Follow us on Twitter  

Author Topic: Democratic Presidential Candidates 2020  (Read 85394 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Democratic Presidential Candidates 2020
« Reply #1170 on: February 25, 2020, 05:23:56 PM »

Online jambr380

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9996
  • Tommy Points: 1239
  • Sometimes there's no sane reason for optimism.
The whole "$50-90 trillion in new spending" line is just Republican fear mongering. I know Sanders will never get that stuff through Congress. All of you know it. Trump knows it. Sanders knows it. Everyone in or running for Congress knows it. The DNC knows it. The RNC knows it.

If Obama, controlling both Houses couldn't get his proposed, much less expensive healthcare plan through(he had to settle for the ACA), then there is zero chance Sanders gets his big ticket items through.

Hell, Trump with both Houses couldn't get $10 billion through to build a wall. How is Bernie going to get $50-90 trillion?

So... can we please stop with that line. It's never going to happen. And we all know that.

Iím with you.  So can Bernie now explain what heís going to do when his plan doesnít get the support it needs?  Because as of now heís insisting that heíll convince legislators and will tour the country to rally support. 

Iíd much rather Bernie speak realistically about something he could do rather than something, as you point out, wonít happen.  I could ask, what are we voting for if we all know going in that itís not a realistic plan?

Bernie and the Dems need to do better than this.

Oh, Bernie fans definitely assume that he will get his policies implemented, while the moderates have to vote for him and hope that he does not. If Bernie even alludes to moderate possibilities, he will lose the support he has from the far left. He has no choice but to keep on his same track and hope enough people will vote for him over Trump...even begrudgingly.

Re: Democratic Presidential Candidates 2020
« Reply #1171 on: February 25, 2020, 05:41:04 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • NCE
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41275
  • Tommy Points: 8015
The whole "$50-90 trillion in new spending" line is just Republican fear mongering. I know Sanders will never get that stuff through Congress. All of you know it. Trump knows it. Sanders knows it. Everyone in or running for Congress knows it. The DNC knows it. The RNC knows it.

If Obama, controlling both Houses couldn't get his proposed, much less expensive healthcare plan through(he had to settle for the ACA), then there is zero chance Sanders gets his big ticket items through.

Hell, Trump with both Houses couldn't get $10 billion through to build a wall. How is Bernie going to get $50-90 trillion?

So... can we please stop with that line. It's never going to happen. And we all know that.

So, you think itís inappropriate to discuss / ask Bernie supporters about Bernieís actual policies?  Thatís ďfear-mongeringĒ?

And, donít be so sure. 15 years ago Democrats were fairly reasonable on things like illegal immigration. Now, they are pushing sanctuary cities and the equivalent of open borders.
Discuss his policies but bringing up that Bernie is going to spend$50-90 trillion dollars is a fear mongering line because, as I said, it's not going to happen and everyone knows it.

Re: Democratic Presidential Candidates 2020
« Reply #1172 on: February 25, 2020, 05:47:15 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15996
  • Tommy Points: 1726
Hoping for something to happen tonight to loosen Bernies grip.  A win in SC and strong Super Tuesday for Bernie and this thing may be virtually over.

Re: Democratic Presidential Candidates 2020
« Reply #1173 on: February 25, 2020, 05:52:49 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41097
  • Tommy Points: -27172
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
The whole "$50-90 trillion in new spending" line is just Republican fear mongering. I know Sanders will never get that stuff through Congress. All of you know it. Trump knows it. Sanders knows it. Everyone in or running for Congress knows it. The DNC knows it. The RNC knows it.

If Obama, controlling both Houses couldn't get his proposed, much less expensive healthcare plan through(he had to settle for the ACA), then there is zero chance Sanders gets his big ticket items through.

Hell, Trump with both Houses couldn't get $10 billion through to build a wall. How is Bernie going to get $50-90 trillion?

So... can we please stop with that line. It's never going to happen. And we all know that.

So, you think itís inappropriate to discuss / ask Bernie supporters about Bernieís actual policies?  Thatís ďfear-mongeringĒ?

And, donít be so sure. 15 years ago Democrats were fairly reasonable on things like illegal immigration. Now, they are pushing sanctuary cities and the equivalent of open borders.
Discuss his policies but bringing up that Bernie is going to spend$50-90 trillion dollars is a fear mongering line because, as I said, it's not going to happen and everyone knows it.

His own website lays out around $50 billion in new spending.  Itís seems like weíre in bizarro world, where Bernie can propose things but itís fear-mongering to point to his proposals.

Free college / cancel student loan debt: $2.2 trillion

Expand social security: unknown

Housing for all:  $2.5 trillion

Universal child care: $1.2 trillion

Canceling medical debt:  $81 billion

Green New Deal:  $13.6 trillion

Medicare for All:  $30 - $47 trillion

So thatís about $49.5 trillion to $66.5 trillion in new spending.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-does-bernie-pay-his-major-plans/











« Last Edit: February 25, 2020, 06:02:56 PM by Roy H. »
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Democratic Presidential Candidates 2020
« Reply #1174 on: February 25, 2020, 05:57:53 PM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3184
  • Tommy Points: 318
Bernie is the candidate who will invest back into our country while Trump, Bloomberg, Klobuchar & Biden are candidates that will strip out programs that are working which will have long term, negative consequences.  If you think of politics like a business, do you think a company that focuses on R&D and longterm stability is better than a company that lays off as many employees they can to maximize the next earnings report?  Which company would you rather be an employee at?  Which company do you think will be around longer?

