THE Political Thread (ALL Political Discussion Here - See Rules, P. 1)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1663, 1664, 1665 ... 3661, 3662, 3663  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29150
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:06 am    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
Promising the world, that can't be delivered is not.


Not gonna dive deep into the Biden vs. Warren specifics in your post. Just want to address this general point.
I disagree. Barack in 2008 (and to a lesser degree 2012) ran on grand, eventually unaccomplished goals. Pulling every soldier out of Iraq and Afghanistan, shutting down GITMO, student debt forgiveness and healthcare for everyone who needs it. All grand ideas he couldn't accomplish in full. But his aspirations drove people to the polls. And I don't think that makes him a liar. Candidates don't know what road blocks they'll encounter in office. And the public can't think of every situation ahead of time to ask the candidate how they'll respond. That's why grand aspirations are helpful. They give the candidate a clear identity and compass for voters to rally around.

The same can be said about Trump in 2016. The Great Wall of America, a long term (if not permanent) Muslim ban, 3 to 4% GDP growth, bringing back coal and manufacturing jobs. All grand plans of his that won't be accomplished. But they inspired his base.

In retrospect, my 1 critique of Hillary was that she wasn't aspirational enough in some of her policies in 2016. She was too pragmatic in a sense. She fought for raising the minimum wage instead of advocating for a living wage. She advocated for affordable college instead of free college. Campaigns are for big ideas, goals, aspirations. When in office, that's when you compromise if it means progress. Like any negotiation, you have to initially stake out a position that leaves wiggle room for a compromise you can live with.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12612

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:25 am    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
ribeye wrote:
Promising the world, that can't be delivered is not.


Not gonna dive deep into the Biden vs. Warren specifics in your post. Just want to address this general point.
I disagree. Barack in 2008 (and to a lesser degree 2012) ran on grand, eventually unaccomplished goals. Pulling every soldier out of Iraq and Afghanistan, shutting down GITMO, student debt forgiveness and healthcare for everyone who needs it. All grand ideas he couldn't accomplish in full. But his aspirations drove people to the polls. And I don't think that makes him a liar. Candidates don't know what road blocks they'll encounter in office. And the public can't think of every situation ahead of time to ask the candidate how they'll respond. That's why grand aspirations are helpful. They give the candidate a clear identity and compass for voters to rally around.

The same can be said about Trump in 2016. The Great Wall of America, a long term (if not permanent) Muslim ban, 3 to 4% GDP growth, bringing back coal and manufacturing jobs. All grand plans of his that won't be accomplished. But they inspired his base.

In retrospect, my 1 critique of Hillary was that she wasn't aspirational enough in some of her policies in 2016. She was too pragmatic in a sense. She fought for raising the minimum wage instead of advocating for a living wage. She advocated for affordable college instead of free college. Campaigns are for big ideas, goals, aspirations. When in office, that's when you compromise if it means progress. Like any negotiation, you have to initially stake out a position that leaves wiggle room for a compromise you can live with.


And what is the main criticism of Obama by many Democrats? That his hope became hopelessness. That is not how I feel as I realize what he was up against. If you look at his promises, he/Democrats passed health care reform, a debt relief package for students, Wall Street reform, and the soldiers left Iraq (though Bush signed this treaty). I don't recall him running on leaving Afghanistan, in fact I recall it being just the opposite. He tried to shut down Gitmo but ran into that obstructionism wall built by the Republicans, literally on day one. He didn't accomplish immigration reform, but how can there be a serious discussion with so much racism and nativism as we can clearly see now with Trumpublicans?

But more to the point, he was not promising to blow up the budget (and he didn't) with every liberal idea he could come up with.

I don't believe that Obama thought that being a progressive simply meant promising more stuff for people, and I tend to agree with that.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29150
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:40 am    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
And what is the main criticism of Obama by many Democrats? That his hope became hopelessness. That is not how I feel as I realize what he was up against. If you look at his promises, he/Democrats passed health care reform, a debt relief package for students, Wall Street reform, and the soldiers left Iraq (though Bush signed this treaty). I don't recall him running on leaving Afghanistan, in fact I recall it being just the opposite. He tried to shut down Gitmo but ran into that obstructionism wall built by the Republicans, literally on day one. He didn't accomplish immigration reform, but how can there be a serious discussion with so much racism and nativism as we can clearly see now with Trumpublicans?


You're right about Afghanistan. It was just Iraq where he said we'd pull out our troops.
I agree with your description of why he wasn't able to accomplish everything he wanted to.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”


Last edited by kikanga on Sun Aug 18, 2019 12:22 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67314
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:47 am    Post subject:

I understand but don't like the Old White Man label.

