DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... The Presidential Primaries III

have a good night, as well.

also, you should probably burn one before you go to bed if you're having trouble sleeping. it'll help numb the pain out.

it's why i smoke. it's way easier on the body than all the pills the doctors be trying to pump us up with.

If it was legal I would I think...meant what I said have a great night.

if you're in ohio, all you get is more or less a parking ticket since it's decriminalized here. hell the cops don't even bother half the time.

i mean it as well. we're all good bro.

It all ends up being a wash anyway. Most of the wealthy people I know agree, if the government wants to become a big charity, they will stop donating money and let the government take it over.

Taxes go up, donations go down. It's a wash.

what's funny is that the people who say they don't trust the government somehow trust the private industry, the same group of people that account for half the issues going on in this country.

But i guess if it was up to you, 40, the dollar bill would say "In Koch Bros I Trust"

good luck with that.

I can't afford it. Yeah, I'm a business owner. That doesn't make me rich - by any stretch. ANY stretch.

Nah. If it were up to you the dollar bill would say "Hillary Soros, take me away."

I don't know what is up with you lately but you've really been like its you against the world. I'm not a "special snowflake", was just pointing out an interesting pattern I saw, nothing more. Heck, I even edited my post to point out that OCD is on the other end of the spectrum.

Yes, I know yo broke down his tax plan and don't like it as well and I applaud you for that. I didn't mean to offend you by not including you in my list, sorry.

Wow, seriously? I'm the last person on the planet that considers himself elite, good lord. All I did was make an observation of a pattern I saw and made a statement about it. Sorry if that makes me an elitist, it was not my intention.

right now i'm just pissed off.

can't trust the private industry, as they are snakes.

can't trust the government, because they are snakes.

yet everytime there's a problem, first thing that gets blamed is the lazy black people or minorities.

i'm frustrated because i'm tired of being called lazy, entitled, and a leech. i'm tired of being belittled because i'm not a business owner, or i'm not making over <insert amount>

so if i'm posting as if it's me against the world, it's because it absolutely is.

Sorry bro, but i simply don't feel welcomed in this country lately. and a ton of other people feel that way.

Good luck to you my friend - I hope you can figure it out. I know I've never belittled you, at least intentionally. Why would you feel like you are belittled because you aren't a business owner? Not many people are. Who cares what kind of money you make? You seem to have a great wife with some awesome kids, sounds pretty good to me.

Keep at it man, you are a smart guy - I think you just need to channel some of your rage and hate in a different way. I'm sorry you don't feel welcome, I can't do anything about that nor can I know what it is like to be in your shoes. Good luck to you sir.

In this Country you earn your keep or you are resented.
Seems to me you have earned your keep.

Just clicking.

I'm stopping by in the open primary for the state up north and dropping support in favor of Kasich. The guy really is the most civil, qualified, and reasonable candidate who would do the best job at the position of anyone available. I like the experience at the governor role and taking the high road. If anyone has a chance at breaking the gridlock and focusing less on divisive wedge issues, it'll be Kasich.

He likely won't get the nomination, but I want the right to complain at the reckless prospect of Donald Trump winning the nomination- or worse yet- elected POTUS.

These 27 Major Companies Pay Zero in Taxes but Congress Wants to Give Them More
Zach Cartwright | March 7, 2016

Just as average Americans are preparing to pay their taxes for next month’s deadline, it’s now been revealed once again that some of the country’s richest and most profitable corporations paid $0 in taxes last year, and many are even getting massive refunds.

USA Today assembled a list of 27 multinational corporations that posted between $56 million and $4.6 billion in profits in 2015, yet got money back from the government rather than paying federal taxes. Some of these corporations are household names, and they represent multiple industries ranging from media, to technology, to healthcare, to transportation.

Many of these negative tax bills are due to accounting loopholes that allow profitable global giants, like American Airlines, to write off losses amounting to billions of dollars. Even though American Airlines owed $1.5 billion in federal taxes, the company successfully wrote off $4.7 billion in losses, amounting to a $3.2 billion refund from Uncle Sam.

When adding up the refunds, these 27 companies — a mere snapshot of a much larger, systemic issue in the tax code — are responsible for over $11 billion in tax revenue that would have otherwise gone to public services:

This itself is a small window into the culture of corporate tax avoidance, as over $2.1 trillion in corporate profits is stashed in overseas tax havens. The way the U.S. tax system is set up, companies that book their profits in tax-free territories like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands can pay 0 percent tax rates on those profits as long as the money remains there.

Some of the most well-known corporations famously avoid U.S. taxes by booking profits overseas, like Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, Qualcomm, JPMorgan & Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs. As bad as this is, top U.S. officials are contemplating a proposal that would further deplete the U.S. Treasury of badly needed tax revenue.

