2020 Democratic Nominee

[Biff Tannen 46168]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

For months now, the narrative has been...

- Warren is surging
- Biden is collapsing
- Bernie is dead in the water

Dude.  I have not heard a single person say Bernie is dead in the water.  This is just you trying to be the victim.  All three of them are top 3 for a reason.  Quit being such a fucking drama queen.  If Bernie loses, he will lose because he didn't convince enough people.  This isn't a media witch hunt.  You sound like a fucking trumpkin when you do that.  Stop it.

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

Dude.  I have not heard a single person say Bernie is dead in the water.  This is just you trying to be the victim.  All three of them are top 3 for a reason.  Quit being such a fucking drama queen.  If Bernie loses, he will lose because he didn't convince enough people.  This isn't a media witch hunt.  You sound like a fucking trumpkin when you do that.  Stop it.

He's definitely dead in the water. He's peaked. Him shuffling campaign managers around in Iowa and NH is the equivalent of Charlie Strong changing coordinators out in his last year. Every bullet he has to fire has been fired. He's a known quantity. He gone.

Edited September 20, 2019 by BradInATX

[Biff Tannen 46168]

[BradInATX 9208]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

It's fun though. 

[bad_teammate 13524]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

I'm not vague at all. It's purely about cost.

Why are you so certain that M4A will be more expensive for you than your current plan?

Quote

And if you don't think cost is in the top 10 most important things for healthcare reform, well, yeah.

I pointed you to a right-wing think tank showing that M4A is significantly cheaper than our current system. You have offered... nothing.

Quote

I already gave you my own situation as an example. Our out-of-pocket max plus our premiums are less than the $10k/year number Bernie gave as the taxes everyone would pay to support M4A.

You do not have any numbers from Bernie that relate to your specific income. You're full of shit.

I'll continue to offer more specifics and sourcing than you... Options to Finance Medicare-for-All

Here's the tax hike version:

4 percent income-based premium paid by households Revenue raised: $3.5 trillion over ten years. The typical middle class family would save over $4,400 under this plan. Last year the typical working family paid an average of $5,277 in premiums to private health insurance companies. Under this option, a typical family of four earning $50,000, after taking the standard deduction, would pay a 4 percent income-based premium to fund Medicare for All – just $844 a year – saving that family over $4,400 a year. Because of the standard deduction, families of four making less than $29,000 a year would not pay this premium.

And, of course, many options that wouldn't really raise taxes on the working classes at all.

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Dude.  I have not heard a single person say Bernie is dead in the water. 

Turn on your monitor.

[BradInATX 9208]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

 

4 percent income-based premium paid by households Revenue raised: $3.5 trillion over ten years. The typical middle class family would save over $4,400 under this plan. Last year the typical working family paid an average of $5,277 in premiums to private health insurance companies. Under this option, a typical family of four earning $50,000, after taking the standard deduction, would pay a 4 percent income-based premium to fund Medicare for All – just $844 a year – saving that family over $4,400 a year. Because of the standard deduction, families of four making less than $29,000 a year would not pay this premium.

Uh yeah, I'm not going to tell you how much my family brings in, but it's quite a bit more than $50k/year. And 4% of our household income (minus standard deduction) would be well beyond what we currently pay in premiums and annual maximum OOP (which we never hit anyway, except last year when we had a baby). 

So yes, I do have numbers, from Bernie Sanders himself, that show that the cost of M4A would be well beyond my current costs. It would take money out of my family's pockets. Period. You can stop arguing now, because I'm using the link you posted as the basis for my numbers.

I can't be any more clear or specific. Per Bernie Sanders himself, his plan would cost my family money.

Edited September 20, 2019 by BradInATX

[Celery Man 21098]

I know people are stupid, but I don’t get the “Liz was being evasive” thing. She wasn’t providing a sound clip. She was asked a question and provided the message, and if you have a pulse it’s not confusing and you understand why she provided the message relevant to the question asked.

Just as a whatever, I’m curious what happens to HSAs and would love if the “total cost is lower” thing didn’t mean that my cosy (tax bill) goes up while my employer’s cost goes down.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 hours ago, BradInATX said:

Uh yeah, I'm not going to tell you how much my family brings in, but it's quite a bit more than $50k/year. And 4% of our household income (minus standard deduction) would be well beyond what we currently pay in premiums and annual maximum OOP (which we never hit anyway, except last year when we had a baby). 

So yes, I do have numbers, from Bernie Sanders himself, that show that the cost of M4A would be well beyond my current costs. It would take money out of my family's pockets. Period. You can stop arguing now, because I'm using the link you posted as the basis for my numbers.