IMO Biden is leading because of his affiliation with Obama. He's riding the Obama bus and will until the wheels fall off. He hasn't presented a solid platform, neither has Trump.
]
I believe his name recognition is a very large reason he's leading the pack.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
eddiejonze
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Dec 2013
Posts: 7191

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:59 am    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
I understand but don't like the Old White Man label.

IMO Biden is leading because of his affiliation with Obama. He's riding the Obama bus and will until the wheels fall off. He hasn't presented a solid platform, neither has Trump.
]
I believe his name recognition is a very large reason he's leading the pack.


Agree about the old White Man Label.
You say it enough, it loses meaning because people just get tired of hearing it and tune you out.
It's incessant, and comes off as preachy.
_________________
Creatures crawl in search of blood, To terrorize y'alls neighborhood.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29150
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 12:01 pm    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
But more to the point, he was not promising to blow up the budget (and he didn't) with every liberal idea he could come up with.

I don't believe that Obama thought that being a progressive simply meant promising more stuff for people, and I tend to agree with that.


I don't think this is an accurate or informed opinion of Warren's policies at all. She's not Bernie, she has clearly laid out plans for how she would pay for the programs she wants (when they are implemented). And they don't involve blowing up the budget.
In addition to having common sense ways of paying for the programs immediately, alot of her policy will reduce government spending the longer they are in place. And they put more money into our economy by turning the working poor into middle class Americans again.

Now if you're arguing that's how her platform will appear to some. That's a messaging issue. Which I agree has to be executed well. Or else it could be harmful to her chances of winning the general election. But I'd love for Trump to try to explain policy-wise why he's a better candidate than Warren. Then he's playing HER GAME.

Also if we talk about messaging. Biden holding so closely to being an "establishment candidate" has it's own drawbacks. See Hillary 2008 and 2016.

One final thing. Literally every election I've ever seen has been candidates on both sides of the aisle "promising more stuff for people". Even Republicans promise and deliver to the top 1% and promise and under deliver to everyone else.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”


Last edited by kikanga on Sun Aug 18, 2019 12:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
focus
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 May 2012
Posts: 2526

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 12:19 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
Most of that post was not directed at you personally, but was more about my opinion on the state of the race.

You didn't say it, but that's who Biden is playing to. His whole campaign is based upon the notion that he can keep all the Democrats and add on some non-college white males who might flip from Trump to Biden (mostly because he's a white man). Not a straw man.

The main reason I responded to the post was the double-standard we seem to have for candidates. Warren puts out detailed plans and proposes ways of paying for them. Yes, you can argue over whether these plans will pay for themselves or whether they will ever get Congressional backing. But at least she puts plans out there.

But you know who almost never gets criticized (in general and especially in the media) for not having detailed polices and plans to pay for them? Trump, Biden and Sanders. And that's what pissed me off. I guess it's a coincidence that the three old white guys get a pass. Anyway, whatever.

Since 2016, Bernie usually gets criticized for this, validity aside. Probably the most common criticism of him, media, twitter, republicans, msnbc, fox, here, whatever.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24113
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 12:38 pm    Post subject:

eddiejonze wrote:
jodeke wrote:
I understand but don't like the Old White Man label.

IMO Biden is leading because of his affiliation with Obama. He's riding the Obama bus and will until the wheels fall off. He hasn't presented a solid platform, neither has Trump.
]
I believe his name recognition is a very large reason he's leading the pack.


Agree about the old White Man Label.
You say it enough, it loses meaning because people just get tired of hearing it and tune you out.
It's incessant, and comes off as preachy.


That's why I made the point of saying I'd vote for Beto or Pete etc. It's not that I have a "thing" about old white men. But the history of our country is precisely that. Primarily old white (wealthy) men have been in charge of almost everything since the country's inception. And all political structures, laws, institutions have been built for their benefit and continue to be protected for their benefit. White male privilege is an unspoken factor thorough which 99% of our ideas get filtered. The only way to change that is to call it out in real time as one sees it happening. Is that going to offend some people and sound preachy? Yep. But it's time to wake up.