President Obama himself proposed lowering the American corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 14 percent for any company that decides to “repatriate,” or bring home, any of the profits stashed overseas. Our current Congress obliged by introducing bills to do just that. Were all of the companies who store money this way to take advantage of such a proposal, it would amount to approximately $400 billion in lost revenue.

That money could fund roughly 7 years of tuition-free public college across the country.

However, President George W. Bush tried this in 2005 and it failed miserably. As The Guardian reported last year, a slew of multinational corporations took advantage of Bush’s plan to grant a one-time tax holiday to corporate tax avoiders, when he temporarily lowered the rate from 35 percent to 5 percent. But rather than fulfilling their roles as “job creators” after the windfall, these companies ended up using the repatriated cash to buy back its stock, which enriches the stock options owned by executives, while simultaneously firing workers:

Allan Sloan at the Washington Post reported that Ford Motor Company, which lobbied for the legislation, announced 30,000 additional job cuts after saving anywhere between $250m (Ford’s estimate) and $850m (Sloan’s estimate) in federal taxes. A 2005 New York Times editorial chided Hewlett Packard’s decision to fire 14,500 workers (a decision made by current presidential candidate Carly Fiorina) while repatriating $14.5bn in overseas profits.

While this is a widespread problem, there is a solution: Senator Bernie Sanders is campaigning on a promise to create 13 million new jobs by investing $1 trillion in rebuilding American infrastructure. He would fund this by closing the corporate tax loopholes that allow multinationals to stash an estimated $100 billion in overseas tax havens every year, amounting to $1 trillion in savings over a decade.

Jobs or corporate tax cuts? The choice is up to voters.

I assume most of you pay at least some taxes yet the most profitable corporations in the WORLD pay nothing and that's fair OK, ya got me and we have no right to expect them too either. OK ya got me again.

And its pie in the sky wishful thinking to expect we can have tuition free college and health care for all, come on folks pull your head out of your southern region just one time. These companies make their money from our blood and sweat and we give them more and the more they ask for the more we give them and we have allowed ourselves to buy the theory that its the best we can do or that is all we deserve and they shouldn't pay squat.

So, these companies are tax cheats? If so, prosecute them. Absolutely.

Or, are these companies playing by the current rules? If so, and we don't like it, let's change the rules.

Do you deduct your mortgage interest? I do. Them's the rules, right? Do you deduct your charitable contributions? If so, as long as you're following the rules, you're fine, right? But someone could come along and say you're a tax cheat.

I love this quote:

Like, no one else owned stock, right? Like, your pension isn't invested in companies. Etc.

And the most precious of all: Bernie will create 13 million jobs. Gov't. jobs? And all he needs in order to do that is 1 trillion.

But have no fear. He'll get it from these big bad companies. He'll get $100 billion a year. Says so right here:

If I "stash" $100 in an over seas tax haven, all it does is save me the percentage of that money that I otherwise would've paid in tax.

For these corporations - what's that - 35%

His plans are great. Until you read them.

I think that we do need to invest in infrastructure, but this idea that it's going to create massive numbers of jobs is just not realistic.

Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and we spent $831 billion in tax breaks, infrastructure, education, health, and energy.

We were supposed to be rolling in jobs. It did not work.

If we are going to invest in infrastructure, it should be because we have a crumbling infrastructure. Jobs are a secondary consideration, because while we might see some job creation, it will not be anywhere near what the yapping heads project, and many of these new jobs are created to handle demand, and then go away as soon as demand ends.

I think that we do need to repair our infrastructure, and we need to do so in as cost efficient a manner as possible. That is what's fair to the taxpayers.

Small business owners should "Feel the Bern!" His plans will help you significantly! No more crazy healthcare costs, just a percentage of the paycheck like social security. A return of trillions to the middle class consumers that buy your products and services! <- That alone is enough to support him! Sure you might pay a little more in taxes, but with a BOOMING middle class you will profit MUCH more. NO other candidates plan even comes close to moving this kind of money back into the middle class's pockets, NO OTHER PLAN.

And Eve, I like you but you are jaded when it comes to Bernie for some reason. I have no idea how much you make, are worth , etc.; but I will venture to guess that his tax plan will cost you very little unless you are in the top 10% of incomes in the US. As a matter of fact, most on this board will not only save money due to not having to pay for college and health care premiums under his plans; but will also benefit greatly from the opportunities his plan will create and the influx of money back into the middle class. So I call horse hockey on your rebuttal and like Clem challenge you to provide some facts.

