Who stands for what?

[bluesmoke]

Bernie doesn't even know himself how this would all work out. He just wants a blank check and we'll figure it all out later.

Yup. He just has faith that whatever/regardless of figures he's analyzed, things will work out as he says they will.

 

[vegas giants]

Bernie's proposals total around 60 trillion dollars in NEW spending, on top of what the government already spends. Here's a link from friendly CNN, not Fox News.

Bernie Sanders' agenda: Its cost -- possibly $60 trillion -- would set a peacetime US record - CNNPolitics

It's a bargain

 

[OscarLevant]

As regards to the size of the Federal Government- the Republicans # say# they stand for limited Govt, but they never back that up.


The Democrats are at least honest. They stand for either BIG govt. Double BIG Govt or triple BIG Govt.


what next?????

What dems do is not frame policy in terms of ' government size' which is, in a practical sense, a term that is practically meaningless.

And what to republicans mean when they say "we are for small government"?

Well, the only way to measure that is to examine their legislation and legislative proposals.

What are they?

They are
1. Blanket deregulation
2. Tax cuts for those who don't need it.
3. As many restrictions on abortion as they can get away with. (which is bigger gov, eh? )
4. Cut entitlements.


That's the bulk of it.

Let's examine consequences:

1. They deregulate without regard to whether or not a reg is doing good.

2. This is causing careening deficits which can fuel inflation, which has the net effect of taxing the poor and middle class, as they are less able to hedge than the rich are. Historically speaking, giving uneeded tax breaks to the superrich does not help the economy, it makes it worse.

3. This interferes with commerce, and puts needless roadblocks that have nothing to do with medicine for those seeking abortions, which increases the size of government, not reduce.

4. Well, how much of my 92 year old mom's $800 'entitlement' do you guys want to cut?


In sum, "smaller government" when you examine their policies, all it means is more goodies for rich people, and less for poor, with additional restrictions on abortion.

That's all it means.

I sincerely doubt the majority of people side with their points of view.

 

[OscarLevant]

It's a bargain

Let the fear mongering begin.

There are so many analyzes of the Bernie proposal.

Moreover, what Bernie wants and what dems in senate and the house are going to let him have are two different things.

You can bet the house and senate will wind up with a version where that burden will not be the case, it will result in a net savings to society while covering everyone.

And there are incalculable benefits. Everyone has health care. Think of the stress reduction to society when that is true?

Citizen's health care is no longer tied to that of their employers, they don't have to make decisions on employment because of health care.

Employers will no longer be shouldered with the burden of health care, what a relief to millions of smaller businesses, and how can this not be a good thing?

Since health insurance is eliminated, the fear of paying for years only to have your insurer deny your claim, because when you put in a claim 20 years from now due to a catastrophic illness, after they subpoenaed all of your medical records, they found out you didn't tell them something that you should have, and they find a legal way to deny your claim, or they do it anyway knowing you don't have the resources to fight them ( as was the reality of health care before the ACA )

Taxes will be raised, but it will be progressive, letting those who are more able share the greater burden.

Note that premiums, deductibles, copays, will be eliminated.

M4a takes dollars that are ALREADY being spent, and redirects those dollars into a more cost efficient system.

Private clinics will still operate. You will still have as many choices as you had. I have medicare, and when I signed up, I was given list of clinics to chose from which were about 50 or so on the list.

Costs to employers will be eliminated.

There will be a net savings to society. Note that in the 50 or so western nations, the per capita costs of health care is roughly half of what it is here. Now, that doesn't mean UHC will reduce America's cost in half, but that fact means there's a lot of head room, and it proves that, of all claims made against UHC, there is NO evidence it will cost society more.

The cost of UHC is not n 'add on' cost, it is a more efficient replacement cost.

As for loan forgiveness, i doubt the senate will allow it, what will happen is loan forgiveness for those whose career path doesn't pay that well ( like scholarly work ) but whose contribution because of knowledge contributes to society in hard to calculate ways, or something of this nature.

The fear mongerers are totalling ALL of Bernie's proposals. It's not realistic that Bernie is going get all he wants, so I don't worry about it.

M4A, is the thing, for me, and we have many examples of other countries revealing that it results in a net savings to society.

I could go on, but why bother.

 

[OscarLevant]

The terms big and small government are meaningless.

