Who will the Democratic nominee be?

[skliss]

12 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

To be fair any tough questions requiring a real answer couldn't be asked because it's such a clown car at the moment that nobody has enough time for anything but talking point soundbites and prearranged "attacks". I don't know who is watching these things to try to determine who they're voting for

That's fair. 

If the easy, soft ball questions continue after the field has been widdled down then that will be harder to explain.

[Robotic Jew]

4 minutes ago, skliss said:

That's fair. 

If the easy, soft ball questions continue after the field has been widdled down then that will be harder to explain.

Not really. ALL debates are like that these days. It's not really about anything other than getting them on tv and making money from advertisements. 

[skliss]

2 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

Not really. ALL debates are like that these days. It's not really about anything other than getting them on tv and making money from advertisements. 

Well...let's watch closely.... I think Republicans get harder and sometimes "gotcha" questions. It's a good exercise for when we get into 2020. 

[Tatetopa]

23 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

Not really. ALL debates are like that these days. It's not really about anything other than getting them on tv and making money from advertisements. 

Yeah, it is exposure.  If you think of it as entertainment, it is just getting to know the characters at the start of the season.  Only Game of Thrones is bold enough to behead a major character in the first few episodes.  Unless these folks prove really unlikeable or really stupid, they will stick around for a while.

Hard ball questions might come when there are only  two or three left. 

[+DieChecker]

13 hours ago, skliss said:

They still asked nothing about climate change, immigration, infrastructure...where are the tough questions like how are you gonna pay for stuff? Instead they ask about Ellen and W.  Really....? .....just Really....?

It's just a cream puff fashion show. No real debating is going on.

I do like that some of the Factcheckers are going after each other based on each sites personal favorite candidate. It is amusing if nothing else, and could fodder for Don when he meets their champion on the field of battle.

[+DieChecker]

So, how many are really left now?

Is Beto even still making news? I saw a after debate article about Mayor Pete and it had a picture of Beto at the top of it. Why bother even reading such trash that cant even get the right candidate in the picture?

[Farmer77]

13 hours ago, skliss said:

They still asked nothing about climate change, immigration, infrastructure...where are the tough questions like how are you gonna pay for stuff? Instead they ask about Ellen and W.  Really....? .....just Really....?

I thought Warrens answer about taxation of billionaires was kind of a home run regarding how to pay for stuff.

[Gwynbleidd]

What date or time limit do they have till they pick someone for the Democratic Nominee?

Also, will there be a debate (or more than one debate perhaps?)  with that chosen nominee with Trump?   

[+DieChecker]

3 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

I thought Warrens answer about taxation of billionaires was kind of a home run regarding how to pay for stuff.

It will pay for everything shes proposed, except Medicare for all. I read estimates that her ideas need about 2.5 trillion over 10 years which the wealth tax could pay for, assuming all the billionaires dont move off shore.

But Medicare for All is projected to be 22 Trillion over 10 years and her tax ideas have failed to pay for even 10% of that so far.

Sanders is 100% correct in that taxes for everyone would need to go up. And quite a bit. Projections I saw on CNN, I believe, were 40% to 80%, increases.

Edit... might have been this one that some of the numbers came from.

 

Edited October 18, 2019 by DieChecker

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

It will pay for everything shes proposed, except Medicare for all. I read estimates that her ideas need about 2.5 trillion over 10 years which the wealth tax could pay for, assuming all the billionaires dont move off shore.

But Medicare for All is projected to be 22 Trillion over 10 years and her tax ideas have failed to pay for even 10% of that so far.

Sanders is 100% correct in that taxes for everyone would need to go up. And quite a bit. Projections I saw on CNN, I believe, were 40% to 80%, increases.

 IDK I think the numbers are too hard to nail down this early because of all the variables not just surrounding the healthcare issue but surrounding the re-prioritization of government in general.   https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/sep/13/cost-medicare-all-sticker-shock-or-bill-relief/

Quote

But what about the offsets, the money paid now that Washington would pick up?

The Urban Institute estimated that state and local governments would save $4.1 trillion over 10 years, and that households and businesses would see about $21.9 trillion in savings.

The modeling is a challenge — how much would hospitals, doctors and drug makers be paid? Without insurance company profits, what are the net savings? What would be the cost when more affordable care leads to more use?

 

I havent done all the math but between my wife and myself it has been a tough year health wise. Right now we have top notch insurance that costs us a couple hundred and my company another thousand a month and we're staring at around 30k in medical debt accrued in 12 months.

Speaking personally if they do have to raise everyone's taxes, which im not completely convinced about, ill gladly pay that couple of hundred a month in taxes to not have that crushing debt hanging over me.

 

[+DieChecker]

3 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

 IDK I think the numbers are too hard to nail down this early because of all the variables not just surrounding the healthcare issue but surrounding the re-prioritization of government in general.   https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/sep/13/cost-medicare-all-sticker-shock-or-bill-relief/

I'd agree if Warren wanted to spend 3 or 4 Trillion and had 2 to 3 Trillion lived up. But were looking at 35+ Trillion with less then 4 Trillion in proposed taxes.