Arch, you will be helped by a Bernie Presidency in my opinion. See the beginning of this post and take a good look at the man's policies for proof. And nobody is calling them "Tax Cheats" he is saying the tax system is rigged in their favor. I mean the little guy living pay check to pay check might not have the ability to set up a tax haven account, own a house to write off the interest or even the extra money to make charitable contributions... BUT if the money those nice little rigged rules keep the upper class from paying in taxes was going back into things like education, infrastructure and health care for all; then that little guy and millions of others just like him might be able to afford more than mere existence.

Far be it from me to bring FACTS into a Republican bubble, but frankly I'm sick of reading all these right wing, establishment democrat and establishment media slams my boy Bernie! His policies make GOOD common sense in a country that is supposed to be all about THE PEOPLE! Not the rich people, not the business man, not Wall Street, not special interest groups; BUT EVERYONE! I mean seriously, taxes aside, I challenge anybody on here to tell me whose grand parents, parents, family, kids or business would not benefit from:

1) Health Care guaranteed as a right to every human being. Other than money why would anyone be against this? If you are against this, is a little money that important to you that you would deny somebody health care?

2) Free and or Affordable Education for every American. In a world where economies are driven by technological advancements, automation and resource management where does an uneducated or under educated work force fit in? If the next Einstein were born today in a poor or middle class family, would he/we ever see his potential? Nope.

Knowledge is power. Education is by far the most important investment we can make in each other as it changes everything from crime rates to innovation to R&D to quality of life to etc. etc. etc. How can anyone not want to insure that we have the most well educated people on the planet right here in the US? Everyone and everything benefits from having well educated people. Education is the great equalizer. Period.

3) Equal pay for Women, who on this board doesn't think a woman doing the exact same job a man does should not be paid the same pay? Go ahead, I dare you to argue this one.

4) Infrastructure, what person or business would not benefit from better roads, bridges, schools, airports, public transportation systems, rail roads, water systems, internet systems, electrical systems, etc. etc. etc. NOBODY THAT'S WHO! Sure it will cost money... BLAH BLAH BLAH; but the benefits far outweigh the money!

5) Paid medical leave, Republicans are always all for family values, well what could be more family oriented than allowing a young couple to spend time with their newborn to bond and adjust without going broke or facing hardship? Allowing the mother to heal before returning to work? It sickens me to think about the greed that drives the arguments against the common decency of policies like this. "If you want them to have that then you pay for it!"... Really? How do you even look at yourself in the mirror? You are a petty petty petty person.

6) Taking money out of politics, this is a no brainer. Both sides agree that the political system has been corrupted by the influence of the donor class. If you deny this then there is simply no hope for you as a person.

7) Reforming our laws regarding mass incarceration, this not only will save billions that could be used in other areas like education but who benefits from locking up non-violent offenders for petty crimes? Nobody. And the abuse that this system brings to poor and minority communities is absolutely disgusting! Who on this board thinks it is better to ruin peoples lives with criminal records, ridiculous sentencing and mass incarceration on the largest scale in the world than it is to reform would-be career criminals through providing opportunity and education to those who would otherwise fall through the cracks in today's system? Now I agree that we should not reward somebody for breaking the law, but in the case of most non-violent offenders, many just poor kids, how do we justify permanently impoverishing them? I can't, can you?

8) Transforming the Police State back to a protect and serve community service. Bernie states that police forces look militarized and I agree. When a police department needs a tank, I have to ask what for? It might be justified that they need it in case of a terrorist attack (which is less likely than being hit by lightning in the US), or for crowd management... what crowd? The Police do not need to be armed like an army to "Protect and Serve" local communities, period. They do need training and equipment to handle everyday situations, but they should look like and be part of the communities they serve, not the keepers of the community like the guards in a prison. As a white man living in a smaller town, I'm lucky enough to receive more of a Mayberry type treatment when interacting with local police, but even I notice that things have changed significantly since I was young when it comes to my local police department. If you live in a larger city, are a minority or happen to live in a very poor neighborhood; then your experience is probably not very Mayberry-like at all. Why should any of us have to live in fear of the police? I may not fear them day to day, but I fear what all of that military tech will be used for if and when something like a major economic collapse should happen! And I can't imagine what it would be like to live where you are suspect just because of the color of your skin! Driving while Black, running while Black, walking while Black are not crimes... why do black people get stopped and searched(harassed) when doing these things at a rate 1000's of times higher than whites? This is not because all police are bad or even some police are bad, it's institutional and requires reformation. Who on this board disagrees?

9) Breaking up the Big Banks, the 'too big to fail" banks are even bigger today. Breaking them up into smaller entities is an insurance policy against having to bail them out again. Who on this board wants to bail out Wall Street and the Big Banks again? I didn't want to the first time around and I damn sure don't want to the second time.