Bumper sticker level of logic and very few people actually understand what they generally mean or are consistent in how they want to see it done.

Many Conservatives on this board go on about government getting off peoples backs whilst continuing to support things like the war on drugs and stamping out female reproductive rights as an example.

Democrats try to act more left populist but are mostly beholden to large corporations as much as Republicans, though I think the lengths Republicans will go to please their benefactors is far more harmful.

This is why I'm a progressive, we are revolting against corporatism in politics.

Or, that is the hope. I pray Bernie, if he wins, will stick to his anti-corporate guns.

 

[OscarLevant]

Just in terms of a rather limited cost-benefit analysis, the $60M plan would be partially paid for by a $23M increase in revenue from increase tax rates on higher income individuals, corps and Wall Street. That leaves $37M to be paid. Of that $60M is $34M in healthcare to be paid by the govt that previously was not and was instead paid through insurance premiums. So, instead of paying insurance premiums, we would be paying through taxes. It is likely tax payments would be less for those at lower incomes than the insurance premiums they paid before. However, as with Medicare, health payments would be lower than under private insurance as has been proved in the many countries that have universal healthcare, or some form thereof.

Maybe I’m missing something, but I didn’t see the offsetting costs I mentioned above calculated in the article “analysis” to come to a bottom-line real cost to the avg American. Or, maybe you can edify.

Of the 50 western developed nations who have some variant of UHC, the per capita costs are roughly half of that of the US.

That is not to say if US adapts UHC, our per capita costs would be half of what it is now, but that fact leaves a lot of headroom.

 

[Jetboogieman]

This is why I'm a progressive, we are revolting against corporatism in politics.

Or, that is the hope. I pray Bernie, if he wins, will stick to his anti-corporate guns.

He’ll be paralyzed by the corporatist congress that is legally corrupt.

He won’t be able to do much event if he wins, just reversing bad executive orders is the best you can hope for and a possibly more humanitarian foreign policy.

 

[OscarLevant]

He’ll be paralyzed by the corporatist congress that is legally corrupt.

He won’t be able to do much event if he wins, just reversing bad executive orders is the best you can hope for and a possibly more humanitarian foreign policy.

If that is the choice between him and a full on corporate dem, at least it's a step in the right direction.

It's a journey, and at some point, we have to take the first step. Maybe progressives will get lucky and get a majority in the Senate.

 

[KLATTU]

What dems do is not frame policy in terms of ' government size' which is, in a practical sense, a term that is practically meaningless.

And what to republicans mean when they say "we are for small government"?

Well, the only way to measure that is to examine their legislation and legislative proposals.

What are they?

They are
1. Blanket deregulation
2. Tax cuts for those who don't need it.
3. As many restrictions on abortion as they can get away with. (which is bigger gov, eh? )
4. Cut entitlements.


That's the bulk of it.

Let's examine consequences:

1. They deregulate without regard to whether or not a reg is doing good.

2. This is causing careening deficits which can fuel inflation, which has the net effect of taxing the poor and middle class, as they are less able to hedge than the rich are. Historically speaking, giving uneeded tax breaks to the superrich does not help the economy, it makes it worse.

3. This interferes with commerce, and puts needless roadblocks that have nothing to do with medicine for those seeking abortions, which increases the size of government, not reduce.

4. Well, how much of my 92 year old mom's $800 'entitlement' do you guys want to cut?


In sum, "smaller government" when you examine their policies, all it means is more goodies for rich people, and less for poor, with additional restrictions on abortion.

That's all it means.

I sincerely doubt the majority of people side with their points of view.

LAFFRIOT!

hoe are things in that bubble'?

 

[calamity]

You still don't understand that "limited government" is just code for the wealthy/corporations/powerful ensuring that the ONLY check on their power...government...is hamstrung in its ability to reign them in?

That's why you don't see Republicans *actually* push limited government in practice, except the in the very precise places they care:
- reduction in corporate/wealthy taxation at the expense of everyone else (since they run a deficit like everyone else)
- reduction in regulations that would force a few giant polluters and unsafe practice pharmaceutical industries, etc., to behave a little more responsibly.

That's why you haven't seen "limited government" because it's a ruse...it's a stupid right wing propaganda message, that for whatever reason plays well with their base.

Government is a tool. Government is the tool that philosophers helped to define and give understanding ultimately to what became the philosophers who founded the United States. Which is why we were fortunate enough to have a lot more freedoms enumerated in our government, and the *idea* that we use government to help us...not that government exists to use us for their own gains. We understand a lot more than they do, today. Obviously. Why don't you? It's all free, and easily accessible.

Notice that when you preach "limited government", you're attacking the U.S. system, which is here to work for US. And is the only power sufficient in size and authority, that can hold what has traditionally been the dictators and power mongers, in check.

What do you think the U.S. would be without government? Corporations/powerful would rule you. How do you not get it? Who would hold them to account?

No, your ideas about this are fantasy, pure right wing memes and messages that have no real basis in reality. This is why Republican have resorted to an outright con-artist. A huckster and phony...who is simply corrupting government, at the cheering of the right wing media base, who now apparently believes a corrupt nation is the best nation.

Until our citizens are better educated, and stop believing right wing entertainers, it's going to be a cluster ****.

If they understood that the country was founded by business for business to do business and that "the people" was just code for cheap labor, they might actually form a slightly different opinion on the matter. But, most of the Wingnuts are too far gone down the rabbit hole to even entertain such thoughts.

 

[Mach]

If they understood that the country was founded by business for business to do business and that "the people" was just code for cheap labor, they might actually form a slightly different opinion on the matter. But, most of the Wingnuts are too far gone down the rabbit hole to even entertain such thoughts.

I agree, although I still have to hold out hope...you know, because the alternative is too depressing.

They have had the most sophisticated and expensive propaganda campaign waged on them for decades, there is very little we can reasonably do, to reverse that. I mean, there are plenty of examples in history of those in power/government getting so good at propaganda/control, that their people suffer under ignorance and depravity, without ever changing...the governments do not necessarily collapse. North Korea, Russia (ish), etc. Especially in the U.S. strain of this control, its' very light touch. Manufactured consent via pure entertaining propagandists. It's like they combined sports/nascaar/WWF with propaganda, and hit on a blockbuster. People can't get enough of the stupid/crazy, the just have so much fun. As long as the rich and powerful can shape a good portion of government, and be largely free to do what they want, they let the rabble enjoy the illusion of "freedom!!". It's a sick joke.

How many of the depraved mother ****ers on this forum have admitted over the years, that they just love to rile up liberals, love to come here and "smack down" liberals, etc. It's a ****ing hobby to them now..madness. And like all good propaganda, it starts by claiming the enemy is engaged in everything they themselves are engaged in. Propaganda, corruption, enemy of the state...they start by accusing the other side of this, and it apparently works for 30-40% of the ignorant fools. And they'll rely on weakness like "hypocrisy!!!" as evidence of something. This very post, they can imagine in their warped minds, is just hobbyist attacks on the right...for propaganda purposes.

Large viewership is powerful, and dangerous, and all such dangerous power should have checks/balances. Fox news and the like, need to be checked. I don't see many other systematic way to correct it. But then of course, any way you devise, has to be legislated, and they will bring to bear their full depraved power to defeat it. Citizens United, how are we gonna beat that back? Separately, Bloomberg just showed the world that with $$ you can literally buy your way into an election and get a massive amount of votes, as compared to people without that funding. But I'm sure we'll see Trump morons claiming Russia didn't change a single vote too.

It's like they are crying for us to stop trying to do the right thing, and instead get power and abuse them because they just cant get abused enough.

 

[Jack Hays]

• [h=3]
  
  
  Business
  Bloomberg
  
  [/h][h=3]Sanders’s Green New Deal Is a Global Disaster[/h]
  
  
  
• 
  

 

[bluesmoke]

Of the 50 western developed nations who have some variant of UHC, the per capita costs are roughly half of that of the US.

That is not to say if US adapts UHC, our per capita costs would be half of what it is now, but that fact leaves a lot of headroom.

The ratio has changed a little and now US is a little over half of the "developed" nations. I thought that figure as something like 36 nations. Idiot Dems do not make a point of this. If those countries can do it, so can we. But Trumpsters and Trumplicans scream "socialism". It's not socialism. The same UHC can be had in a socialist country as well as a democracy with a capitalistic economy. Dems don't make that point, either.