That's not just wiggle room, that's unsustainable. Even if we killed, 100%, all military spending, we'd still need almost 20 Trillion more in taxes.

The rich alone will not pay it.

The idea businesses will pay it has some merit, but it would mean tripling, just about, corporate tax as seen today. You can image how the Stock Market and those at the top end of the economy would receive that.

Quote

I havent done all the math but between my wife and myself it has been a tough year health wise. Right now we have top notch insurance that costs us a couple hundred and my company another thousand a month and we're staring at around 30k in medical debt accrued in 12 months.

Speaking personally if they do have to raise everyone's taxes, which im not completely convinced about, ill gladly pay that couple of hundred a month in taxes to not have that crushing debt hanging over me.

Sorry to hear about your hardships. I'm lucky, I guess in that the only issue I have at 51 is moderate high blood pressure. I put 5000 in my health savings account every year, with a yearly deductible max family of 5000, so i have no issues paying. And it's a High Deductible plan... 

I do agree though... IF they can get it to work... I'd not mind a bit more taxes. I'm just not convinced our FedGov could run such a thing well.

I think Pete B's idea of "Medicare for All... Who want it", is a MUCH better idea.

Edited October 18, 2019 by DieChecker

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

8 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

I thought Warrens answer about taxation of billionaires was kind of a home run regarding how to pay for stuff.

That works great the first year. Then the money people move their money out and lose a lot due to billionaire taxation.

So what happens in year two, three etc? Where does the funding come from to support all these lavish social programs Liz will undoubtedly create?

"Socialism ends when you run out of other people's money" -  Margaret Thatcher

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

The idea businesses will pay it has some merit, but it would mean tripling, just about, corporate tax as seen today. 

It has merit...? Really, DC?

Once you raise taxes on business in large amounts, you KILL exports completely. And domestically, (assuming here that imports are heavily taxed as well)  then you have slow sales because of prices people cannot afford. Simple as that.

That will result in MASSIVE layoffs and therefor, less income tax garnered and more capitol layout to unemployment collectors.

Still think it's with merit? Dems are trying to create something out of nothing and it never works. There are dire consequences for people if such a plan were to happen.

But then again, the greedy f'n pig democrats don't give a crap about PEOPLE. they only care about power for democrat crooked pols.

The US government takes in far more $$ in tax revenues than China, who has a population four times larger to take care of!!!
We don't have a problem with lack tax revenue in the US, we have a GREED problem by the crooked thieving dems 

[+DieChecker]

39 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

It has merit...? Really, DC?

Once you raise taxes on business in large amounts, you KILL exports completely. And domestically, (assuming here that imports are heavily taxed as well)  then you have slow sales because of prices people cannot afford. Simple as that.

That will result in MASSIVE layoffs and therefor, less income tax garnered and more capitol layout to unemployment collectors.

Well, my thought was that right now, effectively, an employee "pays" their employer, by having it deducted from their pay, an amount of sometimes several hundred dollars, to have insurance. The business usually pays the same, and sometimes thousands of dollars, per employee.

So if Good, Free Market, private insurance is eliminated, as it is under Warren's plan. Then the businesses are "saving" that money they no longer are paying. So if Warren was to tax businesses to about that same amount... nothing would be gained or lost.

That is what think has Merit. Now.... Do I think they would be happy with that? No. Do I think they would have to double, or triple, it? Probably. Because now each person isnt supporting their own insurance, they as re supporting 1.5, or 2, times themselves, since many will not pay into the system at all, but will drain out of it.

Myself, I dont think that us fair. But liberals dont like my idea of fair. Such as making the healthy poor do public work to get their insurance, rather then just sponge it up for free. If someone is able, they should be forced to work, if they want the freebies... uhh... I mean entitlements... or... rather... their "basic human needs", or whatever....

AND... I agree. Taxing businesses a significant higher amount will be a sure fire way to make big corporations go offshore with the billionaires, and for small businesses to just fold up.

Liberals will say it should be possible as other nations do it. But the fact is that in France, Germany, Sweden, UK... Doctors and Nurses make half, or a third, what they make here, and I just don't see millions and millions of union backed nurses getting their pay cut in half. It just isnt going to happen. And so Medicare for All just isnt going to happen. Not without crazy big Debt getting racked up.

But, yes, taxing business to help pay for it does have some merit as an idea to help pay for the big costs. It will not be enough, but it will bring in a lot.

Edited October 18, 2019 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

51 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

That works great the first year. Then the money people move their money out and lose a lot due to billionaire taxation.

So what happens in year two, three etc? Where does the funding come from to support all these lavish social programs Liz will undoubtedly create?

