Berning down the house!

[Segnosaur]

From: https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...creases-220267
The top 0.1 percent would see their tax bills go up by more than $3 million, the report said, which would cut their after-tax incomes by almost half. But Sanders, going where few politicians dare, would also raise taxes on middle- and low-income families...

Now granted, that was the last election. But then, the U.S. now has billions more in debt that they have to contend with.

This was based upon the old M4A proposal presuming that it was enacted and in place in 2017. This was primarily a 2.2% increase in all ordinary income in all but the lowest income bracket between incomes of $10,065 and $49,250 and a Progressive capital gains/dividends tax starting at 17.2%.
Not an incredibly onerous bill for cradle to grave health care for people who are generally without any current health care options beyond using ERs or state/county indigent health services where they are eligible for such.

The fact that there is ANY proposed tax increase for those in the middle class will likely reduce the support for Sanders and/or his health care plan.

Yes, I do realize that people may be better off financially in the long run (i.e. the tax increases are offset by not needing to pay for health insurance.) But, anyone that says "I'm going to increase your taxes" is going to have some problems. (Even if he says "I'll tax the rich even more.)

 

[Trakar]

He doesn't call it socialism he merely favors a more democratically determined adoption of socially and economically progressive public policies, the labelling seems to be more of an issue for you, than the substance of what is being promoted. Is that really an issue worthy of the level of animosity you seem determined to cling to?

You don't get it. Labeling, framing, marketing, that is the issue. My animosity is and has been about the Democrats failure to understand framing and marketing.

This sounds like 2 yesses to me?

Listen, I'm not going to try to change your mind, on this or any matter, I've read your posts long enough to understand that you come to your opinions genuinely, and advocate for them tirelessly. I can respect that, while rationally holding a completely different perspective and set of considerations.

 

[Segnosaur]

If only he could frame that without calling it socialism.

He doesn't call it socialism he merely favors a more democratically determined adoption of socially and economically progressive public policies, the labelling seems to be more of an issue for you

The problem is, Sanders once gave himself the label 'socialist'. (That wasn't the republicans, or moderate democrats calling him that. That was Sanders calling Sanders that.

Even if now he tries to use other terms, his past use of the word 'socialist' may come back and haunt him, since its a label that the American electorate just does not like.

 

[Trakar]

The fact that there is ANY proposed tax increase for those in the middle class will likely reduce the support for Sanders and/or his health care plan.

Yes, I do realize that people may be better off financially in the long run (i.e. the tax increases are offset by not needing to pay for health insurance.) But, anyone that says "I'm going to increase your taxes" is going to have some problems. (Even if he says "I'll tax the rich even more.)

With a good living wage home life, and public daycare and no tuition pre-K to post-grad public education and development programs, we should see this investment begin to make dramatic differences in the abilities of new generations to recognize and address our issues in a more responsible and rational manner, but first, we must again give these generations public institutions that they can trust and rely upon to work for their benefit, which is the purpose of government in the first place, to protect, promote and advance the human condition, ...or is that just Progressivism's goal for government?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

With a good living wage home life, and public daycare and no tuition pre-K to post-grad public education and development programs, we should see this investment begin to make dramatic differences in the abilities of new generations to recognize and address our issues in a more responsible and rational manner, but first, we must again give these generations public institutions that they can trust and rely upon to work for their benefit, which is the purpose of government in the first place, to protect, promote and advance the human condition, ...or is that just Progressivism's goal for government?

Noble goals. Good luck achieving them if you don't understand framing and marketing.

 

[wareyin]

That's not what the evidence says. Why are you lying? If you feel you're not lying go ahead and actually support your claim rather just claiming so.

You really didn't understand your link very will, I see. Let me provide you with a quote from your own source. Try reading it slowly: "These numbers come with a large caveat: Sanders is not running for president anymore, and he's generally been pretty quiet since ending his campaign. And if there's a recipe for making Americans like a politician these days, it's for that politician to fade into the background."

Please provide evidence that "moderate independent voters" did not support sanders. I gave you evidence both that independents has a preference for sanders and that independents had a much higher ratio of votes and that none of those votes went to Clinton. Please support your assertions other than your say so.