One of the reasons Trump won is that white male dominance of society is threatened due to changing demographics of our country. And every move Republicans make is to hang onto white male privilege and power from the minority position. It's the reason for McConnell stealing the SCOTUS seat, the reason for voter ID laws, the reason for GOP gerrymandering, the reason SCOTUS gutted the voting rights act, the reason for Citizens United, the reason they are trying to repeal Roe v Wade, the reason for the tax cuts for wealthy and corporations, the reason for climate denial, the reason they don't want immigrants or asylum seekers -- all of it is done to preserve white male power and privilege. I short hand it by saying "old white men" but it's not a figment of my imagination or the product of some arbitrary notion on my part. It's a real thing. No, not all old white men are evil or Republican or seek to impose their will on everyone else. But old wealthy white men all have one thing in common -- they benefit from white male privilege in a way that younger men, women, people of color and LGTBQ people don't. They have a built-in advantage. And when I see it benefiting some candidates at the expense of others, I will continue to point it out.


Last edited by ChefLinda on Sun Aug 18, 2019 12:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
focus
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 May 2012
Posts: 2526

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 12:39 pm    Post subject:

eddiejonze wrote:
jodeke wrote:
I understand but don't like the Old White Man label.

IMO Biden is leading because of his affiliation with Obama. He's riding the Obama bus and will until the wheels fall off. He hasn't presented a solid platform, neither has Trump.
]
I believe his name recognition is a very large reason he's leading the pack.


Agree about the old White Man Label.
You say it enough, it loses meaning because people just get tired of hearing it and tune you out.
It's incessant, and comes off as preachy.

I don't think old White Man is best applied to a old jewish man in Bernie, but that aside...

saying "old White Man" it repeatedly does not make the concept less true, no matter how you tire of hearing it or how it comes off to you. I am one of the "people" and it's fine with me (and valid to me), and i remain untired. The scope of her audience was here on LG. If you mean, comes off as preachy as a way to persuading voters to vote democrat, it's not like she's the official DNC twitter account (as far as I know). And "incessant"? Do you really get bombarded with this somewhere currently?

Switching gears again, i agree with jodeke with the adjustment that I think his affiliation with Obama is the ONLY reason he's not only leading the pack (or was, with Warren on the rise), but even in the pack and not Hickenloopering.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29150
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 12:46 pm    Post subject:

CL I just want to add. What you are saying is also why Trump is trying to make the freshmen Congresswomen of color synonymous with the Democratic party. It's to tap into the outrage present in the demographic you mention.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24113
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 12:48 pm    Post subject:

Yup.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24113
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 12:59 pm    Post subject:

Also wanted to add that there are plenty of women who benefit from white male patriarchy who are just as culpable. See Ivanka Trump.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13811
Location: Boulder ;)

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:08 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
ribeye wrote:
But more to the point, he was not promising to blow up the budget (and he didn't) with every liberal idea he could come up with.

I don't believe that Obama thought that being a progressive simply meant promising more stuff for people, and I tend to agree with that.


I don't think this is an accurate or informed opinion of Warren's policies at all. She's not Bernie, she has clearly laid out plans for how she would pay for the programs she wants (when they are implemented). And they don't involve blowing up the budget.
In addition to having common sense ways of paying for the programs immediately, alot of her policy will reduce government spending the longer they are in place. And they put more money into our economy by turning the working poor into middle class Americans again.

Now if you're arguing that's how her platform will appear to some. That's a messaging issue. Which I agree has to be executed well. Or else it could be harmful to her chances of winning the general election. But I'd love for Trump to try to explain policy-wise why he's a better candidate than Warren. Then he's playing HER GAME.

Also if we talk about messaging. Biden holding so closely to being an "establishment candidate" has it's own drawbacks. See Hillary 2008 and 2016.

One final thing. Literally every election I've ever seen has been candidates on both sides of the aisle "promising more stuff for people". Even Republicans promise and deliver to the top 1% and promise and under deliver to everyone else.


Republicans don't offer much to citizens other than
You're free to be racists
Free to cast stones at women and incarcerate them for miscarriages
Free to give your tax money to Super Predator Billionaires
Free to take away liberals health insurance. And their own
Free to destroy the librals environment and water and air quality. Look, it pisses off the libs so must be good for them.

Lame term I thought up today

DUHMERICA!
The Republican Utopia^^
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13811
Location: Boulder ;)

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:17 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
Also wanted to add that there are plenty of women who benefit from white male patriarchy who are just as culpable. See Ivanka Trump.



You mean White Male Pervism *is that a word?