"Socialism ends when you run out of other people's money" -  Margaret Thatcher

I believe this is what they saw in Switzerland. They reacted by lowering the wealth tax from 3% to 1%, I believe, and the exodus of the rich slowed greatly. Other nations like France gave it up when it didnt meet projections and caused more trouble then it was worth, as the rich hid their money, and used various loopholes.

[TigerBright19]

Election results

 

 

 

[acidhead]

 

[Farmer77]

Resonated with me:

I’m Not The Radical Left, I’m The Humane Middle

Quote

Apparently, I’ve been radicalized and I wasn’t aware.

Certain people call me the “radical Left” all the time.

I never considered myself radical before.
I just thought I was normal, ordinary, usual.
I thought equity was important to everyone.
I imagined America was filled with people who took that Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness stuff seriously—for all people.
I thought the Golden Rule was actually mainstream.

Recently I took an inventory of my positions, screening for the extremism:

 

Edited October 21, 2019 by Farmer77

[bee]

2 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Resonated with me:

I’m Not The Radical Left, I’m The Humane Middle

 

 

I had a look at the rest of that link and a quick look to see who that John Pavlovitz is...

And he is so up himself and critical of others while presenting himself as the perfect example
of humanity (without actually saying that,,,)... his pompous superiority complex is annoying..
in this article it's funny how he describes turning up early to a visit relatives and the people he was
visiting quickly grabbing the remote to turn it off Fox News - poor things knew what a judgemental
know~it~all he was and knew what was coming..... and it did.... .... they got it in spadefuls... via
the article...

that guy is an anti Trump, Globalist's dream come true... 

 picture the scene.... poor older relative... .... busted by their sanctimonious family member ....

A year ago I walked into an older relative’s house unannounced. They’d been expecting us that day for lunch, but we’d arrived thirty minutes earlier than we’d planned—so we knocked and walked in.

The small TV on the kitchen counter was playing FoxNews.

When she came down the stairs, almost in the middle of greeting us, my relative walked hurriedly over to the sink, grabbed the remote and turned off the TV—looking like a teenager caught by her parents watching porn.

Suddenly everything made sense. All the dots connected.

[Farmer77]

19 minutes ago, bee said:

 

I had a look at the rest of that link and a quick look to see who that John Pavlovitz is...

And he is so up himself and critical of others while presenting himself as the perfect example
of humanity (without actually saying that,,,)... his pompous superiority complex is annoying..
in this article it's funny how he describes turning up early to a visit relatives and the people he was
visiting quickly grabbing the remote to turn it off Fox News - poor things knew what a judgemental
know~it~all he was and knew what was coming..... and it did.... .... they got it in spadefuls... via
the article...

that guy is an anti Trump, Globalist's dream come true... 

 picture the scene.... poor older relative... .... busted by their sanctimonious family member ....

 

 

So rather than discussing the substance of the article you choose to cherry pick a section from a different article the author wrote to disparage the author?

The lowbrow propaganda you spread is tiresome

[bee]

4 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

So rather than discussing the substance of the article you choose to cherry pick a section from a different article the author wrote to disparage the author?

The lowbrow propaganda you spread is tiresome

 

what's good for the goose is good for the gander... 

the substance of the article you took your quote from epitomises the holier~than~thou attitude
that is contributing to the division and destabilization of America...

IMO

 

 

 

[Farmer77]

24 minutes ago, bee said:

 

what's good for the goose is good for the gander... 

the substance of the article you took your quote from epitomises the holier~than~thou attitude
that is contributing to the division and destabilization of America...

IMO

The fact that you thought the article I posted was "holier than thou" speaks volumes about you.

[bee]

Just now, Farmer77 said:

The fact that you thought the article I posted was "holier than thou" speaks volumes about you.

the fact that you don't........ ditto back at ya.... 

'''' let he who is without sin cast the first stone''''' and all that jazz...

the internalised belief that is encouraged in Trump Haters that they are truly better than 'others'
is the stuff that Gas Chambers are made of.... and no better than what they rail against..

again.... IMO

 
 

[Farmer77]

2 minutes ago, bee said:

the fact that you don't........ ditto back at ya.... 

'''' let he who is without sin cast the first stone''''' and all that jazz...

the internalised belief that is encouraged in Trump Haters that they are truly better than 'others'
is the stuff that Gas Chambers are made of.... and no better than what they rail against..

again.... IMO

 
 

and again nothing you are saying has anything to do with the article I posted.

[Hankenhunter]

6 minutes ago, bee said:

the fact that you don't........ ditto back at ya.... 

'''' let he who is without sin cast the first stone''''' and all that jazz...

the internalised belief that is encouraged in Trump Haters that they are truly better than 'others'
is the stuff that Gas Chambers are made of.... and no better than what they rail against..

again.... IMO

 
 

I dont think I am better than you or anyone else. Trump is just a bad choice making more bad choices. That's it. No hate. Anger over the results of those bad choices, certainly, but not hate. The hate comes from the people willing to take up arms against their perceived enemies on the say so of a confirmed racist and demagogue. He goads his followers towards it.