the leader of the party I like to win, because I want to be on the winning side! To hell with free healthcare that WILL NOT cost lives! The guy proposing it is evil and trods on my beliefs, even though my beliefs are outdated and cruel!"

(that's incredibly simplified, I know)

Just for fun, someone posted on Twitter a, "Sanderstax.com," site, where you can calculate how much more or less you would be taxed, under Sanders tax proposal (I'm sure the majority of you are familiar with it); I did it just for shits and giggles. Now, I don't know if the page where you calculate is 100% accurate or not, but the difference it made for me under your current tax (also calculates it) wasn't the big deal; what was eye-opening to me is JUST HOW LITTLE AMERICANS ARE TAXED IN THE FIRST PLACE (the difference between the Sanders tax and your current tax is also calculated, btw; under Sanders, I'd pay just $124.00 more in tax, for the whole year).

My after-tax earnings this past year (just had my return done, waiting for my refund ), were around $40,000.00 (a touch north), Canadian.

My after-tax earnings if I lived in the United States? **$48,800.00** (which, in Canadian funds, is $65,500.00, in case you were wondering)

I got taxed over $8,000.00 more living up here, than you guys down there. That's almost 3 months worth of my salary.

Therefore, it is BEYOND a no-brainer, to side with the person who WILL tax more (a paltry amount at that), for getting something as fantastic as free healthcare; I know it's (again) not black and white like this, but come on.

Americans spend so frivolously (from a household, all the way up to the government), it's no wonder why the country is teeming with debt; you know how much more savings/investing I could do with that much extra money from taxes? Hell, even if I spent half of it on a nice vacation for my wife and I, that's STILL $4,000.00. With the money saved from free healthcare (thousands a year for many Americans, if not more), think of how much more money will be injected into the economy, instead of Big Pharma and other related corporations!

Not to mention, all the money spent on those drugs that you guys spend on down there, would be curbed significantly, as people will get seen and treated, instead of having pharmaceuticals thrown at them because they can't afford treatment.

Anyways, that's just how I see it; again, I'm happy and more than comfortable here in Canada, so my views will not reflect the reality of Americans/American life, but when it comes down to it, the decision is super easy.

TL;DR: If Sanders (or anyone, for that matter) is giving you free healthcare for a VERY small bump in taxes, vote for them yesterday and stop spending money you don't have.

[CJD]

(03-04-2020, 11:12 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I'm going to go on a wild idea and think that the Republican ticket in 2024 goes back towards sanity.

Romney/Kasich or a Romney/Weld ticket.

All guys who have run against or spoken against Trump.


/end blind optimism post

A return to relative sanity from the Republican party would be pretty nice :)

[Dill]

(03-04-2020, 02:41 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: Therefore, it is BEYOND a no-brainer, to side with the person who WILL tax more (a paltry amount at that), for getting something as fantastic as free healthcare; I know it's (again) not black and white like this, but come on.

Americans spend so frivolously (from a household, all the way up to the government), it's no wonder why the country is teeming with debt; you know how much more savings/investing I could do with that much extra money from taxes? Hell, even if I spent half of it on a nice vacation for my wife and I, that's STILL $4,000.00. With the money saved from free healthcare (thousands a year for many Americans, if not more), think of how much more money will be injected into the economy, instead of Big Pharma and other related corporations!

Not to mention, all the money spent on those drugs that you guys spend on down there, would be curbed significantly, as people will get seen and treated, instead of having pharmaceuticals thrown at them because they can't afford treatment.

LOL every American conservative knows a guy whose Canadian friend came to the US to get medical service because the system there is so bad.

I agree with your basic premise here. But Americans, as a group, will prefer to pay $5,000 in taxes and $10,000 in private insurance rather than $8,000 in taxes and $2,000 on health care.  This makes sense to Americans because the first option offers lower taxes.

The only thing standing between us and tax-based, big government health care are private insurance companies/hospitals who find ever more innovative ways to offer "free choice" in a range of progressively priced options.

[hollodero]

(03-04-2020, 03:01 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: A return to relative sanity from the Republican party would be pretty nice :)

Don't get your hopes up. Once an electorate has tasted full-blown populism, it does not just so return to some more pragmatic sanity. These tickets would get called a RINO ticket by a huge portion, and hence such a ticket probably won't come to pass or fail so miserably there will no be repeat. I know little, but that one I know. Trumpism will be a big political factor for decades.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(03-04-2020, 03:56 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL every American conservative knows a guy whose Canadian friend came to the US to get medical service because the system there is so bad.

I will say, there are SOME (I'm talking VERY FEW) treatments/surgeries that are not done up here, such as, "radical," (as they haven't been approved by our government... or any other, for that matter lol) Lyme Disease treatments; I do know one acquaintance that has started a gofundme, because the treatment is not offered up here.

But again, it is such a small amount, it affects maybe 1% of our population at best, while cancer is significantly higher.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(03-04-2020, 03:56 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL every American conservative knows a guy whose Canadian friend came to the US to get medical service because the system there is so bad.

I agree with your basic premise here. But Americans, as a group, will prefer to pay $5,000 in taxes and $10,000 in private insurance rather than $8,000 in taxes and $2,000 on health care.  This makes sense to Americans because the first option offers lower taxes.

The only thing standing between us and tax-based, big government health care are private insurance companies/hospitals who find ever more innovative ways to offer "free choice" in a range of progressively priced options.