Again, your own source disagrees with your claim. "So Sanders’s strength among independent leaners isn’t driven by strength with moderate voters. In fact, as Democratic voters become more moderate, they become slightly more likely to back Clinton. In a bivariate regression, for every 1-point increase in conservatism, Democrats become about 2 percentage points more likely to support Clinton."

Republicans gained 2 million votes from 2012, Independents gained 5 million votes from 2012. Democrats gained nothing. I'm sorry that this doesn't sit well with you. I've shown you that Sanders could have garnered the usual democratic vote as well as democratic and independent voters that would have voted Sanders but voted independent, Trump, or not at all. You've literally provided nothing whatsoever other than your own personal naysaying to back your arguments.

You've shown nothing of the sort. What you have shown me is that Sanders is less popular the more he is under scrutiny, despite the fact that he has never faced a negative national campaign. You have shown me that Sanders was really only popular with the more liberal independent voters, but not so with Democratic, moderate, conservative or anything farther right. In fact, your own analysis is rather dooming for Sanders, if votes for Republican and Right leaning third party candidates are increasing so much more than votes for Left leaning Third Party candidates and the Democratic Party.

I'd go so far as to say that you have shown me that you want Sanders to be much more popular than he is, to the point of ignoring your own sources telling you that he isn't. If you want to convince anyone who has not already gone all in, please find sources that actually back up what you say.

 

[Drewbot]

Bernies logo/slogan is

Not me. Us.

The colors and font make it look like

Not me U.S.

Marketing-wise it is questionable.

 

[Belz...]

"I was only joking" doesn't excuse blackface whether we are talking about stage make-up or ill-considered racist rhetorical snark.

Except that the smiley's right there in the post. Now you're just refusing to change your interpretation.

 

[Belz...]

Here's a study from the Commonwealth fund, a group that wants to improve health care coverage. America is ranked last. Canada isn't much better (9th of 11, but then that's an improvement over previous studies that show us 10th of 11, ahead of only the United States.)

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/chart/2017/health-care-system-performance-rankings

France ranked 10th? That's odd. From what I understood their healthcare system was second to none.

 

[p0lka]

Here's a study from the Commonwealth fund, a group that wants to improve health care coverage. America is ranked last. Canada isn't much better (9th of 11, but then that's an improvement over previous studies that show us 10th of 11, ahead of only the United States.)

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/chart/2017/health-care-system-performance-rankings

The 'Health Care Outcomes' numbers are an eye-opener, Uk is at 10 for that, yet ranked 1 overall.

 

[theprestige]

Probably not the most difficult thing for him.

Probably not. I think he's a lot more establishment than he looks, but electability is about creating an impression.

 

[Segnosaur]

Here's a study from the Commonwealth fund, a group that wants to improve health care coverage. America is ranked last. Canada isn't much better (9th of 11, but then that's an improvement over previous studies that show us 10th of 11, ahead of only the United States.)

France ranked 10th? That's odd. From what I understood their healthcare system was second to none.

They have done this health care ranking other years as well, and in the past France was ranked higher than 10th.

Not exactly sure why their performance dropped in this last analysis. (Administrative efficiency was really poor, but then overall outcomes were not too bad.)

Here's a similar study done by the same group back in 2014... In that one, Canada is 10th of 11 countries, France is two spots higher at 9th.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pu...or-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system

The 'Health Care Outcomes' numbers are an eye-opener, Uk is at 10 for that, yet ranked 1 overall.

Yeah but they did well for 'care process' and 'equity'.

Admittedly, its not always easy to analyze some of this stuff without more details about how they came up with their numbers. I'm assuming that the group is relatively competent at what they are doing. (And, the group is not some sort of libertarian free-market group; they actually want to bring in universal health care to the U.S.)

 

[Trakar]

Except that the smiley's right there in the post. Now you're just refusing to change your interpretation.

Adding smilies to racist statements do not earn those statements a free pass.

 

[Trakar]

The problem is, Sanders once gave himself the label 'socialist'. (That wasn't the republicans, or moderate democrats calling him that. That was Sanders calling Sanders that.

Even if now he tries to use other terms, his past use of the word 'socialist' may come back and haunt him, since its a label that the American electorate just does not like.

I have no problem with his framing, it is honest and without need of change or correction, those who would abuse the interpretation of such are the same ones who already are convinced that anyone to the left of Joseph McCarthy are communist infiltrator terrorists. Good luck on trying to get these people to try and recognize, and accept, your nuanced arguments that any of the communist socialists who make up the majority (from their perspective) of the Democratic party are preferable and dramatically different from the Democratic Socialist running within the Democratic Party.

 

[Belz...]

Adding smilies to racist statements do not earn those statements a free pass.

Trakar, that's my point: your initial interpretation was WRONG. Now that I've told you that, you REFUSE to change that interpretation. Why?

The smiley was there to indicate that it was, in fact, a JOKE and not a racist statement. I was poking fun AT racists.

For ****'s sake, find some other target for your outrage mining.

 

[Trakar]

Noble goals. Good luck achieving them if you don't understand framing and marketing.

There is a difference between "not understanding," and "not agreeing with your perspective of" framing and marketing issues concerning the electorate.

 

[Trakar]

Trakar, that's my point: your initial interpretation was WRONG. Now that I've told you that, you REFUSE to change that interpretation. Why?

The smiley was there to indicate that it was, in fact, a JOKE and not a racist statement. I was poking fun AT racists.

For ****'s sake, find some other target for your outrage mining.

Racist comments are not funny, even if they were intended as a sarcastic parody of a racism. This isn't being PC it is merely being respectful of the damages and harms which are daily inflicted upon 10s of millions of US citizens due to institutional racism codified into US law and common practices, which I'm sure you will agree is also not funny.

 

[Belz...]

Racist comments are not funny, even if they were intended as a sarcastic parody of a racism.

We either differ in terms of humour or this is just another way to avoid admitting to being wrong by you.

This isn't being PC it is merely being respectful of the damages and harms which are daily inflicted upon 10s of millions of US citizens due to institutional racism codified into US law and common practices, which I'm sure you will agree is also not funny.

I wouldn't, actually.

A lot of humour is rooted in suffering. It's the absurdity of considering humans to be worth 3/5th of other humans that I was highlighting. It's especially absurd as it's the slavers who wanted to count their slaves as kind-of people just to jack up their population numbers for representation. I find that both despicable and immensely amusing.

 

[theprestige]

Racist comments are not funny, even if they were intended as a sarcastic parody of a racism. This isn't being PC it is merely being respectful of the damages and harms which are daily inflicted upon 10s of millions of US citizens due to institutional racism codified into US law and common practices, which I'm sure you will agree is also not funny.

Here's another thread that might benefit from your sermon.

 

[Trakar]

Until a finalized version of M4A legislation is worked out, we really won't be able to say much about any of the unknown details. We know that such systems are possible and feasible, whether or not it will be possible to successfully pass and enact such legislation will largely depend upon several of these currently unknown details.


We can probably get the best rough idea of what Sanders himself would like the legislation to look like, by looking at what he has said, and the legislation he has already sponsored, but even this is likely only a general approximation of what the final sausage will look like.


I'd expect the M4A legislation to take the general form of the 2017 Senate bill he sponsored entitled Medicare for All

Highlights:
(current cost of private Health Care in US = approx. $3.5T/year)

Costs of the Sanders M4A bill have been estimated at between $1.38T and a bit more than $2.5T/year.
M4A funding is through a series of mechanisms, a 6.2 percent charge on employers (corporate income tax + a reduction in their payroll tax matching expenses), a 2.2 percent fee on most families (personal income tax + a reduction in their other payroll taxes and an elimination of health insurance premiums), increased marginal tax rates for incomes $250,000 and higher (highest marginal rate at 52%), increased taxes on capital gains (taxation at regular income tax rates, increased estate marginal tax rate on high income brackets (estates over 1 Billion $ would be looking at a 70% marginal tax rate on everything over $1B).

Just spit-balling, it looks like (If we accept the accuracy of these numbers) M4A would both cover everyone and do so $1-2T/year more cheaply than our current private insurance system does for a smaller population, and the revenue offsets outlined would cover most all of the expense burden of shifting from private pay to federal pay. Reality is rarely so clear and concise, however, so I'm sure there are still some issues that won't match-up so neatly, such is to be expected. These types of issues probably aren't deal-breakers but they undoubtedly will require more effort to iron out all the wrinkles.