How many women in Trump's cabinet are qualified or passed security clearance. He chooses them for their looks. Thats the only way he let Omarosa (sp) work for him

Bet Ivanka didn't pass security clearance.. No way Kushner did but there he is. 100 million or so richer after helping MBS kill Khashoggi and label Qatar Terrorists

I think there is a better way to say old white man. Needs more clarity

Not all old white men are (bleep). I'm pretty awesome lol

White Privilege Protectors? Or hmm I'll give it some thought
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13811
Location: Boulder ;)

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:53 pm    Post subject:

Gonna have to agree with DMR

Bill Maher can (bleep) fade away quietly and quickly

No human in America should be defending Netanyahu's treatment of our elected officials

I see Netanyahu IDENTICAL To every rabid coward lunatic violent madman

Bibi Netanyahu is a coward terrorist with a huge lack of what it takes to be considered "Human"
Bill Maher ^^^^ Get in the mirror and find if Bibi is Trump's (bleep) then you are Trump's (bleep)'s (bleep)

Maher looks part Palestinian, is he? Just kidding
I dare someone to ask him that
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29150
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:11 pm    Post subject:

Ever since I stopped watching Bill Maher, I've been alot happier.

I still see the headlines about him. Defending Neil Degrasse Tyson's insensitive and daft remarks after the shootings. Claiming it's a purity test when Tlaib and Omar question our mostly one sided support of Israel. Railing that twitter is attacking people's freedom of speech (as if upset on twitter isn't free speech as well). Blaming the audience when they don't laugh at his jokes.

I appreciate that he's donated to Democratic candidates. But he's too narcissistic.

So much of what he says now will age horribly.
Like this did:


The last straw for me was when he blurred the line between medical transitioning and socially transitioning. Children can do the latter till they hit 18. And if they still want to go through medical procedures then, they can.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”


Last edited by kikanga on Sun Aug 18, 2019 4:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12612

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:37 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
ribeye wrote:
But more to the point, he was not promising to blow up the budget (and he didn't) with every liberal idea he could come up with.

I don't believe that Obama thought that being a progressive simply meant promising more stuff for people, and I tend to agree with that.


I don't think this is an accurate or informed opinion of Warren's policies at all. She's not Bernie, she has clearly laid out plans for how she would pay for the programs she wants (when they are implemented). And they don't involve blowing up the budget.
In addition to having common sense ways of paying for the programs immediately, alot of her policy will reduce government spending the longer they are in place. And they put more money into our economy by turning the working poor into middle class Americans again.

Now if you're arguing that's how her platform will appear to some. That's a messaging issue. Which I agree has to be executed well. Or else it could be harmful to her chances of winning the general election. But I'd love for Trump to try to explain policy-wise why he's a better candidate than Warren. Then he's playing HER GAME.

Also if we talk about messaging. Biden holding so closely to being an "establishment candidate" has it's own drawbacks. See Hillary 2008 and 2016.

One final thing. Literally every election I've ever seen has been candidates on both sides of the aisle "promising more stuff for people". Even Republicans promise and deliver to the top 1% and promise and under deliver to everyone else.


Yes, she has laid out plans on how to pay for them. The problem is, there is much disagreement on how much revenue will be generated. Ever see projections? Ever go back to see how accurate they are? It's fricking hard to do with so many unknowns and changing events. So, regarding Warren's revenues, no can know what will happen as there is no basis--it has never been done in this country. Tax avoidance, a favorite pastime for the rich, could be as low as 15% as Warren and Saez predict, but it could be more, a lot more. Then there are the other problems, first and foremost is assuming that the ideologically driven Federalist Society members of the SCOTUS allow it to become law--as there is actually a better argument for the conservative point of view here than the many other issues that have been decided in their favor recently. It also assumes that the Democrats control both houses. And then this assumes that there are enough moderate Democrats willing to vote for her tax, in other words, a lot of ifs. Even her tax generates the income she anticipates, we still have a sizable debt, rising deficits, and a future of even greater deficits.

Newsweek recently ran an article that said she could pay for her college program, student debt forgiveness, and universal childcare with maybe (all assumptions being 100% accurate) $800M left over. But then there is her Medicare For All, infrastructure reform, and the New Geen Deal (all worthwhile to some extent and areas that should be considered before those other promises of hers) on top of ALL the other spending, unknown catastrophes, and the the rising costs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits, to be paid for.

Yes it is also a messaging issue, but messaging comes from both sides. The Republicans are very good at messaging, and deception, and will paint this far differently that do either you or i.

I guess I could be outraged that you seem to think I am uninformed, but you are simply wrong and that is enough on that subject.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:48 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
Ever since I stopped watching Bill Maher, I've been alot happier.