So I had a quick conversation with my sister about this (who DOES have a dog in this fight {not Bernie, for those wondering} and knows INFINITELY more about US Politics than I do) and this was her response:

   
   
   

Mind reader, you are

[*Nately120*]

(02-26-2020, 07:14 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Government (and non-government) programs help families like mine, which I know because I still benefit from them.  That's different from just giving out benefits to people who just don't want to work or are just too lazy to do anything.  I've also been on committees and boards to help people like me and families like mine, which, again, is different from people getting benefits just because they don't want to do anything in life.

The problem is, helping people like you who need it has softened my heart to the point where I don't mind helping lazy bums.  Charity is a curse, I tells ya!

[Arturo Bandini]

I pay around 6,5% taxes of my salary for healthcare and my company is paying 10% more for me.

[Dill]

(03-04-2020, 04:50 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: So I had a quick conversation with my sister about this (who DOES have a dog in this fight {not Bernie, for those wondering} and knows INFINITELY more about US Politics than I do) and this was her response:

Mind reader, you are

Your sister certainly gets it.  Once you say "minimally higher taxes" to a US audience all the other details and cost savings are blocked out. Unless we can combine a single payer system with free ammunition, it will never fly in the US.

I am one of those people who has lived under other healthcare systems (Germany, Qatar) and gone into shock upon returning to the US, only to pay double for limited piecemeal for coverage doled out through a system of daunting paperwork.

The extra dollars I pay for less go to insure I have "choices"--like between a policy which covers both gall bladder AND appendix surgery or one which covers only gall bladder.

Best we can hope for this side at the border is policy that insures "competitive rates." lol

[Dill]

(03-04-2020, 09:46 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: What about the Silent Genners? :)

Mostly gone

[*Nately120*]

(03-04-2020, 05:38 PM)Dill Wrote: Mostly gone

Mike Brown is still alive.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-27-2020, 05:19 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: [*]Anyways, it's vastly an unknown number because no one wants to truly research it because it would probably give many USC's a heart attack lol.  My guess is it's double the 54B ($108B). and half what Trump said, (274B) 137B, some where in that range.

(02-27-2020, 06:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually I don't want to believe it because the numbers are bullshit.

There are currently over 15.5 million high school students.  The average cost of a year of college (in-state tuition at state school not private) is $9,700.  

That works out to over $600 BILLION for 4 years.  Care to show me how the United States spends $600 billion per year on "illegals"?

[*]

Uhm….. 600B for 4 years is 150B per year... are you using Bernie math?

Speaking of Numbers..
About 3.7 million students are expected to graduate from high school during the 2019–20 school year, including 3.3 million students from public schools and 0.3 million from private schools (source).

Your number includes grades 9-12, but I'll play with that number and use it as the number of kids that have graduated and moved on to college for a total of 4 years, make sense? So instead of using my 3.7 mil number x 4, i'll just use yours since it's higher).

Not everyone will go to a 4 year college, some will go to a 2 year college and others not at all.

So moving on:
If it's Federally run, then Out of State becomes meaningless if you are a USC.
Since it is also Federally mandated, you can mandate the maximum and if colleges exceed this, then it's up to the student to pay the difference.
In this way, the Ivy Schools could still stay elite, but they will accept the gov mandated money and it's up to them to figure out a way to make up the difference.

And I see no need for it to keep going up every year, when we are starting to have more and more teachers teach from online and via pre-recorded videos.

So set it at $7k per year, with 15.3 (4 years of students enrolled at once) million students, it's $107B/Year. (even at 9.7k it's still only $143B
and as I've said, about the illegals, the medical costs, schooling of the children born in the US etc, I believed that annual amount to be right around 137B (on the high end).

If it runs short, then you could gain funds from the military side. 0.01% or however much is needed. If it's overage, then you leave it alone and save it for the next year and keep rolling over. IOU"s not allowed.

[Dill]

(03-06-2020, 04:59 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So set it at $7k per year, with 15.3 (4 years of students enrolled at once) million students, it's $107B/Year. (even at 9.7k it's still only $143B

and as I've said, about the illegals, the medical costs, schooling of the children born in the US etc, I believed that annual amount to be right around 137B (on the high end).

If it runs short, then you could gain funds from the military side. 0.01% or however much is needed. If it's overage, then you leave it alone and save it for the next year and keep rolling over. IOU"s not allowed.

Suppose your guesstimate is right and undocumented immigrants cost 137B per year.

What would be the "savings" to taxpayers if they were deported?
Or if they were simply cut off from all services, like public schools and emergency room treatment and left dangling?

Do you think state and federal government would just pocket your 137B for a net saving to taxpayers--extra money to finally start building the wall?

Or might other costs appear to negate those "savings"?

[fredtoast]

(02-27-2020, 05:19 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Now back when Trump was screaming about them costing us $275B annually, some people came out and tried to do a report, here's one where they are costing us $54B annually (this includes deducting the taxes paid to)
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-fiscal-cost-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-the-us-taxpayer

There are approximately 3.7 million unlawful immigrant households in the U.S. These households impose a net fiscal burden of around $54.5 billion per year.





Anyways, it's vastly an unknown number because no one wants to truly research it because it would probably give many USC's a heart attack lol.  My guess is it's double the 54B ($108B).

(03-06-2020, 04:59 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote:  I believed that annual amount to be right around 137B (on the high end).

[*]


So basically your claim is just based on wild guesses.

The problem is you are including US citizens that live in "Immigrant households" and you are also including costs that could not be saved by removing the illegal immigrants.  Schools are not going to lay off teachers or reduce the size of their buildings to save money.  Fire departments are not going to reduce in size or service if all immigrants are removed.

And, of course, if you remove 3.7 households full of consumers you will shrink our economy dramatically.  That means less production and fewer jobs.