I can't be any more clear or specific. Per Bernie Sanders himself, his plan would cost my family money.

But you likely pay way more than you believe.  Your employer probably pays most of your monthly premium.  That is paid on your behalf.  You think of it as a benefit. Your employer calls it part of your total compensation.

And that's one hidden problem with M4A. Employers are gonna reap massive benefits because they have been subsidizing Brad's whole family's healthcare, but now they won't be. They also aren't going to give Brad a raise to make up for his loss in total compensation. That windfall is going to go straight into shareholder pockets.

Maybe a new payroll tax is in order instead of making individuals shoulder most of the new tax burden. 

[RayDog 682]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

 

Maybe a new payroll tax is in order instead of making individuals shoulder most of the new tax burden. 

That is the proposal.

[BradInATX 9208]

 

 

 

 

 

But you likely pay way more than you believe.  Your employer probably pays most of your monthly premium.  That is paid on your behalf.  You think of it as a benefit. Your employer calls it part of your total compensation. And that's one hidden problem with M4A. Employers are gonna reap massive benefits because they have been subsidizing Brad's whole family's healthcare, but now they won't be. They also aren't going to give Brad a raise to make up for his loss in total compensation. That windfall is going to go straight into shareholder pockets. Maybe a new payroll tax is in order instead of making individuals shoulder most of the new tax burden. 

 

 

 I get total comp. About half of my client stakeholders are in Comp/Total Rewards. And you're spot on. There's this huge underlying elephant in the room where we're shifting financial burden from corporations to taxpayers with this plan.

 

And if you're pro M4A (full), the only real way you can rationalize that away is to assume the market will take care of it. Which of course is funny because the entire premise of M4A is not believing in the free market. Funny how "trust the market" is only valid when needed to fill a gaping logic hole in a plan.

 

I think a lot of people would be more receptive to it if it didn't shift trillions of dollars of burden from giant corporations to taxpayers. I don't know exactly how that looks. My preference would be to tax the hell out of billionaires, then kill them. I'll vote for the first candidate who proposes that.

 

Props for bringing it up. It has definitely been addressed by some of the "moderates" here before, including me just a couple pages up. So it's not under the radar.

 

 

(Me)

"Whereas removing the employer from the equation fully removes all responsibility for healthcare from employers. I guess I just don't trust corporations to bump everyone's pay out of the kindness of their heart (once the taxpayers bear the burden of healthcare) as much as you do."

 

 

 

 

 

[Js1 87184]

[Bozo_Casanova 26851]

Huh. 
 

I know, drama involving elite ideological left insider groups - weird, right? Normal those people are so focused on what matters instead of intramural beefs.

[troph 25227]

I forgot he was running.

[Bozo_Casanova 26851]

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The news here is 36 people had Bill Deblasio as their first choice.

[Js1 87184]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The news here is 36 people had Bill Deblasio as their first choice.

Look, his family has to at least say they will vote for him.  And whomever he employs to run his campaign staff.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[bad_teammate 13524]

9 hours ago, BradInATX said:

Uh yeah, I'm not going to tell you how much my family brings in, but it's quite a bit more than $50k/year. And 4% of our household income (minus standard deduction) would be well beyond what we currently pay in premiums and annual maximum OOP (which we never hit anyway, except last year when we had a baby). 

Let's say your total OOP healthcare cost average over 10 years as a family is $8k/year. Is that fair?

- Even if we assume a non-graduated 4% income tax.
- Even if we completely ignore the fact that your wages are actually lower already because your employer pays for part of your health insurance. (Which you probably don't consider, since as a conservative you're just awww gosh golly gee in love with your boss and love it when you get to taste his boot.)
- Apply the $29k standard deduction.

For Bernie's income tax funding proposal to put you over $8k/year you would have to bring home $230k of taxable income per year.

If you're bringing home $230k of taxable income, your total compensation package puts you very comfortably in the Top 5% of earners in the US. I am 100% fine with raising taxes on you. In fact, we need to raise them even higher.

Quote

 I get total comp. About half of my client stakeholders are in Comp/Total Rewards.

No, you don't. There is no way that is true given the overall financial picture. Nothing is free; that money comes from somewhere. That's how labor market competition works. Your wages are depressed by every single expense and profit the company has because your company is a profit-seeking enterprise in competition with other profit-seeking enterprise.

(Also, anyone who uses the phrase "client stakeholders" when describing his/her work should be guillotined on principle.)

Quote

Which of course is funny because the entire premise of M4A is not believing in the free market.

The current health insurance market is not, in any real sense, a "free market". It's a myth. It doesn't exist.