10) Taxing the wealthiest Americans who have benefited the most from over 30 years of profits gained via a rigged system designed to drain every penny out of the middle class, how is that fair? Fair has nothing to do with it really. It wasn't fair when the system was rigged to transfer all that wealth that they have enjoyed and those that argue that it is taking something they worked hard for and giving it away; I say bull crap! Nobody works so much harder than anyone else that they deserve to pay a lower rate on millions or billions than a middle class family pays on their income. Nobody is looking to take all of the elite class's money, they will still be elite and super rich; they are just going to be forced to be a little less greedy.

I know it's tough to live on a 6 billion when you are used to having 10 billion, but those are the breaks... Somehow I don't feel sorry for anyone that has more money than they could ever possibly spend paying for things that benefit every American. Just can't bring myself to say that their having those extra millions laying around is more important than a single poor kid's healthcare, education or general well being. Not that important unless you are very very greedy. AND if you really care about it so much you are free to leave, but they won't because there will still be no place to make money like the good ole US of A.

These companies using tax havens and moving jobs overseas will be paying for the privilege to continue conducting business here too and if it hurts enough they will bring back good jobs to avoid paying the extra as well. Bernie and Trump are almost eye to eye on this one.

Forcing money back into the middle class economy is not only wise, it's probably the only thing that will keep the US from imploding. A strong middle class made us great, innovation made us great, our diversity made us great, opportunity as "the American Dream" made us great; meanwhile greed, corruption and inequalities tear at the very fabric that makes America great and it is those things that a President Bernie Sanders will address, who on this board doesn't want that?


Bernie 2016! Time to set things right!

Democrats Have Their History Wrong — and Are About to Make a Grievous Mistake

By Kathy Donohue [1] / Salon [2]
March 7, 2016

This election cycle, Democratic Party leaders are pleading with younger voters to heed the lessons of history. Echoing George Santayana’s famous warning: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” they urge millennials to take a close look at what happened to Democrats in 1972. That was the year, they explain, that the Democratic Party made a monumental blunder at its national convention by empowering young people, women and minorities at the expense of party elites. The result was the nomination of George McGovern, a candidate whose ideas were so radical that they guaranteed a landslide victory for Richard Nixon.

Leaving aside whether such an interpretation of 1972 is accurate, there is a more fundamental issue here. What if pundits and Democratic Party leaders are focusing on the wrong election? What if the lessons that history has for us are to be found not in 1972 but in 1968? What if we are heeding the absolutely wrong warnings?

Much like 2016, the 1968 election was supposed to be a coronation. Lyndon Johnson had won the White House four years earlier with one of the landslide victories of the 20th century. Few doubted he would be reelected, and no establishment politician even considered challenging Johnson for the nomination. But also like 2016, a relatively obscure senator felt that there had to be a candidate in the race who would bring up issues that were in real danger of being ignored. In 1968 that senator was Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota and the issue was the Vietnam War.

Political pundits dismissed McCarthy as a fringe candidate who had absolutely no chance of winning. But McCarthy’s campaign galvanized young people. An army of volunteers descended upon New Hampshire. Hippies, who a few weeks earlier had been wearing jeans and long hair, decided to “Get Clean for Gene.” Young men shaved their beards, young women donned dresses and all began going door to door throughout the Granite State.

McCarthy did not win New Hampshire but he took 20 of the 24 delegates, a result that sent shockwaves through the political establishment. Four days later Robert Kennedy, who had earlier declined to run because he assumed the election belonged to Johnson, threw his hat into the ring. Two weeks after that in an absolutely astounding turnaround of events, the inevitable front-runner Lyndon Johnson dropped out of the race. Much like 2016, “inevitability” was not quite as inevitable as everyone had initially assumed.

With Johnson’s departure, the Democrats needed an establishment candidate and looked to Johnson’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey. Throughout April and May, as Kennedy and McCarthy battled for votes in the primaries, Humphrey followed a different strategy. Well aware that the majority of delegates in 1968 were not going to be selected by voters but by the party elite in the non-primary states, he focused his efforts on wooing establishment politicians. By doing so Humphrey managed to build a formidable delegate lead much like Hillary Clinton is trying to do by locking in Super Delegates, today’s version of non-elected delegates chosen by party leaders.

When the Democrats met in Chicago late in the summer of 1968, the field had been tragically narrowed two and a half months earlier with the assassination of Bobby Kennedy. Only two candidates remained, Hubert Humphrey and Eugene McCarthy. Humphrey had not won a single primary. Indeed, his primary total was a minuscule 161,143 votes. But he controlled the most delegates. By contrast, McCarthy had received 2,914,933 primary votes, almost 20 times the number that Humphrey could claim. Yet, by the time the balloons had settled onto the convention floor, a Democratic Party controlled by machine politicians and union leaders had chosen Hubert Humphrey as the Democratic nominee.

As the race for the White House entered its final phase, a war-weary electorate, clearly frustrated by the status quo, had a choice. They could go with the establishment Democrat, who promised to continue Johnson’s policies, or they could elect a Republican, who had long ago mastered the sorts of campaign strategies that are currently propelling Donald Trump’s campaign. Much like Trump, Richard Nixon offered solutions without providing specifics, telling voters that he had a “secret plan” to “end the war but win the peace” in Vietnam. And while Nixon did not target Mexicans or Muslims, he did promise to restore law and order by cracking down on entitled and unruly young people demonstrating on the nation’s campuses and black people taking to the streets in urban neighborhoods. When the results came in, Nixon had edged past Humphrey in the popular vote and had a comfortable margin in the Electoral College.

Looking at 1968, it would seem the lesson that history has for us is that Democrats need to be really careful about assuming that the establishment candidate is the key to electoral victory. But what about 1972? Isn’t the lesson of that election that Democrats suffer their most devastating losses when they run candidates who speak to the party’s progressive base.

Actually, no. The lesson of 1972 is something quite different. To begin with, McGovern was not a particularly strong candidate. He had secured the nomination with only a quarter of the primary votes. The unions refused to work for him. And he ran a poor campaign. Even more significant, he was going up against a sitting president, Richard Nixon, who had brought troop levels in Vietnam down from almost half a million to around 30,000, had eased Cold War tensions by going to China and had stabilized the economy, at least temporarily, by implementing wage and price controls. Nixon would have been tough to beat under any circumstances, and McGovern was not the candidate to do it.

But the real lesson that McGovern’s defeat teaches us is not the dangers of progressivism so much as the dangers of being out of step with the electorate. Every few decades, the existing political order is completely overturned and in the upheaval a new order emerges. This happened in the 1930s, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt replaced what has been called the “Republican Ascendancy” with his New Deal Coalition. It happened again in the late 1960s and early 1970s when the rise of the right replaced the liberalism of the New Deal.

We are due for another upheaval and there are indications that we are actually in the middle of one right now. If that is the case, then what the election of 1972 teaches us is not that McGovern was too liberal for voters but that he was too out of step. He was trying to run as a ’60s liberal when the electorate had moved well beyond the ’60s, just as Clinton is running as a ’90s triangulating liberal when voters are hungry for change.

History has some important lessons to teach. They are just not the one that pundits and establishment politicians are claiming.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/de...rievous-mistake

OCD, I'd venture a lot more people than you think are in the top 10% as it starts around 127k. For a dual income family, that is not a very far stretch. http://www.kiplinger.com/article/taxes/T054-C000-S001-your-rank-as-a-taxpayer.html

As I've said, I agree with most of his ideas, just not how he wants to fund them. His tax plan will destroy, and I mean DESTROY, this country.

You guys said the same thing about obamacare.

It's gonna destroy the country!!!

People will be in soup lines!!!!

**looks around the country**

Nope, the US is still here.

I never thought that Obamacare would destroy the country - it wasn't outlandish taxes being implemented to fund it. Now, I didn't like it, and I did think it would affect healthcare in a negative way and thus far it does not seem to have done so.

Bernie's tax plan will squash investing - taxing capital gains at 40-55% is ridiculous. The added taxes for businesses areare the wrong direction to go - a fair, loophole free simple tax is what needs to be implemented for both individuals and businesses. I've been over it until I'm blue in the face - I'm pretty much done with even arguing about it - and yes, I know you agree his tax plan is horrible.

edit:
I've brought up my tax ideas in another thread and OCD and I both agreed that it was a good system. It shows that people on opposite ends of the spectrum can come to agreements, and I believe that most people are for a fair taxation system, but unfortunately both sides will remain extreme and there will be no common ground.

If you are familiar with any government programs that were promised.. and actually ended up costing as little as they said or saving us as much as they said, please let me know. I've been watching this stuff for 30 years and I don't remember one ever living up to the promise. So posting these kinds of numbers does NOTHING for me. If you want to sell me on healthcare as a universal right, you may have a chance... but selling me on how affordable it's going to be isn't going to work.


All Americans? Working Americans? Adult Americans?


Sounds to me like banking is right behind healthcare in the things Bernie wants the government to control. could energy be far behind?


More bank control....


congress?


At what point does he want people to actually be responsible for themselves?

Obamacare is a freaking disaster...and its why even the Dems want to make it "better" that crap is broken.

I dont know about destroying the country but it has done a number on the middle class and business's in general.

I dont see soup lines but the churches sure as hell cried for help because they couldnt keep up with the demand for helping people...and welfare numbers soared...disability claims went through the roof also. Not necessarily due to healthcare but the recession layoffs I get that part but the affordable care act is terrible and effected a ton of companies in a negative way. Middle class people and working poor have health care but what they did with the deductibles is disgusting...people are insured but cant afford to even go to the DR.

The US would still be there but it will be a shell of its self...but hey those evil people with money will just have to be less greedy for the greater good right

I wanted to break this down but all I got was the "feels" and name calling.

The to big to fail folks shouldve been allowed to fail and been replaced...but a lot of what you wrote was just name calling.

I find it funny if you think they tax people in the higher brackets at 52% on top of every other tax we have that we wont flee to somewhere that is more tax friendly?? Keep dreaming.

You yourself said if Trump gets elected you would do extensive traveling but if Bernie gets in and wants to take half of my income that I wont do things to protect that?? including living somewhere else?

I love this country but have lived in other parts of the world and wont hesitate to do it again if Bernies plans are enacted..and I know a ton of other people with money who would do the same.

Swish believe it or not I agree with a lot more then I thought about what you say...when I give it more thought then a quick response on a post. But man sometimes some of things you say makes me hope you achieve more then you ever thought possible and see things from that point of view ...IDK what I'm trying to say man..I like you and enjoy what most of what you write and last night was just a little eye opening is all.

Think I'm going to check out for the day....have a great day man....everyone else also.

I think the ACA has been successful. Just need some tweaks.

This is what's annoying about this board

Instead of actually ASKING me, you guys make these assumptions that I'm unhappy, that I have a chip on my shoulder and all this other nonsense.

The reality is that I'm beyond happy in my life. I've been successful in pretty much everything.

I had a very successful military career. You out of anybody understands how hard it is to make the rank of E-6 in the military in just 6 years. I did that.

I'm getting my associates in supply chain management in May. I've done nothing but grind and grind and grind in my life.

So I know what success it. What you guys seem to fail to understand is that my PERSONAL success had zero baring on how I feel about social issues.

None. Straight up.

It doesn't matter if I one day make a million dollars a year. I still want people in this country treated equally. I will always feel that healthcare and such is a human rights issue, not a states rights issue.

I will always feel like people should be entitled to clean freaking water in the richest country on the planet.

So I could achieve all the goals I want, but I will ALWAYS can about the men and women beside me. The children in this country. Women and minorities getting a fair shot at life.

That's just who I am. And I am damn passionate about that. I won't apologize for caring about everybody. I won't apologize for the what I say or how I say it.

I'm not sexist, racist, xenophobic, or homophobic. I love everybody. And I want people to feel like they have a shot at making it through this life.

So have a great day as well.

I will take this one for now, and to be honest I won’t respond to many of the folks who post here because they are so convinced they are right they won’t listen to reason you don’t strike me as that sort and I feel certain that if you hear me out, you may not change your mind but you will listen some on here (and you know who you are) are so convinced its bad, reason would never enter your bubbles.

I believe you have to lead into something and we know certain things to be true to the best of all of our limited knowledge.

I keep hearing the argument that we can’t afford Bernie’s plan. OK

My question is this. How is it we can afford to pay insurance premiums for insurance that has co pays, that give billions of dollars to insurance companies yet we can’t afford a plan that cost half as much that fully insures all of us?

You have to be from Mars or some other distant planet not to realize that pre ACA and post ACA the cost of health care is growing. At one point and I’m working off memory here the cost of health care pre ACA was about 28% per year and 50,000 people per week were losing health insurance through their work place.

Now under the ACA health care costs are raising at 18% (memory again) so in some respects ACA has helped and certainly having 18 million more people with some form of health care is a good thing, but the underlying issue remains we pay more and get less. Compared to every other country in the world.

No DC we can afford Bernie’s plan what we can’t afford is what we currently have.

One of the things that gets left out is businesses like Walmart pay nothing for health insurance as is, but we the tax payer do. With this plan Walmart and companies like them will have to pay, as they should now. So you can wipe that one off the list of bills you’re now paying.

The businesses that now provide health insurance to their employees will see a reduction in those costs and the employee who now is stuck with health plans that cover them but leave them exposed to high deductibles at the worst possible time (when their sick and can’t work) will now have full coverage, and yes it will cost something 2.2% of their pay. Which if their an average person it will be less then they currently pay.

We can’t afford not to implement Bernie’s plan it’s cheaper and its better and it helps all but a very few.

Me too Swish I couldn't agree more nor could I have EVER said it better.

To be fair, I never said we can't afford it. I said I don't believe Bernie's numbers will prove to be accurate. I believe they are highly optimistic and the savings/benefits are overstated.


My biggest fear, as I've stated before, is not cost... it's quality and it's government control. I have very good health insurance, I enjoy very good healthcare with reasonable co-pays and deductibles... Now will having the government take over, reduce doctors pay, etc affect the quality of care that I get? If so, that's a concern to me. Is that selfish? Probably a little.

My other concern is that once the government takes over healthcare, the restrictions will come "to improve health" and "keep the cost of healthcare down". I enjoy a big arse diet coke and a double cheeseburger now and then, I enjoy a beer or two or ten sometimes, I enjoy a nice chew once in a while... those things are going to go away or they will tax them to the point that they become prohibitive.. and if you think they won't, then we can just agree to wait and see. We are giving the government the hammer and the license to exercise tremendous control over our personal choices because they will be paying the bill.. and that scares me.

LMAO - and you do?!?!

edit
Let me elaborate with an example - you refuse to listen to reason that his tax plan is insane.

As I've said over and over, he has some really good ideas - so I will listen to reason on that aspect. His implementation plan sucks.

Here's the Fiscal Fact Check on Bernie's Single Payer Plan.

http://fiscalfactcheck.crfb.org/analysis-of-the-sanders-single-payer-offsets/

I've read that, and I got a chuckle out of the "Encouragingly, Sen. Sanders has outlined a set of offsetting tax increases designed to pay for the plan’s cost. They include:"

Encouragingly, lol - I guess he did at least lay it out to show how crazy it is.

That is the lipstick on this pig.

If the rest of the WORLD does it why can't we do it, and for that matter why can't we do it better?





We all have an agenda, and of course you want to protect what you have because it's A-OK for you. What you need to do is to burst the bubble and look around at the rest of the people in this country that don't have what you do, you said it I didn't but selfish is a good word.

As for the quality of the care I think we have plenty of history and examples to go by Medicare being that model. I know that to a much lesser degree those benefits have been eroded but I don't hear many complaints from Dr. or their patients about not getting what they need.

There are many complaints about seniors not being able to afford the medications they need and I think we can rest easy that will be addressed our seniors should be and need to be taken care of, but that's not what happens because we have allowed ourselves to rest easy on the idea that we can't afford it, so tough luck Mr. and Mrs. senior go without the medication you need I need another billion for ME.



There not doing that now with seniors so I see no bases for your thought process on that one. I will do you one better you think the insurance companies don't do that now, really?

New ABC/WaPo poll finds Trump's honesty rating among Republicans falling 12 points

Story

What's missing is the actual costs it will be without Bernie's plan. That's where you miss by miles.

Nuff SAID.

Today, the average cost of a family health insurance offered by an employer is $13,375. That’s up 131% over the last decade—a period in which inflation rose only 28%. And one estimate says that if costs continue on their current trajectory, premiums will go up another 166% in the decade ahead.

The data was collected by the Kaiser Family Foundation and comes via USA Today:


Since 1999, health insurance premiums for families rose 131%, the report found, far more than the general rate of inflation, which increased 28% over the same period. Overall, health care in the United States is expected to cost $2.6 trillion this year, or 17% of the nation’s economy, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

At the same time costs have gone up dramatically, the policies have grown less generous, and more likely to add deductibles to be paid by the policy holder:


The annual survey of more than 2,000 companies also found that 40% of small-business employees enrolled in individual health plans pay annual deductibles of $1,000 or more. That’s almost twice the number who paid that much in 2007.

Unsurprisingly, employers will be passing along the most recent rises in premiums to their employees, as reported in the Washington Post’s look at the Kaiser survey:


Forty percent of employers surveyed said they are likely to increase the amount their workers pay out of pocket for doctor visits. Almost as many said they are likely to raise annual deductibles and the amount workers pay for prescription drugs.

Nine percent said they plan to tighten eligibility for health benefits; 8 percent said they plan to drop coverage entirely. Forty-one percent of employers said they are “somewhat” or “very” likely to increase the amount employees pay in premiums — though that would not necessarily mean employees would pay a higher percentage of the premiums. Employers could simply be passing along the same share of the overall increase that they are doing this year…

A major business lobby weighed in Tuesday, saying that if current trends continue, annual health-care costs for employers will rise 166 percent over the next decade — to $28,530 per employee.

Of course, health care reform is supposed to help us avoid another decade of drastic price increases. But will it? The WSJ reports that portions of the middleclass will be hurt financially—because they make too much money for assistance, and yet they make too little to afford health insurance without it being a large burden. One man interviewed in the WSJ story who lives in Massachusetts, where if you don’t have health insurance you are subject to a fine, pays the annual penalty, which is cheaper than any insurance premium. He sums up his predicament thusly: “I can’t use up all of my savings just to buy mandatory insurance,” he says. It’s like penalizing “the homeless for refusing to buy a mansion.”

Or perhaps, as the Washington Post reports, it is young people—folks in their 20s and 30s who are generally healthy and more likely to skip out on health insurance—who will be hit by any national requirement to have insurance:


In part, young adults are uninsured because they are less likely to work for employers who offer coverage; they may not qualify for public programs such as Medicaid; and even the skimpiest private insurance plans may be too expensive alongside hefty student loan payments and credit card debt.

But some young people — nicknamed the “young invincibles” — are also likelier than other Americans to assume that they won’t need health insurance or to decide that they’d rather spend their money on other things.

To discourage that attitude, the Finance Committee bill would fine individuals who do not purchase coverage. An early draft of the proposal set the penalty at $750 or $950 per year for single people, depending on income. But according to various insurance experts, even the least expensive plan under the bill could cost more than $100 per month, making it cheaper for people to pay the fine than to buy insurance.

Fining people who don’t opt into a program seems a little ass-backwards—and it also seems that it’ll bring about all sorts of administrative costs to enforce. Shouldn’t the plan be attractive enough so that people actually want to sign up? A positive rather than negative incentive? Maybe I’m asking too much.

A must-read for anyone interested in fixing American health care is the Atlantic Monthly’s story “How American Health Care Killed My Father.” It’s written not by a politician or doctor or insurance wonk or even a “writer,” but by a guy whose father died unnecessarily—basically due to an infection he caught in a hospital because someone didn’t wash their hands. (That’s just one thing the writer would like to fix: Can we actually make doctors wash their hands for chrissakes?)

The story takes a very big-picture view of the situation, and among other topics, questions something assumed. Namely, that it actually makes any sense whatsoever to use insurance for all medical care expenses, big and small:


Insurance is probably the most complex, costly, and distortional method of financing any activity; that’s why it is otherwise used to fund only rare, unexpected, and large costs. Imagine sending your weekly grocery bill to an insurance clerk for review, and having the grocer reimbursed by the insurer to whom you’ve paid your share. An expensive and wasteful absurdity, no?

And here’s another snippet from the piece to chew on:


Let’s say you’re a 22-year-old single employee at my company today, starting out at a $30,000 annual salary. Let’s assume you’ll get married in six years, support two children for 20 years, retire at 65, and die at 80. Now let’s make a crazy assumption: insurance premiums, Medicare taxes and premiums, and out-of-pocket costs will grow no faster than your earnings—say, 3 percent a year. By the end of your working days, your annual salary will be up to $107,000. And over your lifetime, you and your employer together will have paid $1.77 million for your family’s health care. $1.77 million! And that’s only after assuming the taming of costs! In recent years, health-care costs have actually grown 2 to 3 percent faster than the economy. If that continues, your 22-year-old self is looking at an additional $2 million or so in expenses over your lifetime—roughly $4 million in total.


http://business.time.com/2009/09/16/health-insurance-premiums-up-131-in-last-ten-years/

And what you are missing is the secondary costs, that WILL arise. And not just "costs", but actions that the new taxes will create.

Do you think you can just "raise taxes on the rich, and on Wall St. (I love that term - it's the embodiment of hatred for some. Or envy) - but, do you think they are going to say " aw shucks, we have to pay more in taxes" and then do it?

Do you have investments? A pension?

Double talk much?



Not greedy much are we, or arrogant either. I feel sorry for the republican main stream they still haven't figured out why the American public is turning on them and they spew this cow manure.



Of course I do and I'm good with paying what I have to in order to make a better life for all of us not just ME.

You may want to read the post Swish made earlier it says who I am as well.

But just so you know I am by trade a manufacturing engineer, I had my own machine shop for quite a few years and did quite well as did the people who worked for me. Due to health issues I sold the business and now work part time and I live quite comfortably.

I grew up poor in the late 60's and early 70's and I fought like a dawg to make a life for myself, but I never forgot where I came from nor did I forget how much it hurt not to have much of anything including hope.

I like Swish love people, I don't expect you to understand that because your all about you and it starts and ends there. I actually feel sorry for you because you have missed so much of what it truly means to be a human being.

I don't expect you'll ever understand me, and I for sure will NEVER understand what would make one man want so much for himself, that he has no empathy for another fellow human being. I thank God everyday for giving me a brain and 2 good hands, and for the wisdom to know that for a bump on the head I could be one of the people you take such great joy in denying a basic existence.

I'm done with you. Get HELP.

Presumptuous much, or just today?

Tell me, what do you know about me? You think I'm rich?



Thanks in advance - tell me everything you know about me. Until then, maybe you shouldn't assume. You think?