When taxes go up, rich people threaten to leave.  They never actually do, they just say that they will to intimidate people.  Most of the attacks on Bernie from an economic standpoint are complete nonsense and are coming from the GOP which has historically been the most fiscally irresponsible party and just created the biggest deficits in history.
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/20/if-you-tax-the-rich-they-wont-leave-us-data-contradicts-millionaires-threats

When we invest in social programs, we make our populous more successful and we reap the gains across the board.  When we cut taxes and social programs, the money usually sits in accounts and does not circulate.  It has a net negative economic impact: https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-the-safety-net-pays-for-itself-11563800405

The programs that are being advanced by Sanders and to a lesser degree, Warren, will invest in our populous and make us overall more productive.  When the wealth is spread out more equitably, it will circulate more and have an outsized economic impact.
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2016/03/09/wall-streets-wisest-bernie-sanders-is-best-candidate-for-economy-.html

The fear mongering about Sanders is being paid for by people who will see their taxes go up dramatically, but who also do not need that money.  I am sick of our country being stripped of wealth for the benefit of a handful of greedy [expletives].  When people in Massachusetts, California, New York, etc pay outsized amounts into the federal budget and then a handful of billionaires buy random elections in low population red states to route that money - OUR MONEY - into their own pockets away from people who need it, it drives me crazy.

Calling Bernie a "communist" is also very lazy. He's clearly not and you're using it to deflect from his message and not bother to listen what he has to say.  He is the most consistent, ethical & competent candidate I have seen in my life.  The organization he built for his campaign is just astounding and screams of competence.  I do not see that from the other candidates, not even close.  Most of his platform has been tried to great success in other countries and none of it looks like communism.  You should really give him a shot and think critically about his candidacy.
Quetzalcoatl,
Bernie will signal the beginning of the demise of the american empire (every empire has to dissipate eventually as it happened to the Aztecs on this continent centuries ago)... and here is why:

-A big contributor to the "perceived wealth" in USA is the US dollar. It is the world currency but in order to be the world currency USA have to constantly "remind" other counties that it is absolutely imperative that they trade each others goods in US dollars.
Do you seriously believe that bernie will be as convincing as Trump and Obama were? note that a super power central socialist country - USSR tried to be convincing in other countries very unsuccessfully - see Hungary - 1956 // Prague spring - 1968 and Afghanistan - late 1970s /  early 1980s ..

all epic failures...

- Scandinavian model works but it only works in Scandinavian countries that is why it hasn't been successfully replicated. Scandinavian countries are very homogeneous in terms of population. That population also exhibits discipline (financial and ethical) and they are used to the cold climates up north. <<

Note that cold climate territories aren't densely populated because Humans are not generally fond of cold weather and also don't like to stay disciplined financially and possibly ethically. 

USA are way too diverse in terms of population and climate.

- Socialist Central economy can build wealth - See China. China's development and wealth creation in the last 30 years is absolutely remarkable but they will never get close to the Scandinavian standard of living.
Note that the wealth in China was built in big part by employing cheap labor in slavery like conditions. <<One can argue that has been tried before in history and we are not going to try it again...
I didn't realize that Sanders as president suddenly means that America will instantly become a Socialist State.

Trump is trying his hardest to turn the country into an populist authoritarian dictatorship but three plus years later we are still a democratic republic.

I think many ill informed Republicans need to understand that although Sanders is a Democratic Socialist, his presidency probably means, even with complete control of the Senate, just higher taxes, a strengthening of Obamacare, more money distributed to areas Trump made cuts.

America isn't going to turn into a Soviet Union because of Sanders. It's just going to go a left after Trump pushed things right. There is no way most of Sanders expensive proposals gets through Congress. He will end up becoming very pragmatic regarding what he will be able to achieve.

We lived through 1 term of Trump, so we are probably ok if Bernie gets elected.

Trumpís faults are mostly personality and using the government to promote his interests.  His policies, overall, have benefited the country, particularly the economy.

Bernieís policies would be much more likely to harm the majority of voters, and the economy, in the short term.  We would survive it, but everyone should expect to have to tighten their belts for a while. It might be time to take your money out of the market.

I just wnat to point out that this is entirely speculative. Maybe Bernie hurts the US economy in the short term, maybe cutting overall healthcare spending over a  decade leads to stronger overall us economy long term when combined with gains in worker productivity due t actually having access to healthcare.

It amazes me that for some reason the default setting towards giving people health insurance, something that large sections of the developed world have managed to do, is doom.

Re: Democratic Presidential Candidates 2020
« Reply #1175 on: February 25, 2020, 06:31:15 PM »

Online saltlover

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12390
  • Tommy Points: 2607
The whole "$50-90 trillion in new spending" line is just Republican fear mongering. I know Sanders will never get that stuff through Congress. All of you know it. Trump knows it. Sanders knows it. Everyone in or running for Congress knows it. The DNC knows it. The RNC knows it.

If Obama, controlling both Houses couldn't get his proposed, much less expensive healthcare plan through(he had to settle for the ACA), then there is zero chance Sanders gets his big ticket items through.

Hell, Trump with both Houses couldn't get $10 billion through to build a wall. How is Bernie going to get $50-90 trillion?

So... can we please stop with that line. It's never going to happen. And we all know that.

Iím with you.  So can Bernie now explain what heís going to do when his plan doesnít get the support it needs?  Because as of now heís insisting that heíll convince legislators and will tour the country to rally support. 

Iíd much rather Bernie speak realistically about something he could do rather than something, as you point out, wonít happen.  I could ask, what are we voting for if we all know going in that itís not a realistic plan?

Bernie and the Dems need to do better than this.

Does any other candidate have that standard applied to him or her?  Does Pete Buttigieg have to explain what happens if his public option doesnít work due to the age-old insurance problem of adverse-selection, either because it gets blown up legislatively or fails once implemented?  Does Joe Biden have to explain what his strategy is if Republicans donít actually work with him despite his being Joe Biden?  I could go on.

No candidate ever gets more than a fraction of what they propose.  Furthermore, itís silly for a candidate to explain Plan B on the campaign trail, because then youíve already moved the target before negotiations start should you actually get elected.

If the Dems get 50 senators, I think Bernie will get one major legislative priority through with the broad structure of what heís currently proposing.  Most likely that would be Medicare-for-All, because it does poll pretty well across all voters, and heíll have the political capital to get worried Dems aboard.  Heíll also probably get a portion of the Green New Deal through just as part of the regular budget, but itís unfortunately not likely to be the grand vision.

Re: Democratic Presidential Candidates 2020
« Reply #1176 on: February 25, 2020, 06:55:42 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15996
  • Tommy Points: 1726
The whole "$50-90 trillion in new spending" line is just Republican fear mongering. I know Sanders will never get that stuff through Congress. All of you know it. Trump knows it. Sanders knows it. Everyone in or running for Congress knows it. The DNC knows it. The RNC knows it.

If Obama, controlling both Houses couldn't get his proposed, much less expensive healthcare plan through(he had to settle for the ACA), then there is zero chance Sanders gets his big ticket items through.

Hell, Trump with both Houses couldn't get $10 billion through to build a wall. How is Bernie going to get $50-90 trillion?

So... can we please stop with that line. It's never going to happen. And we all know that.

Iím with you.  So can Bernie now explain what heís going to do when his plan doesnít get the support it needs?  Because as of now heís insisting that heíll convince legislators and will tour the country to rally support. 

Iíd much rather Bernie speak realistically about something he could do rather than something, as you point out, wonít happen.  I could ask, what are we voting for if we all know going in that itís not a realistic plan?

Bernie and the Dems need to do better than this.

Does any other candidate have that standard applied to him or her?  Does Pete Buttigieg have to explain what happens if his public option doesnít work due to the age-old insurance problem of adverse-selection, either because it gets blown up legislatively or fails once implemented?  Does Joe Biden have to explain what his strategy is if Republicans donít actually work with him despite his being Joe Biden?  I could go on.

No candidate ever gets more than a fraction of what they propose.  Furthermore, itís silly for a candidate to explain Plan B on the campaign trail, because then youíve already moved the target before negotiations start should you actually get elected.

If the Dems get 50 senators, I think Bernie will get one major legislative priority through with the broad structure of what heís currently proposing.  Most likely that would be Medicare-for-All, because it does poll pretty well across all voters, and heíll have the political capital to get worried Dems aboard.  Heíll also probably get a portion of the Green New Deal through just as part of the regular budget, but itís unfortunately not likely to be the grand vision.

The context of my response was responding to a post that posited that everyone knows that Bernie's plan has no chance at all.   No, I don't see that equivalent to Pete or other candidates having to explain their "Plan B".

If you run on a platform based on colonizing Pluto, I think it's reasonable to have to explain what will happen if your plan doesn't pan out. 

From a political perspective, you are correct -- Bernie will never give up his Plan A on the campaign trail no matter how untenable the plan is.  I am not seeking what I expect to occur, I am seeking what I want to occur.  Bernie's plans are extreme enough to cost the Dems this election. I think he's out of step with most Americans -- more importantly, out of step with where swing voting moderates are.   I know that there is a base of Dem voters who believe in Bernie. But EVERY conservative-leaning person I have spoken to recently -- all of whom would like to be able to NOT vote for Trump, has told me that they can't see voting for Bernie.  Small sample size -- probably about 6 people. But it has me pretty worried about a huge Democratic mistake.

Re: Democratic Presidential Candidates 2020
« Reply #1177 on: February 25, 2020, 06:59:35 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41097
  • Tommy Points: -27172
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Bernie is the candidate who will invest back into our country while Trump, Bloomberg, Klobuchar & Biden are candidates that will strip out programs that are working which will have long term, negative consequences.  If you think of politics like a business, do you think a company that focuses on R&D and longterm stability is better than a company that lays off as many employees they can to maximize the next earnings report?  Which company would you rather be an employee at?  Which company do you think will be around longer?

When taxes go up, rich people threaten to leave.  They never actually do, they just say that they will to intimidate people.  Most of the attacks on Bernie from an economic standpoint are complete nonsense and are coming from the GOP which has historically been the most fiscally irresponsible party and just created the biggest deficits in history.
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/20/if-you-tax-the-rich-they-wont-leave-us-data-contradicts-millionaires-threats

When we invest in social programs, we make our populous more successful and we reap the gains across the board.  When we cut taxes and social programs, the money usually sits in accounts and does not circulate.  It has a net negative economic impact: https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-the-safety-net-pays-for-itself-11563800405

The programs that are being advanced by Sanders and to a lesser degree, Warren, will invest in our populous and make us overall more productive.  When the wealth is spread out more equitably, it will circulate more and have an outsized economic impact.
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2016/03/09/wall-streets-wisest-bernie-sanders-is-best-candidate-for-economy-.html

The fear mongering about Sanders is being paid for by people who will see their taxes go up dramatically, but who also do not need that money.  I am sick of our country being stripped of wealth for the benefit of a handful of greedy [expletives].  When people in Massachusetts, California, New York, etc pay outsized amounts into the federal budget and then a handful of billionaires buy random elections in low population red states to route that money - OUR MONEY - into their own pockets away from people who need it, it drives me crazy.

Calling Bernie a "communist" is also very lazy. He's clearly not and you're using it to deflect from his message and not bother to listen what he has to say.  He is the most consistent, ethical & competent candidate I have seen in my life.  The organization he built for his campaign is just astounding and screams of competence.  I do not see that from the other candidates, not even close.  Most of his platform has been tried to great success in other countries and none of it looks like communism.  You should really give him a shot and think critically about his candidacy.
Quetzalcoatl,
Bernie will signal the beginning of the demise of the american empire (every empire has to dissipate eventually as it happened to the Aztecs on this continent centuries ago)... and here is why:

-A big contributor to the "perceived wealth" in USA is the US dollar. It is the world currency but in order to be the world currency USA have to constantly "remind" other counties that it is absolutely imperative that they trade each others goods in US dollars.
Do you seriously believe that bernie will be as convincing as Trump and Obama were? note that a super power central socialist country - USSR tried to be convincing in other countries very unsuccessfully - see Hungary - 1956 // Prague spring - 1968 and Afghanistan - late 1970s /  early 1980s ..

all epic failures...

- Scandinavian model works but it only works in Scandinavian countries that is why it hasn't been successfully replicated. Scandinavian countries are very homogeneous in terms of population. That population also exhibits discipline (financial and ethical) and they are used to the cold climates up north. <<

Note that cold climate territories aren't densely populated because Humans are not generally fond of cold weather and also don't like to stay disciplined financially and possibly ethically. 

USA are way too diverse in terms of population and climate.

- Socialist Central economy can build wealth - See China. China's development and wealth creation in the last 30 years is absolutely remarkable but they will never get close to the Scandinavian standard of living.
Note that the wealth in China was built in big part by employing cheap labor in slavery like conditions. <<One can argue that has been tried before in history and we are not going to try it again...
I didn't realize that Sanders as president suddenly means that America will instantly become a Socialist State.

Trump is trying his hardest to turn the country into an populist authoritarian dictatorship but three plus years later we are still a democratic republic.

I think many ill informed Republicans need to understand that although Sanders is a Democratic Socialist, his presidency probably means, even with complete control of the Senate, just higher taxes, a strengthening of Obamacare, more money distributed to areas Trump made cuts.

America isn't going to turn into a Soviet Union because of Sanders. It's just going to go a left after Trump pushed things right. There is no way most of Sanders expensive proposals gets through Congress. He will end up becoming very pragmatic regarding what he will be able to achieve.

We lived through 1 term of Trump, so we are probably ok if Bernie gets elected.

Trumpís faults are mostly personality and using the government to promote his interests.  His policies, overall, have benefited the country, particularly the economy.

Bernieís policies would be much more likely to harm the majority of voters, and the economy, in the short term.  We would survive it, but everyone should expect to have to tighten their belts for a while. It might be time to take your money out of the market.

I just wnat to point out that this is entirely speculative. Maybe Bernie hurts the US economy in the short term, maybe cutting overall healthcare spending over a  decade leads to stronger overall us economy long term when combined with gains in worker productivity due t actually having access to healthcare.

It amazes me that for some reason the default setting towards giving people health insurance, something that large sections of the developed world have managed to do, is doom.

The people who speculate on the economy for a living on Wall Street think that it will significantly hurt the economy.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Democratic Presidential Candidates 2020
« Reply #1178 on: February 25, 2020, 07:08:19 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15996
  • Tommy Points: 1726
Bernie is the candidate who will invest back into our country while Trump, Bloomberg, Klobuchar & Biden are candidates that will strip out programs that are working which will have long term, negative consequences.  If you think of politics like a business, do you think a company that focuses on R&D and longterm stability is better than a company that lays off as many employees they can to maximize the next earnings report?  Which company would you rather be an employee at?  Which company do you think will be around longer?

When taxes go up, rich people threaten to leave.  They never actually do, they just say that they will to intimidate people.  Most of the attacks on Bernie from an economic standpoint are complete nonsense and are coming from the GOP which has historically been the most fiscally irresponsible party and just created the biggest deficits in history.
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/20/if-you-tax-the-rich-they-wont-leave-us-data-contradicts-millionaires-threats

When we invest in social programs, we make our populous more successful and we reap the gains across the board.  When we cut taxes and social programs, the money usually sits in accounts and does not circulate.  It has a net negative economic impact: https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-the-safety-net-pays-for-itself-11563800405

The programs that are being advanced by Sanders and to a lesser degree, Warren, will invest in our populous and make us overall more productive.  When the wealth is spread out more equitably, it will circulate more and have an outsized economic impact.
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2016/03/09/wall-streets-wisest-bernie-sanders-is-best-candidate-for-economy-.html

The fear mongering about Sanders is being paid for by people who will see their taxes go up dramatically, but who also do not need that money.  I am sick of our country being stripped of wealth for the benefit of a handful of greedy [expletives].  When people in Massachusetts, California, New York, etc pay outsized amounts into the federal budget and then a handful of billionaires buy random elections in low population red states to route that money - OUR MONEY - into their own pockets away from people who need it, it drives me crazy.

Calling Bernie a "communist" is also very lazy. He's clearly not and you're using it to deflect from his message and not bother to listen what he has to say.  He is the most consistent, ethical & competent candidate I have seen in my life.  The organization he built for his campaign is just astounding and screams of competence.  I do not see that from the other candidates, not even close.  Most of his platform has been tried to great success in other countries and none of it looks like communism.  You should really give him a shot and think critically about his candidacy.
Quetzalcoatl,
Bernie will signal the beginning of the demise of the american empire (every empire has to dissipate eventually as it happened to the Aztecs on this continent centuries ago)... and here is why:

-A big contributor to the "perceived wealth" in USA is the US dollar. It is the world currency but in order to be the world currency USA have to constantly "remind" other counties that it is absolutely imperative that they trade each others goods in US dollars.
Do you seriously believe that bernie will be as convincing as Trump and Obama were? note that a super power central socialist country - USSR tried to be convincing in other countries very unsuccessfully - see Hungary - 1956 // Prague spring - 1968 and Afghanistan - late 1970s /  early 1980s ..

all epic failures...

- Scandinavian model works but it only works in Scandinavian countries that is why it hasn't been successfully replicated. Scandinavian countries are very homogeneous in terms of population. That population also exhibits discipline (financial and ethical) and they are used to the cold climates up north. <<

Note that cold climate territories aren't densely populated because Humans are not generally fond of cold weather and also don't like to stay disciplined financially and possibly ethically. 

USA are way too diverse in terms of population and climate.

- Socialist Central economy can build wealth - See China. China's development and wealth creation in the last 30 years is absolutely remarkable but they will never get close to the Scandinavian standard of living.
Note that the wealth in China was built in big part by employing cheap labor in slavery like conditions. <<One can argue that has been tried before in history and we are not going to try it again...
I didn't realize that Sanders as president suddenly means that America will instantly become a Socialist State.

Trump is trying his hardest to turn the country into an populist authoritarian dictatorship but three plus years later we are still a democratic republic.

I think many ill informed Republicans need to understand that although Sanders is a Democratic Socialist, his presidency probably means, even with complete control of the Senate, just higher taxes, a strengthening of Obamacare, more money distributed to areas Trump made cuts.

America isn't going to turn into a Soviet Union because of Sanders. It's just going to go a left after Trump pushed things right. There is no way most of Sanders expensive proposals gets through Congress. He will end up becoming very pragmatic regarding what he will be able to achieve.

We lived through 1 term of Trump, so we are probably ok if Bernie gets elected.

Trumpís faults are mostly personality and using the government to promote his interests.  His policies, overall, have benefited the country, particularly the economy.

Bernieís policies would be much more likely to harm the majority of voters, and the economy, in the short term.  We would survive it, but everyone should expect to have to tighten their belts for a while. It might be time to take your money out of the market.

I just wnat to point out that this is entirely speculative. Maybe Bernie hurts the US economy in the short term, maybe cutting overall healthcare spending over a  decade leads to stronger overall us economy long term when combined with gains in worker productivity due t actually having access to healthcare.

It amazes me that for some reason the default setting towards giving people health insurance, something that large sections of the developed world have managed to do, is doom.

The doom of nominating Bernie is 4 more years of Trump.

Please don't miss an important aspect of context.  Bernie has the most progressive health plan... that's fine (I support universal healthcare).  He also has among the most progressive ideas when it comes to childcare, education, college tuition, college repayment, welfare, climate change, taxation, unionization...   Sanders displays no evidence of moderation. 

There are moderate options.

Re: Democratic Presidential Candidates 2020
« Reply #1179 on: February 25, 2020, 07:47:09 PM »

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3954
  • Tommy Points: 405
Bernie is the candidate who will invest back into our country while Trump, Bloomberg, Klobuchar & Biden are candidates that will strip out programs that are working which will have long term, negative consequences.  If you think of politics like a business, do you think a company that focuses on R&D and longterm stability is better than a company that lays off as many employees they can to maximize the next earnings report?  Which company would you rather be an employee at?  Which company do you think will be around longer?

When taxes go up, rich people threaten to leave.  They never actually do, they just say that they will to intimidate people.  Most of the attacks on Bernie from an economic standpoint are complete nonsense and are coming from the GOP which has historically been the most fiscally irresponsible party and just created the biggest deficits in history.
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/20/if-you-tax-the-rich-they-wont-leave-us-data-contradicts-millionaires-threats

When we invest in social programs, we make our populous more successful and we reap the gains across the board.  When we cut taxes and social programs, the money usually sits in accounts and does not circulate.  It has a net negative economic impact: https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-the-safety-net-pays-for-itself-11563800405

The programs that are being advanced by Sanders and to a lesser degree, Warren, will invest in our populous and make us overall more productive.  When the wealth is spread out more equitably, it will circulate more and have an outsized economic impact.
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2016/03/09/wall-streets-wisest-bernie-sanders-is-best-candidate-for-economy-.html

The fear mongering about Sanders is being paid for by people who will see their taxes go up dramatically, but who also do not need that money.  I am sick of our country being stripped of wealth for the benefit of a handful of greedy [expletives].  When people in Massachusetts, California, New York, etc pay outsized amounts into the federal budget and then a handful of billionaires buy random elections in low population red states to route that money - OUR MONEY - into their own pockets away from people who need it, it drives me crazy.

Calling Bernie a "communist" is also very lazy. He's clearly not and you're using it to deflect from his message and not bother to listen what he has to say.  He is the most consistent, ethical & competent candidate I have seen in my life.  The organization he built for his campaign is just astounding and screams of competence.  I do not see that from the other candidates, not even close.  Most of his platform has been tried to great success in other countries and none of it looks like communism.  You should really give him a shot and think critically about his candidacy.
Quetzalcoatl,
Bernie will signal the beginning of the demise of the american empire (every empire has to dissipate eventually as it happened to the Aztecs on this continent centuries ago)... and here is why:

-A big contributor to the "perceived wealth" in USA is the US dollar. It is the world currency but in order to be the world currency USA have to constantly "remind" other counties that it is absolutely imperative that they trade each others goods in US dollars.
Do you seriously believe that bernie will be as convincing as Trump and Obama were? note that a super power central socialist country - USSR tried to be convincing in other countries very unsuccessfully - see Hungary - 1956 // Prague spring - 1968 and Afghanistan - late 1970s /  early 1980s ..

all epic failures...

- Scandinavian model works but it only works in Scandinavian countries that is why it hasn't been successfully replicated. Scandinavian countries are very homogeneous in terms of population. That population also exhibits discipline (financial and ethical) and they are used to the cold climates up north. <<

Note that cold climate territories aren't densely populated because Humans are not generally fond of cold weather and also don't like to stay disciplined financially and possibly ethically. 

USA are way too diverse in terms of population and climate.

- Socialist Central economy can build wealth - See China. China's development and wealth creation in the last 30 years is absolutely remarkable but they will never get close to the Scandinavian standard of living.
Note that the wealth in China was built in big part by employing cheap labor in slavery like conditions. <<One can argue that has been tried before in history and we are not going to try it again...
I didn't realize that Sanders as president suddenly means that America will instantly become a Socialist State.

Trump is trying his hardest to turn the country into an populist authoritarian dictatorship but three plus years later we are still a democratic republic.

I think many ill informed Republicans need to understand that although Sanders is a Democratic Socialist, his presidency probably means, even with complete control of the Senate, just higher taxes, a strengthening of Obamacare, more money distributed to areas Trump made cuts.

America isn't going to turn into a Soviet Union because of Sanders. It's just going to go a left after Trump pushed things right. There is no way most of Sanders expensive proposals gets through Congress. He will end up becoming very pragmatic regarding what he will be able to achieve.

We lived through 1 term of Trump, so we are probably ok if Bernie gets elected.

Trumpís faults are mostly personality and using the government to promote his interests.  His policies, overall, have benefited the country, particularly the economy.

Bernieís policies would be much more likely to harm the majority of voters, and the economy, in the short term.  We would survive it, but everyone should expect to have to tighten their belts for a while. It might be time to take your money out of the market.

I just wnat to point out that this is entirely speculative. Maybe Bernie hurts the US economy in the short term, maybe cutting overall healthcare spending over a  decade leads to stronger overall us economy long term when combined with gains in worker productivity due t actually having access to healthcare.

It amazes me that for some reason the default setting towards giving people health insurance, something that large sections of the developed world have managed to do, is doom.

The doom of nominating Bernie is 4 more years of Trump.

Please don't miss an important aspect of context.  Bernie has the most progressive health plan... that's fine (I support universal healthcare).  He also has among the most progressive ideas when it comes to childcare, education, college tuition, college repayment, welfare, climate change, taxation, unionization...   Sanders displays no evidence of moderation. 

There are moderate options.

Moderate options like Gore, Kerry & Hillary?  Bernie has the best campaign apparatus in modern history

Re: Democratic Presidential Candidates 2020
« Reply #1180 on: February 25, 2020, 08:31:07 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12026
  • Tommy Points: 1466
I'm not much of a fan of Warren, but I do appreciate her veracity in hounding Bloomberg.  He had zero good answers for any of the questions raised.

Meanwhile, Bernie is getting ripped by all of them.

Re: Democratic Presidential Candidates 2020
« Reply #1181 on: February 25, 2020, 08:43:00 PM »

Offline RPGenerate

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1399
  • Tommy Points: 186
I'm not much of a fan of Warren, but I do appreciate her veracity in hounding Bloomberg.  He had zero good answers for any of the questions raised.

Meanwhile, Bernie is getting ripped by all of them.
They're like cornered animals. They know this may be the last chance to stop his candidacy.
2020 Celticsstrong All-2000s Draft: Denver Nuggets:
PG: Gary Payton / Steve Francis
SG: Kyrie Irving / Raja Bell / Danny Green
SF: Rip Hamiltion / Glenn Robinson / Robert Covington
PF: Carmelo Anthony / Draymond Green / Anthony Mason
C: Tim Duncan / DeMarcus Cousins / Zydrunas Ilgauskas

Re: Democratic Presidential Candidates 2020
« Reply #1182 on: February 25, 2020, 08:59:33 PM »

Offline RPGenerate

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1399
  • Tommy Points: 186
My twitter question would be: "Will Warren stop interrupting everyone?"
2020 Celticsstrong All-2000s Draft: Denver Nuggets:
PG: Gary Payton / Steve Francis
SG: Kyrie Irving / Raja Bell / Danny Green
SF: Rip Hamiltion / Glenn Robinson / Robert Covington
PF: Carmelo Anthony / Draymond Green / Anthony Mason
C: Tim Duncan / DeMarcus Cousins / Zydrunas Ilgauskas

Re: Democratic Presidential Candidates 2020
« Reply #1183 on: February 25, 2020, 09:05:45 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Tommy Points: 797
The whole "$50-90 trillion in new spending" line is just Republican fear mongering. I know Sanders will never get that stuff through Congress. All of you know it. Trump knows it. Sanders knows it. Everyone in or running for Congress knows it. The DNC knows it. The RNC knows it.

If Obama, controlling both Houses couldn't get his proposed, much less expensive healthcare plan through(he had to settle for the ACA), then there is zero chance Sanders gets his big ticket items through.

Hell, Trump with both Houses couldn't get $10 billion through to build a wall. How is Bernie going to get $50-90 trillion?

So... can we please stop with that line. It's never going to happen. And we all know that.

So, you think itís inappropriate to discuss / ask Bernie supporters about Bernieís actual policies?  Thatís ďfear-mongeringĒ?

And, donít be so sure. 15 years ago Democrats were fairly reasonable on things like illegal immigration. Now, they are pushing sanctuary cities and the equivalent of open borders.
Discuss his policies but bringing up that Bernie is going to spend$50-90 trillion dollars is a fear mongering line because, as I said, it's not going to happen and everyone knows it.

His own website lays out around $50 billion in new spending.  Itís seems like weíre in bizarro world, where Bernie can propose things but itís fear-mongering to point to his proposals.

Free college / cancel student loan debt: $2.2 trillion

Expand social security: unknown

Housing for all:  $2.5 trillion

Universal child care: $1.2 trillion

Canceling medical debt:  $81 billion

Green New Deal:  $13.6 trillion

Medicare for All:  $30 - $47 trillion

So thatís about $49.5 trillion to $66.5 trillion in new spending.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-does-bernie-pay-his-major-plans/

Spread over 10 years of course.

I'm not necessarily going to advocate for Sanders over the other Dem candidates here, but if you are going to cite costs from his web-site you should also acknowledge that he does propose mechanisms to pay for each one.   You should also note what is the cost of NOT doing the proposal.

Just looking at the M4A cost:

We are spending ~$3.5 trillion per year on health care premiums right now and projections for the current (status quo) are for that to double over the next 10 years.   In other words, the cost of our current system over the next 10 years is even higher than the 'scary number' of Bernie's plan.  And our current system leaves and will leave huge numbers of people under-insured or not-insured.  That's the cost of NOT doing his proposal.

According to his projections (which are based on some published studies so you can go argue with them) switching from payroll insurance premium deductions to a _smaller_ payroll tax into a single-payer model would more than pay for not only the projected M4A cost, but also the cost of the retraining and repurposing of people (currently employed in the insurance industry) affected by such a transition.

Right now, the man-in-the-middle is a massive efficiency loss for that spending.  Consider that the 62 CEOs of the largest health insurance companies combined to make over 1.6 Billion in income last year.  That's 1.6 Billion of our insurance premiums split up among just 62 people.    I'm sure those 62 folks all worked very hard.

Sanders similarly proposes means of paying for his other proposals.  One can certainly argue over how well each proposal will work - whether costs or revenue estimates are correct or not.    But it is disingenuous to only present the total, 10-year cost numbers of one of his (or any candidate's) proposal without also presenting (a) what the proposed payment mechanism is and (b) what the cost of NOT doing it is.

Just waiving around the total price tag by itself is, as nickagneta noted, just fear-mongering.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Democratic Presidential Candidates 2020
« Reply #1184 on: February 25, 2020, 09:07:47 PM »

Offline BitterJim

  • NGT
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7794
  • Tommy Points: 1019
Bernie is the candidate who will invest back into our country while Trump, Bloomberg, Klobuchar & Biden are candidates that will strip out programs that are working which will have long term, negative consequences.  If you think of politics like a business, do you think a company that focuses on R&D and longterm stability is better than a company that lays off as many employees they can to maximize the next earnings report?  Which company would you rather be an employee at?  Which company do you think will be around longer?

When taxes go up, rich people threaten to leave.  They never actually do, they just say that they will to intimidate people.  Most of the attacks on Bernie from an economic standpoint are complete nonsense and are coming from the GOP which has historically been the most fiscally irresponsible party and just created the biggest deficits in history.
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/20/if-you-tax-the-rich-they-wont-leave-us-data-contradicts-millionaires-threats

When we invest in social programs, we make our populous more successful and we reap the gains across the board.  When we cut taxes and social programs, the money usually sits in accounts and does not circulate.  It has a net negative economic impact: https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-the-safety-net-pays-for-itself-11563800405

The programs that are being advanced by Sanders and to a lesser degree, Warren, will invest in our populous and make us overall more productive.  When the wealth is spread out more equitably, it will circulate more and have an outsized economic impact.
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2016/03/09/wall-streets-wisest-bernie-sanders-is-best-candidate-for-economy-.html

The fear mongering about Sanders is being paid for by people who will see their taxes go up dramatically, but who also do not need that money.  I am sick of our country being stripped of wealth for the benefit of a handful of greedy [expletives].  When people in Massachusetts, California, New York, etc pay outsized amounts into the federal budget and then a handful of billionaires buy random elections in low population red states to route that money - OUR MONEY - into their own pockets away from people who need it, it drives me crazy.

Calling Bernie a "communist" is also very lazy. He's clearly not and you're using it to deflect from his message and not bother to listen what he has to say.  He is the most consistent, ethical & competent candidate I have seen in my life.  The organization he built for his campaign is just astounding and screams of competence.  I do not see that from the other candidates, not even close.  Most of his platform has been tried to great success in other countries and none of it looks like communism.  You should really give him a shot and think critically about his candidacy.
Quetzalcoatl,
Bernie will signal the beginning of the demise of the american empire (every empire has to dissipate eventually as it happened to the Aztecs on this continent centuries ago)... and here is why:

-A big contributor to the "perceived wealth" in USA is the US dollar. It is the world currency but in order to be the world currency USA have to constantly "remind" other counties that it is absolutely imperative that they trade each others goods in US dollars.
Do you seriously believe that bernie will be as convincing as Trump and Obama were? note that a super power central socialist country - USSR tried to be convincing in other countries very unsuccessfully - see Hungary - 1956 // Prague spring - 1968 and Afghanistan - late 1970s /  early 1980s ..

all epic failures...

- Scandinavian model works but it only works in Scandinavian countries that is why it hasn't been successfully replicated. Scandinavian countries are very homogeneous in terms of population. That population also exhibits discipline (financial and ethical) and they are used to the cold climates up north. <<

Note that cold climate territories aren't densely populated because Humans are not generally fond of cold weather and also don't like to stay disciplined financially and possibly ethically. 

USA are way too diverse in terms of population and climate.

- Socialist Central economy can build wealth - See China. China's development and wealth creation in the last 30 years is absolutely remarkable but they will never get close to the Scandinavian standard of living.
Note that the wealth in China was built in big part by employing cheap labor in slavery like conditions. <<One can argue that has been tried before in history and we are not going to try it again...
I didn't realize that Sanders as president suddenly means that America will instantly become a Socialist State.

Trump is trying his hardest to turn the country into an populist authoritarian dictatorship but three plus years later we are still a democratic republic.

I think many ill informed Republicans need to understand that although Sanders is a Democratic Socialist, his presidency probably means, even with complete control of the Senate, just higher taxes, a strengthening of Obamacare, more money distributed to areas Trump made cuts.

America isn't going to turn into a Soviet Union because of Sanders. It's just going to go a left after Trump pushed things right. There is no way most of Sanders expensive proposals gets through Congress. He will end up becoming very pragmatic regarding what he will be able to achieve.

We lived through 1 term of Trump, so we are probably ok if Bernie gets elected.

Trumpís faults are mostly personality and using the government to promote his interests.  His policies, overall, have benefited the country, particularly the economy.

Bernieís policies would be much more likely to harm the majority of voters, and the economy, in the short term.  We would survive it, but everyone should expect to have to tighten their belts for a while. It might be time to take your money out of the market.

I just wnat to point out that this is entirely speculative. Maybe Bernie hurts the US economy in the short term, maybe cutting overall healthcare spending over a  decade leads to stronger overall us economy long term when combined with gains in worker productivity due t actually having access to healthcare.

It amazes me that for some reason the default setting towards giving people health insurance, something that large sections of the developed world have managed to do, is doom.

The people who speculate on the economy for a living on Wall Street think that it will significantly hurt the economy.

This are the same people that would be most effected by Bernie's proposed tax to pay for tuition-free public trade schools/universities. They aren't exactly an unbiased source.
I'm bitter.