Quote

I think a lot of people would be more receptive to it if it didn't shift trillions of dollars of burden from giant corporations to taxpayers.

We have hundreds of thousands of Americans deep in medical debt, going bankrupt, and committing suicide, and you think the "burden" of healthcare funding is on the corporations? lol ok bud!

[BradInATX 9208]

We have hundreds of thousands of Americans deep in medical debt, going bankrupt, and committing suicide, and you think the "burden" of healthcare funding is on the corporations? lol ok bud!

Glad you can finally concede that Bernie's plan isn't perfect and will cost some people money. Good job. I'm proud of you this morning b_t.

[Hank Kingsley 21785]

 

Lulz, apparently it's now "Republican propaganda" to think a presidential candidate should answer a pretty simple question. 

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Pete could have just said nothing. 

[Js1 87184]

And Liz could have answered the question.  If Kamala had ducked that same exact question on Colbert, lord help us all, there'd be 100 articles about it the next day. 

Stop 👏 Giving 👏 Liz 👏 Warren 👏 A 👏 Pass 👏👏👏

Seriously, Pete's criticism ("aTtAcK") was pretty weak compared to what's been thrown around in this primary in the past 6 months. 

[Hank Kingsley 21785]

Two more things

- Khanna is a Bernie surrogate. Pete did not call out Bernie here. What the fuck is he doing? 

- Bernie has already said that middle class taxes would go up. So either Khanna doesn't understand Bernie's M4A plan, or he's just purposely lying to people. 

 

[Hank Kingsley 21785]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pete could have just said nothing. 

Hugo, believe it or not I really like Warren. I think she's on the path to the nomination/presidency and would be extremely happy with that. 

But she's going to run into problems if the expectation is to go unchallenged by other primary candidates. Right now, she's not being straight with the American people on her healthcare plan. This excuse about "not wanting to give the GOP a talking point" is actually a talking point. Republicans attack every D candidate over everything. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

12 minutes ago, Js1 said:

And Liz could have answered the question.  If Kamala had ducked that same exact question on Colbert, lord help us all, there'd be 100 articles about it the next day. 

Stop 👏 Giving 👏 Liz 👏 Warren 👏 A 👏 Pass 👏👏👏

Seriously, Pete's criticism ("aTtAcK") was pretty weak compared to what's been thrown around in this primary in the past 6 months. 

She’s going to keep getting asked the question. It’s fair game.  I’m satisfied with her answer so far.  That’s not giving her a pass because I don’t perceive it as an issue.  I can understand what she is doing and not get pissy about it.  

She reframes the question to give a more robust answer as related to costs instead of viewing it through merely a tax prism.  

Y’all can keep concerning tho. 

Edited September 20, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Bozo_Casanova 26851]

Everyone in our company sees what they pay and what our employer pays in premiums. The only thing they don’t see is the cost of capital. Awareness of that overall picture is a small but important part of why we have low attrition and why our employees manage their plans well at the individual level, which in turn keeps premiums low and benefits attractive for everyone.

Our benefits team does a great job with health insurance. How often do you hear that?

[bad_teammate 13524]

1 hour ago, BradInATX said:

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

We have hundreds of thousands of Americans deep in medical debt, going bankrupt, and committing suicide, and you think the "burden" of healthcare funding is on the corporations? lol ok bud!

Glad you can finally concede that Bernie's plan isn't perfect and will cost some people money. Good job. I'm proud of you this morning b_t.

I have never said it is perfect and I certainly never said it was free. That's a little phantom in your Republican mind that haunts your dreams.

- M4A is far better than what we currently have.
- M4A will be far cheaper than what we currently have.
- M4A will make the necessary future reforms easier and less corrupted by capital.

Once it is fully implemented, we need to watch for inefficiencies and gaps and never stop reforming and never stop seeking the best and cheapest methods.

1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

Lulz, apparently it's now "Republican propaganda" to think a presidential candidate should answer a pretty simple question.

Asking how to pay for it isn't the Republican propaganda that Pete is leaning on.

Here are the Republican propaganda points Pete is leaning on:

- "The left thinks it knows better than you how to live your life."
- "The left is divisive."
- "The left is paternalistic."
- "The left hates the free market."
- "The left doesn't trust the people."

He's trying to win, and that's expected, but he's using right-wing talking points to attack the leftmost candidates and I, as someone on the left, don't like that and am going to call it out. Delaney is out so there is an opening on the debate stage for another white guy to wag his finger at the tax-and-spend left, and Pete seems eager to be more Delaney than Bernie.

It's fair for him to try to win that way (punching left using Republican talking points). It's fair for us to point it out.

If his right-wing turn bothers some of his liberal fanbase, that's something they need to work out with themselves. They shouldn't expect others to pretend it isn't happening.

If he wants to call Warren and Sanders out by name, this is what happens. Don't start a fight if you don't want a fight.

[bad_teammate 13524]

The "throw the first punch then act shocked when someone hits back" is actually a common Pete tactic. He did this really early on when he went after Pence's faith very openly and directly and then, when Pence called him on it, pretended he hadn't done it. I pointed it out at the time and was howled at by the usual suspects.

He's a coward and he sucks.

[BradInATX 9208]

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The "throw the first punch then act shocked when someone hits back" is actually a common Pete tactic.

lol

[Hank Kingsley 21785]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Asking how to pay for it isn't the Republican propaganda that Pete is leaning on.

Here are the Republican propaganda points Pete is leaning on:

- "The left thinks it knows better than you how to live your life."
- "The left is divisive."
- "The left is paternalistic."
- "The left hates the free market."
- "The left doesn't trust the people."

He's trying to win, and that's expected, but he's using right-wing talking points to attack the leftmost candidates and I, as someone on the left, don't like that and am going to call it out. Delaney is out so there is an opening on the debate stage for another white guy to wag his finger at the tax-and-spend left, and Pete seems eager to be more Delaney than Bernie.

It's fair for him to try to win that way (punching left using Republican talking points). It's fair for us to point it out.

If his right-wing turn bothers some of his liberal fanbase, that's something they need to work out with themselves. They shouldn't expect others to pretend it isn't happening.

If he wants to call Warren and Sanders out by name, this is what happens. Don't start a fight if you don't want a fight.

Wow, what a reach. It is not a right-wing talking point to expect a presidential candidate to answer a simple question. All the "quotes" you just posted are, in fact, talking points to change the subject. It seems like you're fine with the old school Washington tactic of simply dodging a question which is surprising. 

There's a reason he didn't call out Sanders on this particular issue. It's because Bernie hasn't evaded the question and has answered it honestly. 

IMO you're completely missing what Pete is doing here. It has nothing to do being anti-left or anti-M4A. He thinks, like many Berners and other progressives, that Warren is really half-ass regarding her support for true Medicare 4 All. She's trying to leave herself room to pivot off of Bernie's plan without suffering any recourse. And he's simply calling her out on it. 

Again, this should be an easy layup for Warren if "she's with Bernie" on M4A. 

[Hank Kingsley 21785]

Pete is effectively helping BT's grandpa and he doesn't even notice it. Amazing. 

 

Edited September 20, 2019 by Hank Kingsley

[Hank Kingsley 21785]

19 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The "throw the first punch then act shocked when someone hits back" is actually a common Pete tactic. He did this really early on when he went after Pence's faith very openly and directly and then, when Pence called him on it, pretended he hadn't done it. I pointed it out at the time and was howled at by the usual suspects.

He's a coward and he sucks.

I love when BT takes Mike Pence's side on something. 

 

[Patrick Bateman 3980]

The olds!

 

[Patrick Bateman 3980]

And youngs.

 

[bad_teammate 13524]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Wow, what a reach. It is not a right-wing talking point to expect a presidential candidate to answer a simple question.

I'm just repeating myself at this point, but Warren should answer for directly and clearly and confidently. Her response on Colbert was bad and she needs to do better. I've said this a bunch of times already.

Quote

All the "quotes" you just posted are, in fact, talking points to change the subject.

They are all arguments that Pete has explicitly made. Again, it might hurt your feelings to watch your Special Grandson Good Boy turn rhetorically into John Delaney, but that's what he's doing.

I am not putting words in his mouth. It's on video.

Quote

There's a reason he didn't call out Sanders on this particular issue.

He has, multiple times. Are you not watching his appearances?

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Pete is effectively helping BT's grandpa and he doesn't even notice it. Amazing.

4D Chess!!!!

Pete punching left to help Bernie is Ralph Wiggum levels of "helping".

2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I love when BT takes Mike Pence's side on something.

Pete attacked Pence's faith. Pence called him out on it.

It would've been cool if Pete said, "Yes, I questioned the sincerity of your faith and I still do," but he lied about it and acted like he didn't. Like a punk.

Pence won that one going away, which is a bad sign. (Notice how Pete doesn't say it anymore? Owned by Mike Pence, that's sad.)

[bad_teammate 13524]

double posting, in 2019!?

Edited September 20, 2019 by bad_teammate

[Hank Kingsley 21785]

 - Link please on Pete calling out Bernie regarding middle class tax hike. Don't try to move the goalposts to his broader issue with Bernie's M4A plan. He had a specific criticism regarding Warren. You're trying to 4D chess his motives when his issue was plainly stated.