I've been happier for a long time now.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29150
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 3:31 pm    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:

Yes, she has laid out plans on how to pay for them. The problem is, there is much disagreement on how much revenue will be generated. Ever see projections? Ever go back to see how accurate they are? It's fricking hard to do with so many unknowns and changing events. So, regarding Warren's revenues, no can know what will happen as there is no basis--it has never been done in this country. Tax avoidance, a favorite pastime for the rich, could be as low as 15% as Warren and Saez predict, but it could be more, a lot more. Then there are the other problems, first and foremost is assuming that the ideologically driven Federalist Society members of the SCOTUS allow it to become law--as there is actually a better argument for the conservative point of view here than the many other issues that have been decided in their favor recently. It also assumes that the Democrats control both houses. And then this assumes that there are enough moderate Democrats willing to vote for her tax, in other words, a lot of ifs. Even her tax generates the income she anticipates, we still have a sizable debt, rising deficits, and a future of even greater deficits.

Newsweek recently ran an article that said she could pay for her college program, student debt forgiveness, and universal childcare with maybe (all assumptions being 100% accurate) $800M left over. But then there is her Medicare For All, infrastructure reform, and the New Geen Deal (all worthwhile to some extent and areas that should be considered before those other promises of hers) on top of ALL the other spending, unknown catastrophes, and the the rising costs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits, to be paid for.

Yes it is also a messaging issue, but messaging comes from both sides. The Republicans are very good at messaging, and deception, and will paint this far differently that do either you or i.

I guess I could be outraged that you seem to think I am uninformed, but you are simply wrong and that is enough on that subject.


You aren't uninformed. I'd argue the assumption that her policy will blow up the budget is.

Like you said she has made plans and accounted for 15% tax avoidance. And her corporate taxes will be based on the number given to investors. Since corporations are known for fudging the numbers when they report. In terms of the wealth tax, assuming it is avoided past projections the 1st year. It can be addressed after the 1st year of implementation. Sounds like your concern is with the implementation of the tax policy and not the policy itself. Which I can understand.

Medicare for all would actually save money https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-plan-cost-save-money-2018-7

Infrastructure reform and the Green New Deal are preventative measures. Sure if someone ignores the future costs associated with crumbling infrastructure and climate change disasters. And ignore the added income from employment and strong sustainable economic growth, it's true her policy is more expensive than doing nothing. But that's really just an argument for kicking the can down the road and hoping for the best.

In terms of rising costs for Medicare, Medicaid, Social security. I don't see that as a Warren specific issue. If anything I think her policy addresses alot of those costs (better than anybody else running) with universal health coverage and preventative health measures. The uniformity in billing and streamlining of care only reduces costs with time as well.
Costs of catastrophies and challenges implementing her policy. That is a constant for all Democratic policy and shouldn't be held against her specifically. Republicans will obstruct any and everything Democrats propose. Even if it's modest changes from Biden. Same goes for the Federalist Society Supreme Court. That's why I'm a strong advocate for destroying the filibuster and packing the court. Which I'm actually left of Warren on funny enough.
I'd like to see moderate Dems explain why any of Warren's policies are bad for their base. I don't even know what that argument would look like. But I guess anything is possible.

Just to repeat. YOU as a whole are not uninformed. I just think the argument that Warren will blow up the budget is unfounded. Reminds me of the arguments against Barack's stimulus package. Sure it costs money to spend money. But beyond that shortsided logic, I don't think it holds water. Also the elephant in the room is that we are drowning in all these current problems for the working poor living paycheck to paycheck and a near trillion dollar deficit with the status quo. It's a tough argument to make that small change is the answer.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29150
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 4:08 pm    Post subject:

Rib we both neglected to bring up 1/2 the budget as well (defense spending). But we can just assume all Democrats will cut that equally. Just for the sake of argument.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Hector the Pup
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 35946
Location: L.A.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 4:27 pm    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
I understand but don't like the Old White Man label.

IMO Biden is leading because of his affiliation with Obama. He's riding the Obama bus and will until the wheels fall off. He hasn't presented a solid platform, neither has Trump.
]
I believe his name recognition is a very large reason he's leading the pack.
.

I would believe that name recognition is a big part of it.

Then I listen to him and realize it's the only reason.

Biden has no clue what life is like now. He's so out of touch that he probably thinks if a couple can put together 20 grand they can buy a couple of cars and put a down payment on their dream home.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12612

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 4:34 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:

Medicare for all would actually save money https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-plan-cost-save-money-2018-7

Ah yes, I'm very much aware of the study and the fact check analysis of it.

