Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
“Rational” is an odd word choice.
We’ve spent $4T on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we’re not done. Compared to that, the desire for universal health care, child care, or education seems pretty grounded.
2020 Field
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
“Rational” is an odd word choice.
We’ve spent $4T on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we’re not done. Compared to that, the desire for universal health care, child care, or education seems pretty grounded.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
For many of his supporters (and to some extent Sanders himself) the socialist ethic holds more value than concrete policies. During his Senate career, he has never been one to cut deals. He's been much more happy as a voice in the wilderness. And now his joy and pride is this movement he's riding. Maybe he will surprise and prove to be a better practical politician. And no filling potholes as mayor of Burlington is not proof he has the chops to make the deals and compromises he will need to if elected president.
57Brave
Well-known member
I bring up McGovern every chance I get.
There are few pols I ever looked up to
I saw numbers somewhere in the past few days that Nixon held 53-45% lead post convention August 1972.
This was before Eagleton and what we know now that we didn't know then.
McGovern was anti war. That was his calling card.
A WWII fighter piolet that was dog whistled too liberal for opposing the war.
Our country overwhelmingly elected Richard Nixon over McGovern.
nuf said.
I attended a rally the day before the election and once had the pleasure of meeting McGovern's protégé and Senate successor Jim Abourezk.
He had no chance of winning and witnessing that last rally, he knew it. Everybody knew it
So don't buy the hype that late in life he thought he stood a better chance of winning by disavowing his left wing economic platform.
A platform which in fact Andrew Yang has adopted a great deal from.
Another note, I had a day job setting up chairs at the Miami Convention center for (R) convention.
No one asked my opinion. On anything
Last edited:
striker42
Well-known member
Desire? Sure, that's great. The idea that Sanders can just get it all done and fund it with what he's putting out there? Irrational.
Again, if we decide a single payer system is what we want as a country, great. That's not the problem. Just be sure to fully fund it and don't rely on debt spending.
striker42
Well-known member
Could it be done? Sure. Can it be funded with the taxes Sanders is putting out there? No chance. The numbers aren't even close. Even Sanders can't say how it would be fully funded.
Can it be done without a massive increase in the tax burden of essentially every American? No. There's no chance of that. The math just doesn't work.
What is irrational is the idea that electing Sanders will suddenly result in all these great new programs and that they can be funded with the taxes Sanders is proposing. Sanders will never have enough control of Congress to get it all passed, he's got even less chance of getting his taxes through, and even if they all got through, it's not enough money.
striker42
Well-known member
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/14/politics/bernie-sanders-proposals-cost/index.html
Here's an analysis by Ronald Brownstein. He writes for CNN and The Atlantic.
Here's an analysis by Ronald Brownstein. He writes for CNN and The Atlantic.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Mexico will pay for it.
57Brave
Well-known member
No one thinks on Feb 1 2021 this will be in place.
we now pay more for care per capita than any nation on earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
question I would like to know is, how are we paying for this boondoggle of a system now. And how could anything else be worse in cost or in service
we now pay more for care per capita than any nation on earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
question I would like to know is, how are we paying for this boondoggle of a system now. And how could anything else be worse in cost or in service
57Brave
Well-known member
let us look at this where we never ask, "how will we pay for it"
https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison
last look, not very "fiscally responsible"
https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison
last look, not very "fiscally responsible"
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
No one thinks on Feb 1 2021 this will be in place.
we now pay more for care per capita than any nation on earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
question I would like to know is, how are we paying for this boondoggle of a system now. And how could anything else be worse in cost or in service
It seems to me that a precursor to expanding coverage is to bring costs under control. No?
For me a sign of seriousness on the issue is a plan to reduce how much it costs to provide medical care in this country. I think our system is not serving us very well. I think we can do better. And we should work to insure more people.
But if we try to do all that without a better handle on costs we are asking for trouble.
I'll let you in on a dirty little secret: to talk about costs is to set off a hornets' nest. The political popular (and irresponsible) approach is to promise more coverage without discussing costs.
57Brave
Well-known member
Interesting people refer to Larry Summers for his "expert" opinion.
Business interests[edit]
On October 19, 2006, Summers was hired as a part-time managing director of the New York-based hedge fund D. E. Shaw & Co. for which he received $5 million in salary and other compensation over a 16-month period.[60] At the same time Summers earned $2.8 million in speaking fees from major financial institutions,[61][62] including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers.[63] Upon being nominated Treasury Secretary by President Clinton in 1999, Summers listed assets of about $900,000 and debts, including a mortgage, of $500,000.[62] By the time he returned in 2009 to serve in the Obama administration, he reported a net worth between $17 million and $39 million.[62] He is a former member of the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Group.[64] In 2013, Summers became an early angel investor in India's first car rental company, Zoomcar, which was started by his former Harvard Teaching Fellow.[65]
Correct me if I am wrong, but another of Sanders proposals is reining in Wall Street.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers
I would be leery of Summers prognostications on anything to do with Senators Warren or Sanders
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I think this gets classified under pre-emptive ad hominem.
57Brave
Well-known member
I am curious how it could be worse ?
For the 10 years since ACA and the 30 since the Clinton initiative we have heard how catastrophic any change to the status quo. While smugly making the aside we could do better.
Yet, we never see a proposal from the critics.
Where is a counter proposal.
There is none
striker42
Well-known member
Defense spending is actually extremely small compared to the cost of a single payer system.
That being said, single payer such as Medicare for All is probably the most financially doable thing on his platform. You'd have to essentially transition what everyone pays for premiums into tax. That would get you most of the way. You'd need additional money as there would be an expansion of use of the healthcare system but it would be an obtainable amount of money. If we did away with things like copays, deductibles, and coinsurance it would get a lot more expensive but still probably doable. You'd have some economic upheaval because of how big the health insurance industry is but it would be survivable.
So I think a single payer system could possibly be done in a fiscally responsible manner.
The numbers I was talking about are Sanders' full array of programs. Things like free college and green initiatives that would require MASSIVE expenditures. There's no massive pot of money like there is with health insurance premiums that could be easily grabbed to fund those programs.
Sanders keeps promising new program after new program but no clear plan to pay for them. That scares me because paying for programs is not something Congress is particularly good at.
57Brave
Well-known member
no, it gets classified under "fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me - fool me again ….. wont get fooled again"
I disregard anything Larry Summers says or the numbers he shows concerning Sanders or Warren. Can you spell conflict of interest.
Let me add, it is irresponsible for any media outlet or reporting that shows him as an impartial outside observer .
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
You're free to disregard anything anyone says for whatever reason you want to. But in my experience we learn more from people we disagree with than those who make us comfortable in our preconceptions. You might want to consider evaluating his ideas on their merits.
57Brave
Well-known member
Collecting revenue is something Congress has not been good at since the 1980's.
I am encouraged that you see a single payer system as something that is do able.
57Brave
Well-known member
I don't agree or disagree with him. I discount his opinions on Sen Sanders proposals on anything because he has a dog in the fight and a lot to lose should Sanders or Warren win the general
He is not an impartial observer
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I always refer people when they ask this question to a plan put forth by Martin Feldstein about 20 years ago.
Disclaimer: Martin Feldstein was one of Larry Summers' professors and mentors. Although their politics were (I use the past tense since Feldstein died a few years ago) quite different.
Last edited:
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
good luck finding impartial observers