- Obviously Pete didn't call out Warren to specifically help Bernie. But notice that most Berners (who fucking HATE Pete) are for once pretty quiet about his comments. 

[bad_teammate 13524]

14 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 - Link please on Pete calling out Bernie regarding middle class tax hike.

Pete called out Sanders (and Warren) by name, saying that their plan (M4A) was polarizing and divisive on "This Week":

... but unlike the Medicare for All vision that Senators Sanders and Warren have, it doesn’t dictate that to the American people and risk further polarizing them, which is difficult as a governing strategy, not just politically speaking. Look, we need to unify this country.

First off, the idea that this nobody dork is going to lecture at Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren about governing strategy is frankly hilarious. "As the JV 2nd string quarterback, Mr. Brady, I've got some advice on winning that you really need to pay attention to."

But to the actual point we're discussing, his plan "dictates" to the American people in an extremely disruptive way just like M4A does and his plan will "polarize" people as well. Him calling them out for being divisive and polarizing and dictating is disingenuous garbage because that's how ALL regulation and legislation works. Legislation doesn't pass unanimously, it passes 51%-49%.

And this from the debates:

"The problem, Senator Sanders, with that damn bill, it doesn't trust the American people."

Absolutely meaningless nonsense. Pathetic, pathetic nonsense. Pure right-wing libertarian rhetoric.

[bad_teammate 13524]

"Polarizing" Is a Fact - Get Used to It

Quote

No “bold solution” to these injustices is conceivable without further polarization: in this case, between the majority of Americans and the gilded minority at the top.

This applies to most, if not all, of Buttigieg’s stated policy goals, from health care to gun control. Even modest intervention in America’s health-care system, after all, will inevitably face stiff opposition from private insurance companies. Ditto for gun control, which will be bitterly resisted by the NRA whatever form it takes. The passage of necessary environmental reform is effectively impossible barring a reckoning with the fossil fuel industry.

An unequal society is, by definition, a polarized one, and by dismissing the very idea of polarization, Buttigieg is effectively telling us he has no intention of doing much to alter this state of affairs. On issue after issue, there is no middle ground — and any candidate who suggests they don’t need to pick a side is effectively siding with the status quo.

100%

Which is exactly what the white professional class Buttigieg fans want. A more identity-woke and less crude status quo.

Raytheon logo in the LGBT rainbow colors
Trans pride among private prison guards
Racial awareness training for all-white police forces
Filtered water in the hoses that spray out homeless encampments
Tax cuts for the poor displaced by gentrification

[Hank Kingsley 21785]

This poll will move the needle a little bit. 

. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Current Iowa betting market

Hillary favored over Kamala is the story here

Edited September 20, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Js1 87184]

25 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Current Iowa betting market

Hillary favored over Kamala is the story here

Who are these idiots who STILL think Hillary is going to jump into the field?  

[henrygandorf 29225]

20 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

This poll is a Republican talking point meant to attack Kamala Harris!  

everyone to the right of bernie and warren is a republican.  and warren used to be a republican, so she's also a republican.  bernie is the only democrat, except he's running as a socialist/independent.

there are no more democrats!

[bad_teammate 13524]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

everyone to the right of bernie and warren is a republican.  and warren used to be a republican, so she's also a republican.  bernie is the only democrat, except he's running as a socialist/independent.

there are no more democrats!

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Pete circa winter 2019 was lamenting about Republican talking points and framing controlling the narratives too much in our political discourse.  He wasn’t wrong about that. After a lifetime of playing diplomacy and dungeons and dragons, Pete knows good strategy when he sees it. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

$3.4 trillion is what America is currently paying for Healthcare.  That’s kinda the whole problem.

[Js1 87184]

Liz's inability to answer that question in the debate and on Colbert has given some other candidates an opening.  She brought it upon herself.

It is now on her to respond. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

10 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Liz's inability to answer that question in the debate and on Colbert has given some other candidates an opening.  She brought it upon herself.

It is now on her to respond. 

This is accurate 

but I wouldn’t call it inability, more of a refusal. 

Now she has the front runner on the attack, something Biden was vocal about not doing.  

“Circular firing squad” my ass.  Biden was just saying that shit while he held the lead, now he looks more vulnerable by going after Warren. 

Edited September 20, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13524]

Giant Brain Centrists & Republicans: "Heh, stupid leftists don't even know that goods and services cost money."

 

[bad_teammate 13524]

The Klobberer has already been to the UAW strike. Liz is going this weekend. Bernie is going Wednesday. Would be very cool of all the candidates to show up spaced out a few days apart to keep this massive strike in the headlines.