It pains to to say so, but I much prefer accuracy to partisanship:

According to AOC, "A Koch brothers-funded study ... shows that Medicare-for-all is actually much cheaper than the current system that we pay right now.”

The following Fact Check states:

Quote:
We take no position on “Medicare-for-all” and we can’t say if Blahous’ study is or is not influenced by donors to the Mercatus Center. But we can say that Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are misrepresenting the study’s conclusions.

_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29150
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 5:36 pm    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
kikanga wrote:

Medicare for all would actually save money https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-plan-cost-save-money-2018-7

Ah yes, I'm very much aware of the study and the fact check analysis of it.

It pains to to say so, but I much prefer accuracy to partisanship:

According to AOC, "A Koch brothers-funded study ... shows that Medicare-for-all is actually much cheaper than the current system that we pay right now.”

The following Fact Check states:

Quote:
We take no position on “Medicare-for-all” and we can’t say if Blahous’ study is or is not influenced by donors to the Mercatus Center. But we can say that Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are misrepresenting the study’s conclusions.


Didn't know about the fact check. Thanks for sharing.
This article mentions what the CBO thinks of single payer. LINK Pretty much, without knowing the details of the plan it's tough determining how costly or deficit neutral it will be. There are big differences between the universal coverage in Canada, Sweden, Taiwan and other nations for example. So it's tough predicting what version we'd get here.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Surfitall
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 12 Feb 2002
Posts: 3829
Location: South Orange County

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 6:55 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
ribeye wrote:
kikanga wrote:

Medicare for all would actually save money https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-plan-cost-save-money-2018-7

Ah yes, I'm very much aware of the study and the fact check analysis of it.

It pains to to say so, but I much prefer accuracy to partisanship:

According to AOC, "A Koch brothers-funded study ... shows that Medicare-for-all is actually much cheaper than the current system that we pay right now.”

The following Fact Check states:

Quote:
We take no position on “Medicare-for-all” and we can’t say if Blahous’ study is or is not influenced by donors to the Mercatus Center. But we can say that Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are misrepresenting the study’s conclusions.


Didn't know about the fact check. Thanks for sharing.
This article mentions what the CBO thinks of single payer. LINK Pretty much, without knowing the details of the plan it's tough determining how costly or deficit neutral it will be. There are big differences between the universal coverage in Canada, Sweden, Taiwan and other nations for example. So it's tough predicting what version we'd get here.


There are plenty of articles suggesting the fact checkers face planted on this one:

https://theweek.com/articles/791236/fact-checkers-have-medicareforall-problem

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/bernie-sanders-mercatus-study-medicare-for-all

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/08/13/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers-on-medicare-for-all/

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/08/20/nearly-three-days-later-jake-tapper-admits-cnn-fact-check-medicare-all-was-uh-not
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29150
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 8:39 pm    Post subject:

Surfitall wrote:
kikanga wrote:
ribeye wrote:
kikanga wrote:

Medicare for all would actually save money https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-plan-cost-save-money-2018-7

Ah yes, I'm very much aware of the study and the fact check analysis of it.

It pains to to say so, but I much prefer accuracy to partisanship:

According to AOC, "A Koch brothers-funded study ... shows that Medicare-for-all is actually much cheaper than the current system that we pay right now.”

The following Fact Check states:

Quote:
We take no position on “Medicare-for-all” and we can’t say if Blahous’ study is or is not influenced by donors to the Mercatus Center. But we can say that Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are misrepresenting the study’s conclusions.


Didn't know about the fact check. Thanks for sharing.
This article mentions what the CBO thinks of single payer. LINK Pretty much, without knowing the details of the plan it's tough determining how costly or deficit neutral it will be. There are big differences between the universal coverage in Canada, Sweden, Taiwan and other nations for example. So it's tough predicting what version we'd get here.


There are plenty of articles suggesting the fact checkers face planted on this one:

https://theweek.com/articles/791236/fact-checkers-have-medicareforall-problem

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/bernie-sanders-mercatus-study-medicare-for-all

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/08/13/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers-on-medicare-for-all/

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/08/20/nearly-three-days-later-jake-tapper-admits-cnn-fact-check-medicare-all-was-uh-not


Damn. That's interesting. Didn't know how layered the debate was. Thanks for the links. I really enjoy reading the week whenever possible. I've read them for most of my adult life. They do a great job of compositing multiple sources from multiple publications to give as full of a picture as possible.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1663, 1664, 1665 ... 3661, 3662, 3663  Next
Page 1664 of 3663
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB