Clinton is smart to contrast her plan to cut taxes against Sander's plan to raise taxes on the middl

[hill2016]

e class.

As long as Sanders doesn't release his own tax plan she can keep pointing out to his comments of raising the payroll tax that would hit everybody.

By Christmas, Sanders will be known as the guy who wants to raise taxes on the middle class. That would sink his nomination chances.


Go Hillary!!!

[randys1]

1. I thought his plan to raise taxes was directly connected to it providing universal healthcare?

If so, then hopefully people wont just hear half the story.
Each day that passes I pay less and less attention to the details of what either candidate says.

The teaparty and GOP have made it clear they want a country that would make America unrecognizable, so my focus is pretty simple these days.

[hill2016]

2. then Clinton will bring up

the story of how a brave little state called Vermont tried to do it but nobody wanted to pay for it

[randys1]

3. Do you not want universal healthcare?

[hill2016]

4. only

if I don't pay a cent more in taxes.

[ibegurpard]

5. I see

You'd rather have the privilege of paying ever increasing premiums and out of pocket costs to insurance companies with no healthcare cost transparency.
That's brilliant!
Medicare for all!

[hill2016]

7. I'm pretty sure

I'll be paying more in taxes under Sander's "tax the middle class" plan.

[HerbChestnut]

11. Well unless you're paying significantly less than the average person

You're probably wrong. The U.S. pays twice as much per capita on healthcare than any other country, including those with universal healthcare systems. If we went to one of those systems expect the cost of healthcare to decrease substantially, which means that the amount of taxes you would have to pay in order to support such a program will almost certainly be less than what you're paying for private health insurance.

[hill2016]

22. well

The US also has higher per capita wages than most other countries as well. And it is much more litigious. That's not going to change under a universal healthcare system.

And insurance companies are capped to a minimum of 80% medical loss ratio. So at most you save on the 20% part. But there's still going to be administrative costs under a universal healthcare system. So maybe you save -15% on the non -medical part.

But then more people are going to do more procedures as we saw with what happened in ACA. So costs are going to go up.

[HerbChestnut]

28. Just let this sink in

[hill2016]

32. yup

as I said did you adjust for per capita wages? Seriously comparing with Mexico?

[HerbChestnut]

37. How about this?

[hill2016]

58. better

now of this, how much of this actually goes to health insurers (i.e. the amount that would be saved by moving to a single payer system)?

[HerbChestnut]

62. I imagine their profits would be a good place to start.

Then there's indirect costs like "investors" jacking the prices of prescription medications. It's a complex issue for sure, but I think there's more evidence than not to show that universal healthcare systems are cheaper that private systems.

[hill2016]

67. ok let's look at hard numbers

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/health-expenditures.htm

https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/downloads/proj2012.pdf

Of total health care spending ($2.9 trillion in 2013), about $300b goes to prescription drugs. The vast majority goes to services (hospitals, physicians etc). Let's say you cut drug prices by half ($150b).

How much does the system spend on private insurance?
CMS has the answer: net cost of private health insurance is about $200b. Great let's get rid of that. To be fair we need to add back some administrative costs for a single payor system.

Altogether we've saved $200b (getting rid of health insurance) and $150b (cutting drug prices by half) or $350b. That's 12% of the entire health expenditure.

[PatrickforO]

35. Your litigious point doesn't hold as much water as you might think.

For individual doctors, perhaps, but for HMOs not so much. They have arbitration agreements with the companies whose employees they cover. My HMO has an arbitration agreement. No matter how much they fuck something up, I can't sue them. I suspect a substantial number of Americans are covered by healthcare that imposes arbitration agreements.

Now, you do raise a good point in that we must answer the question of how this would look in a universal care system. We'd be wise to do some benchmarking. My understanding is that almost all single payer systems have either arbitration or caps on litigation amounts. I guess we'll see, won't we?

[guillaumeb]

77. The cost of healthcare in Canada is 1/2 that of the US, with better outcomes.

Take out the profit motive by eliminating the insurance companies and systemic costs decrease.

Even if only 20% of costs go to insurance company coffers, that is a huge amount of waste.

[Recursion]

89. 4% of our total expenditures go to insurance companies, and not all of that is profit

About half of that is the same sort of legitimate administrative overhead Medicare has (Medicare has 6% overhead; private insurance has 12% overhead).

[guillaumeb]

112. Some sources disagree with the 4% number.

The $273.6 billion in additional insurance overhead represents an average of of $1,375 per newly insured person, per year, from 2012 through 2022.
The overhead cost equals a whopping 22.5 percent of the total estimated $2.76 trillion in all federal government spending for the Affordable Care Act programs during that time, the authors of the report in the journal Health Affairs noted.

In contrast, the federal government's traditional Medicare program has overhead of just 2 percent, according to the report.

"Insuring 25 million additional Americans, as the [Congressional Budget Office] projects the ACA will do, is surely worthwhile," the authors of the Health Affairs blog post write. "But the administrative cost of doing so seems awfully steep, particularly when much cheaper alternatives are available."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/5/27/1388301/-Insurance-company-overhead-costs-explode-under-Obamacare

Single payer, whether administered by provinces or federally, is more cost efficient.

[Recursion]

113. Umm... their math is just wrong on its face

The $273.6 billion in additional insurance overhead ... equals a whopping 22.5 percent of the total estimated $2.76 trillion in all federal government spending

22.5% of $2.76 trillion is $607 billion, not $273.6 billion. $273.6 billion is 9.9% of $2.76 trillion.

In contrast, the federal government's traditional Medicare program has overhead of just 2 percent, according to the report.

Medicare itself disagrees; it publishes those numbers annually, and it has been 6% for a decade or so now (I think 2% was true in the early 90s, before dual-eligibility became quite so common):

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-systems/Statistics-Trends-and-reports/NationalHealthExpendData/index.html

[guillaumeb]

114. If that 273.6 billion did not go to insurance companies,

and that number does not include what is spent by medical providers who must deal with hundreds of separate plans, that money could go to providing actual health care.

[tularetom]

17. It's all about you, huh?

I guarantee you I'll be paying more under Sanders plan. And I'm on Medicare with a supplement paid under my pension by my former employer, so I won't benefit personally from universal healthcare.

But I have kids. And grandkids. And even great grandkids. And if paying a few bucks more in taxes gets them free from the fucking bloodsucking insurance companies, then I'm happy to do it.

You sound awfully selfish to me.

[hill2016]

25. at the end of the day

everybody votes according to their own interests.

If Sanders can convince people to raise taxes on themselves to fund his platform, then he's going to win.
If Sanders can't then he's going to sink.

My guess is he will sink.

Look at what happened to ACA: why are the young healthy millennials not signing up enough to offset the older sicker patients?
Why did Vermont fail to fund single payer?

How many people truly think like you? I'm willing to pay higher taxes so that I don't benefit but other people benefit?

[Ed Suspicious]

31. Young people are broke!

[hill2016]

34. no

they would rather spend their money on iphones and shoes rather than to pay into a system where they get marginal benefit.

Like I said, self interest.

[Ed Suspicious]

38. Piss off with the Republicanisms.

[MADem]

56. Jeez!!! What ever happened to "I couldn't disagree more" or

"I think you're way off base with that comment?"

Piss off with the Republicanisms? The "piss off" bit sounds positively Trumpian--rude, boorish, dismissive, snarky.

You can disagree without being so doggone disagreeable you know.

That kind of rhetoric just lowers the level of discourse here.

[Ron Green]

72. I can understand the frustration and the attendant rude language.

Here we have people on a "Democratic Underground" site, supposedly progessive and brave, defending a corrupt and hidebound system in the face of an overwhelming need for change and a slight glimmer of a chance to start a real reform of that system. And just to prop up a candidate who's the very flowering of that bought system.

The old "lowering the level of discourse" sauce is weakening.

[MADem]

74. Oh, come now--that old mare left the barn when primary season started! We can't even pretend

anymore that this is a site for Democrats, when we see fits of poutrage accompanied by "I won't vote for the nominee" declarations, who pooh-pooh the "importance" or lack thereof of stances that are inconveniently taken by their candidate of choice that absolutely don't line up with "lefty" thought; who post crapola from right wing shitholes like the Washington Times (the standard bearer of lunacy), Breitbart, The Weekly Standard, etc.

Notwithstanding the fact that this is as much Libertarian Underground, Independent Underground and to some extent Disruptor's Underground, we could, at least, be slightly polite about it. It's not weak sauce at all--it's in the TOS. You want shitflinging? That's what YAHOO is for.

Progressive doesn't always mean "liberal." Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive, and he didn't mind a good war--he shot a Spaniard on San Juan Hill just to say he did it. But, hey, whatever.

I simply expressed dismay--I didn't smash the alert button. Can't we even try to police ourselves, or is your "evidence" of "devotion" to your political point of view only validated by rudeness, crudeness and profanity?

Frankly, the inability to discuss a topic without resorting to invective is suggestive of a weak argument or a bullying nature. Neither is a good look. I think a bit of wit is much more intelligent than a dramatic "f--k yew!" any day of the week, as well. Profanity should be used, at least in public spaces, sparingly. Otherwise it loses its punch.

[Ron Green]

85. I agree with your points, except that I'm defending rudeness in evidence of devotion.

Rather, I'm understanding rudeness in evidence of frustration.

If I had a nickel for each of my own posts I've deleted before hitting the Button...

[MADem]

86. If I had a nickel....! I feel ya--I resemble that remark as well! nt

[Rex]

107. "That kind of rhetoric just lowers the level of discourse here."

There is a lower level? Shit this place is the abyss.

[MADem]

110. It never used to be, though--which is sad. This used to be where the SMART people congregated.

Now, the mind-numbing, mouth breathing rhetoric is getting to the point of over-saturation. It's sad.

[Rex]

111. I agree because I remember DU2 and 1.

We didn't act quite as base as we do now and it is sad and a loss for all of us.

[Armstead]

81. All the more reason to have universal single payer

Just like Social Security. Young people don't think they'll ever get old, and they don't necessarily connect with the value of paying into the system to help grandma today.

As they get older, they'll, start to appreciate having health coverage, and like SS tied to a reasonable share of their income, not what some private insurer arbitrarily decided to extort them for.

[hill2016]

90. here's the problem

for some people, it makes sense to pay a fixed dollar premium based on their actuarial risk. For other people, it makes sense to pay a percentage of their income that has no bearing on their actuarial risk.

For the young millennials it makes no sense for them to pay into a system that for decades will be benefiting the older/sicker.

How do you convince the people who will be over-paying relative to their actuarial risk to join the system?

[PatrickforO]

41. Healthcare is a right, not a privilege.

It is the moral responsibility of a society such as ours to act for the common good to extend adequate healthcare to all of its people.

Your argument here implies that we should have some kind of choice about whether or not to pay into the common good. With this logic, you wouldn't want to pay your share for roads, bridges and highways, or water & sewage treatment, or police and fire protection.

Because, hill, the public good is something the great neoliberal 'invisible hand' just isn't gonna take care of. So government has to take care of it. And in order to do that, it must collect taxes.

Again, I say to you that healthcare is a right of every citizen and legal resident of this country, and it is our moral obligation as a people to ensure that our government makes that right a reality.

[hill2016]

91. Let's talk about

what does "adequate" means in context of a publicly funded model:
- expensive care costing hundreds of thousands that extend life by maybe a couple of months?
- best care possible (top surgeons in the country) or just the local hospital?
- how do you prevent people from abusing things like going to the ER for routine care, taking ambulances to the hospital for non-acute cases?

[PatrickforO]

99. How do we prevent your third bullet now?

Because that's still happening with the working poor, who can't afford to pay for coverage.

What does 'adequate' mean in the Danish, Belgian, Dutch, German, French, British and Canadian models? I've been to Holland, Belgium, England and Canada and I know a Dane very well. They don't worry. They get sick, the system takes care of them. I also know plenty of people on Medicare, and they LOVE it because they don't have to worry about anything. They just go in and get the treatment they need.

And you know what? That's better by an order of magnitude than my shitty rationed HMO healthcare my employer pays for - every year costs go up DOUBLE DIGITS for no real reason, just because they can. And every year my co-pays go up and the services I'm covered for go down. So my employer and I pay 18.5% of my gross for my and my wife's healthcare.

Sorry but that's bullshit. You say vote in your best interest. I am going to do that for sure. I'm voting for the guy who wants to put Medicare for all Americans into effect.

You know, your candidate lost me years ago when she was trying to put a national healthcare package together.

Here's an excerpt from a Politico article, and the link is below: "In February, Sanders requested a meeting with Hillary, “to bring in two Harvard Medical School physicians who have written on the Canadian system,” according to the records of the administration’s task force. Those physicians were Stephanie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, leading advocates for single-payer health care.

They got their meeting at the White House that month, and the two doctors laid out the case for single-payer to the first lady. “She said, ‘You make a convincing case, but is there any force on the face of the earth that could counter the hundreds of millions of the dollars the insurance industry would spend fighting that?’” recalled Himmelstein. “And I said, “How about the president of the United States actually leading the American people?’ and she said, ‘Tell me something real.’ ”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-119082#ixzz3sC8D3TUU

So there it is, hill. No way I'm supporting anybody but Bernie. Oh, I'll vote for Clinton if, and it is a big if, she wins the primary because the alternative is unthinkable. But you know what? I'm sick of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of evils.

I want single payer healthcare.

I want the payroll tax cap on Social Security lifted to strengthen the system, because I've paid in full boat for nearly 40 years and it WILL be there when I get there or else I'm hitting the streets. I mean it, too. I know the cops are there to protect property and not me, but I'll die in a hail of national guard bullets before I give up what I've paid for.

I want my kids and grandkids to have a real chance to get ahead without getting buried in debt. Sanders proposes free tuition paid for by a transaction tax on Wall Street, which has definite merit. I'm not as familiar with Clinton's 'debt free' education, but I'm OK with 'debt free.' Hell, I had to work getting thru college and grad school. No problem. I don't expect anything on a silver platter, but I DO expect at least SOME of MY tax money to be spent on stuff that actually benefits me, instead of some bullshit forever war and an over-bloated national 'security' apparatus.

But here's the thing: ALL that is moot unless we take an AGGRESSIVE leadership position on climate change, because we've got to keep the earth habitable. I've never been for Keystone because all those 'jobs' it is supposed to create are transient construction jobs, and the oil companies testified before Congress that they would sell that dirty oil on the open market to the highest bidder, not use it to make this country less dependent on mid-East oil. That, too, is bullshit. So Clinton FINALLY came out against it, but Bernie was all along.

Anyway, those are my priorities, and that's how I'll be voting.

[tularetom]

42. Let me get this straight

Your objection to Sanders plan to provide universal healthcare and eliminate the insurance companies from the equation is based solely on your assumption that he will be unable to sell it to enough potential voters to win the election.

Consequently, you are willing to support an inferior candidate, who wants to play it safe and continue with what you tacitly admit is a poor system, simply because you think that candidate can win.

I dunno. Sounds awfully, er, republican to me.

[hill2016]

92. no

my objection is that there's no Sanders plan and he's just selling smoke to get his supporters excited.

I want to see hard details and numbers.

[tularetom]

98. You're just trying to stir the shit with very little success I might add

You've started half a dozen threads on this same subject today and been pretty soundly rebutted almost universally. You are beginning to look silly and for your own sake you should stop.

[azurnoir]

51. sounds like a social darwinist IMO

[ibegurpard]

55. Otherwise known as a Libertarian

[KingCharlemagne]

61. +Infinity! - nt

[KingCharlemagne]

60. +Infinity! - nt

[TM99]

6. So how much every month do you pay

for your insurance premium?

Is it greater than or equal to a cent more in taxes?

[randys1]

9. The only part of the plan I dont get is how does Bernie get the money employers are now

contributing to your or my premium to then go to the universal pool.

[TM99]

40. From the taxes being levied on such corporations.

Many will be forced to repatriate their off-shore tax havens. Others will get loop holes closed.

FFS, we give corporations welfare every damned day. It is time the American people got more.

[hill2016]

14. I like my insurance

and I want to keep it.

Many providers don't take Medicare.

So I would have to pay increased taxes AND my own insurance?

[TM99]

39. It is hard to take seriously such a comment.

If we had a Medicare for all system, your provider would be on it as well as all other providers. You could also choose to get more supplemental insurance but yeah, fuck them right? If others can't afford it, why should you pay for them. Am I right?

[restorefreedom]

44. i wouldn't expect an answer. nt

[hill2016]

68. what if my provider

decides to only accept private insurance as Medicare reimbursement rates are too low?

[TM99]

70. That is a risk you already take.

No provider is forced to continue to take any insurance plans including Medicare.

In the ten years since I got seriously ill, I have had three health plans, four different PCP's, six different neurologists, and five different endocrinologists.

The best endo I have had yet just dropped my plan. She was the top pit specialist at the Barrow's here in Phoenix. I would love to continue to see her but I can't. Such is life.

Truly if your reason for not wanting single payer/universal is because you are afraid you will loose your current provider, you have no business calling yourself a Democrat. That kind of selfishness abounds in the Republican party.

[ChiciB1]

88. Many Providers Have A Medicare Retiree Plan...

I'm on my husband's plan THROUGH A UNION, and am given a choice each year about which plan I want. We've chosen what we feel is best for us which is Humana PPO, Retiree Plan, WHICH is connected to Medicare. We pay the Medicare premium, but the plan includes drugs, partial vision, a percentage coverage for dental (free check-ups, 50% on other procedures) a co-pay of $5.00 Dr. visit, $20.00 for Specialists and many things like MRI'S, X'rays, colonoscopies and procedures like this are paid for. Plus, if I use their mail in drug program almost every single drug we've had prescribed has been FREE. I don't need referrals from my Primary care doctor, but procedures are okayed before you have them done.

The minuses are drug restrictions that your Dr. has to deem medically necessary, but THAT'S because of Medicare guidelines. Plus you have Dr.'s in your network and out of your network. But I live in a place where I haven't had to use an out of network Dr. yet.

So YES, given my coverage I'm willing to pay more to help my children and grandchildren who can't pay for MY kind of insurance. AND, I'm very happy because it's because of THE UNION!

I SERIOUSLY, SERIOUSLY doubt Hillary will be willing to to ANYTHING to promote Unions in the country. Drops off every year it seems.

Bernie's ideas and plans WILL be much more beneficial to EVERYONE, not only not those who can afford it!

So Medicare for all or whatever they want to name it IS what's needed. IMO, Hillary is too beholden to Big Pharma, Insurance Co.s and many other corporations who DON'T want the 99% to get much needed care and help with many other issues.

In fact, if we don't fight back NOW, our own Democratic Party isn't going to help either! They're becoming more and more in the pocket of big money. Look how hard they're fighting to KEEP both of the other two candidates for having a voice!

We're just talking about health care here, but there are so many other issues that I feel Hillary will seem much more like a Rethug!

So many people are ALREADY paying through the nose for health care, IF they even pay for it at all. Our largest hospital here can't turn patients away, so MY TAXES on my home cost more each year because of hospital taxes!

So basically I'm already paying for others NOW!

[randys1]

8. Well wait you mean you should pay zero in premiums and your employer also AND no

increase in taxes?

I am confused.

[PatrickforO]

20. I'm sorry, but I can't believe you just said that.

If we look at the entire budget we spend over $1 trillion for our war-security state. Annually. This is more than the next 10 countries combined, nearly.

And, the Republicans have systematically cut taxes on corporations and billionaires in the mistaken belief that they would 'create jobs' which they did not. Instead, over $20 trillion in untaxed profits and income have been stashed offshore. An increasing number of big corporations who make billions a year in profits aren't even paying any taxes. These include GE, Wells Fargo, Paccar, Edison Electric, Mattel and others.

Lastly, between myself and my employer 18.5% of my gross goes to pay healthcare premiums. I figure I could sustain a 10% tax increase for single payer and it would basically be a wash. Except instead of shitty, rationed healthcare whose costs are rising in double digits every year, more to gouge consumers than anything else, I will enjoy a single payer system where the government uses the power of its total population risk pool to negotiate costs DOWN.

So, I realize you are backing your player, but the case for single payer is FAR more sensible in an economic sense than her plan.

Lastly, have you thought of businesses? Under the ACA, healthcare is a huge line item expense hanging like a millstone around their necks. A single payer system not tied to employment would remove that millstone. That would free up money for them that would otherwise have been funneled to the profits of insurance companies.

So think it through hill. What actually IS our best interest? That's why I'm voting for Bernie.

[UglyGreed]

24. Maybe you should

write this guy in, he may be more of a liberal than Hillary anywho

[hill2016]

27. didn't that guy

fail to get re-elected when he broke his promise?

What happens when Sanders starts off by telling everybody "yup you're going to see increased taxes"?

[UglyGreed]

29. It was Perot's fault

just like Nader, so they say.

[UglyGreed]

33. Oh and least

NAFTA passed, wonder how that happened????

[PatrickforO]

47. You're kinda missing the point, aren't you?

Bush said 'read my lips, no new taxes,' and Dukakis said, 'we need to raise taxes. my opponent won't tell you that. I just did.'

So, because they didn't have social media and had to rely on the worthless corporate-owned media, Dukakis couldn't get his message about WHY taxes needed to be raised.

So HW won, but HERE'S what you're missing: He DID raise taxes after he told everyone he wouldn't. This lie made him a 1-term president.

Anyway, there's two ways to present something like single payer to the American people:

#1 - Would you like to pay more taxes?

#2 - We believe healthcare is a right and a moral obligation. We need to invest in a single payer system that extends this moral obligation to every single American.

With #2 people are much more willing to consider paying a little more, don't you think? This is how wise school districts do it when they go on ballot to raise mill levy. We are investing in capital improvements for schools...etc.

Honestly, after reading this thread, I'm not certain Clinton's gambit is gonna work. There are too many people who have the power to reach too many other people with the real message.

[72DejaVu]

82. You've confused Dukakis with Mondale

The "my opponent won't tell you..." line was delivered by Mondale while debating reagan.

[PatrickforO]

84. Ah, I stand corrected on the quote. My point about the need to increase still stands.

[hill2016]

93. I think Sanders

should be honest and talk about the costs of option #2.

So far he hasn't.

[Spider Jerusalem]

59. Then you don't want universal healthcare.

[tularetom]

10. What, you think SHE's gonna tell them about the universal healthcare part?

[KittyWampus]

13. Do you have a link to an actual plan from Sanders' campaign how he's specifically going to pay?

[tularetom]

19. You should address that question to the poster to whom I responded

He was the one who brought up the link between Sanders tax increase and the provision of universal health care, not me.

[PatrickforO]

26. My post #20 may give you some insight.

My thinking is that it would probably be a payroll tax for workers above a certain amount of gross income, and that it would be supplemented by raising revenue from corporations and billionaires who currently aren't paying their share of taxes. In addition, I believe Bernie wants to tax capital gains as regular income, which would make quite a difference is the wealth inequality problem.

[KittyWampus]

65. Your interests and probabilities aren't relevant. Sanders is running a campaign for POTUS

it's up to him to have concrete proposals.

He doesn't.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

66. And what of your interest? Why should it be seen as relevant?

[riderinthestorm]

87. Yes, a financial transaction tax on Wall St trades

He could easily triple his initial proposal of .01 and .001 and that would do it (and more like restoring early childhood education programs and find free community college)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/opinion/the-case-for-a-tax-on-financial-transactions.html?_r=0

[hill2016]

94. lol

$185 b over 10 years.

The US health care system spends $3 trillion dollars A YEAR.

[riderinthestorm]

97. It's only one part along with the rest of his proposals and I proffer to triple that

I DID say that in my post

This would pick up the remaining deficit.

[hill2016]

100. yeah triple that

you get $50b a year...

The US health care system spends $3 trillion dollars of which $900b comes from private insurance.

[riderinthestorm]

101. Sanders does offer other financing methods

explore his website ?

[riderinthestorm]

102. He also offers other proposals to get there

it's not all or none

But you knew that

[hill2016]

103. yeah I read his proposal

He wants to raises taxes on people who earn <$200,000. Which is the whole point of my OP: that he's going to raise taxes on the middle class.

To be fair he's also going to tax the rich more.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. You've learned nothing, John Snow.

Perhaps your third try at this will go better.

Sure your candidate can go all republican tax cut pandering. That is always an option. A stupid option, an irresponsible option, but certainly an option.

Meanwhile Sanders is proposing real substantive reforms. Medicare for everyone. College for everyone. Expanding social security. Rebuilding our infrastructure for a sustainable 21st century economy. And doing so with responsible funding through appropriate taxes.

[KittyWampus]

15. He's not serious. He has no plans that detail specifically how he's going to pay for it all.

And you should be worried about that. Cause it's a big part of why he will lose.

[hill2016]

16. unfortunately

people will focus on the tax part.

Who are the ones paying taxes? Not students or retirees. Working people.

Who are the ones who benefit the most from these proposals? Students and retirees generally.

So the key question now is whether the ones paying the taxes (working people) are going to want to see their taxes go up. My guess is NO.

Incidentally you can guess where Sanders get most of his support from.

[DaveT]

23. guess

My guess is that you are still afraid of the ghost of Ronald Reagan and you think the electorate is the same one that re-elected Ronald Reagan in 1984. The results of 35 years of tax cutting has put our nation into a state of effective bankruptcy. We are told by you and your candidate that we just have to accept everything that Reagan and the Bushes did to the country because their Opposition to Taxes political strategy is invincible.

If it is invincible, our civilization will collapse.

And the evidence is there for anybody to see that it is a very different electorate now.

[hill2016]

30. well if that's true

then Sanders should have no problem running on a "raise taxes on the middle class" platform?

[KingCharlemagne]

63. the top 10% control 80% of the wealth. Now I know

facts like that don't matter to Hillbots but the top 10% are the only cohort whose marginal tax rates need to increase in order to fund universal Healthcare for all.

So keep telling us how 'smart' Ms. Iraq War is. From where I sit, it stinks of the lowest form of pandering, i.e.. Not Smart

EPIC FAIL

[hill2016]

69. oh

so you disagree with Sander's plan to raise payroll taxes on everybody?

[KingCharlemagne]

71. You have demonstrated by your many replies in this thread a degree of

Willful obtuseness that brings deep dishonor to your candidate.

To wit, If my taxes go up by $100 per month, but I no longer have to pay $200/month for health insurance, only the most innumerate among us (or the biggest bullshit artists) can fail to see that this is a net increase in disposable income of $1200/year, I.e., not an increase in taxes at all.

[hill2016]

95. I'm not sure about your assumption

(1) How does single payer reduce the cost of covering you from $200 to $100?
(2) Wouldn't you have to help cover the people who currently don't have insurance?

[DaveT]

18. I love this thread

So Hillary is "smart" to be attacking "tax and spend liberals"?

Yeah, that is the "smartness" we have come to expect from Corporate Democrats. Let's trick the Republicans and advocate their policies!!!!


As a Sanders supporter, I am thrilled to see Hillary show who she really is. We certainly have a choice between cutting taxes further and reviving the New Deal. I'll see you in the primaries, my friend.

[hill2016]

36. somehow I don't think

running on raising taxes on the middle class is a winning platform.

Challenge accepted!!!

[restorefreedom]

46. this is a completely disingenuous argument

the middle class would have a tiny increase in payroll tax. most of it would be borne by the uber wealthy by getting rid of their precious tax shelters

the vast majority of people would get waaaay more back in health care dollars than the small increase in payroll tax.

once the facts come out, no amount of obfuscating will be able to keep the majority of people from embracing this.

[hill2016]

96. that's nice

we await with bated breath for the facts (Sanders plan) to come out.

[restorefreedom]

109. they are already out

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-friedman/the-wall-street-journal-k_b_8143062.html

[DaveT]

64. You think that little quip

helps your cause?

Of course if any candidate said, "I want to raise your taxes and shut up if you want to know what it is for," that would be a losing proposition.

In California, we just raised our taxes by referendum to fund important government services, and Jerry Brown is more popular than ever. Of course, California is a blue state, but let me remind you that California was also where Ronald Reagan and Howard Jarvis came from. And they were laughed at by the Conventional Wisdom of the 1970s -- until they won due to changes in public opinion.

I submit that we are once again the cutting edge of a massive social change that you can see emerging in the current polling that shows Hillary leading Sanders in every demographic but young people. She is -- in every conceivable way of looking at politics -- The Past.

We need something new right now.



At least we are getting to the heart of the disagreement between Sanders supporters and Clinton supporters. I believe that the elections of 2008 and 2012 show that demographics have changed the electorate, while the intellectual bankruptcy of Cutting Taxes and then Cut Taxes Some More has finally hit the wall after dominating politics for a quarter of a century. Clinton supporters do not agree that public opinion is very different from the 1990s.

I also believe that the contrary results in the low turnout elections of 2010 and 2014 both show that the Republican strategy of playing to their base works very well for them. Their voters turn out no matter what. So commitment is the key issue to winning the off year elections -- and we Democrats should learn from our defeats. We should recognize that denigrating our own base -- and our traditional values -- is politically unwise in the extreme.

So we are clear in our disagreement. Challenge to be decided at the Convention next year.



I understood why Bill Clinton tacked to the right. I didn't much like it, but I understood and it was successful for him. What I do not understand is why anyone thinks that we have the same political condition now.

For Hillary to embrace Grover Norquist at this stage of the game confirms for me that her time has come and gone. She is a relic and the sooner she is gone from politics, the better for our party and for our country.


Come on, and embrace the future. Don't stop thinking about tomorrow. It will be better than today. Yesterday's gone. Yesterday's gone.

I will never forget the thrill of election night 1992. It was only surpassed by the thrill of election night 2008.

I say we should believe our own story. Don't you look back. Yesterday really is gone.



with apologies to Fleetwood Mac

[pinebox]

21. So let's continue on a system where people are dying....awesome!

Sorry but the richest middle class in the world is Canada and their taxes are higher than ours.

The same old thing we always hear, "let's cut taxes!" but in the end, who does that help? The upper echelon. People who already HAVE money! Sorry, it's time the middle class and the poor have a bailout and we can start with single payer where monthly health insurance premiums are done away with which actually is a bigger cut in expenses than anything Hillary is promoting.

Cutting taxes has done NOTHING in the past to actually help those the most who need it, nothing. You go ahead and bring up VT and we'll cite you that the US has the most expensive health care system in the entire world where people the most for prescription drug prices.
More people die in the country than any other first world country from not having health insurance or having access to the care that they need.

I am absolutely shocked I'm having tell to self proclaimed Democrats this. I feel like I'm on twitter talking with RWNJ's!

[PatrickforO]

49. I agree. Primaries are crazy times.

A poster made a great point that this is a tactic Clinton is now embracing now that it seems clear Trump could really win the GOP nomination. She's moving right now to capture the conservative but sane Republican and Independent votes.

Makes a lot of sense...tactically.

But morally? Not so much. In fact, as I pointed out below, it tells everyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear that the only thing Clinton really stands for is getting elected, not for any position that would actually help Americans - OUR welfare is just a chip on the great poker table of American politics; Clinton will say or do anything to get elected, but since she doesn't really stand for anything, we can't know what will happen when she's actually elected.

Of course, we do have a hint: she is part of a 'bipartisan' Congressional coalition to give the president more war powers.

Maybe that's what she really stands for - the military industrial complex and war. War is good business, gotta give her that...

[dmosh42]

43. Another BS posting by the Hillary gang trying to mislead and distort what Bernie said!

Try opening the mind and ears a little, unless you're one of the third-wayers who are worried about 'fairness' creeping into our gov't.

[hill2016]

57. he did say

he wants to raise the payroll tax on everybody...

[Vinca]

45. Now she's trolling for the Republican vote.

I figured that would happen once it became clear crazy Trump would probably be the nominee. There are semi-sane Republicans who will not vote for him and will scamper over to Hillary.

[PatrickforO]

48. Good point.

It is arguably a great tactical move for her.

However, it is not a great move in a moral sense, because this tells all of us in no uncertain terms that the only thing she really stands for is getting elected.

[Vinca]

73. My biggest gripe about her is I've always considered her half a Republican.

[MADem]

53. Well, Sanders was trolling for them with the gun stuff, so it's hard to know if

she's truly in "general" mode yet. He also pushed the "white working man" theme in the early days, but he abandoned that tack pretty quickly.

We will have to see.

I doubt Trump will be the nominee. I think the electorate is mocking the establishment GOP by chain jerking the pollsters, so I still think those numbers on the GOP side are complete horsepoop.

I think the RNC wants Jeb! (or is it Jeb? or Jeb*), despite his ghastly numbers, but it could end up being Rubio or Kasich. They've got super-delegates too (a rose by another name...) so all they need to do is fracture the vote JUST enough so that no one has a majority, and then the party leaders get to pick their candidate at the convention.

Once Carson drops out, there's a lot of votes to be grabbed up--and he'll get out eventually. At that point in time, the RNC insiders will start tossing their weight towards their choice, subtly, quietly, at fundraisers and in quiet meetings, and teeRUMP will not be the beneficiary of that 'opining.' "The Donald" already looks red-faced and exhausted, and I think he's starting to realize that his hair really does look awful, and he looks bloated.

[MADem]

50. "....a small increase in the PAYROLL tax...." Who is advising this guy?

Does he really think that the poor so-and-so getting by paycheck to paycheck CARES about family/medical leave? The fact is, people are selfish and they have tunnel vision. They think bad things happen to OTHER people, and they don't see any benefit to themselves. And he repeats the same answer, twice about taxing the rich to pay for "free" tuition for everyone else....like they're gonna stand still for that, first of all, and second, that all those rich bastards in Congress are going to vote to be taxed in that fashion--I mean, really, is he HIGH?

I don't think he can release a tax plan that would stand up under scrutiny. It would be torn six ways to Sunday.

That interview is a complete DISASTER. I'm starting to wonder if he's tired, and this is his way of starting to extricate himself from this "valiant fight." This is just a stupid thing to say. "Hey, all you hard working schmucks, you older people who don't have the skills or education to try for college at this late stage, guess what? We're going to raise your taxes! But fear not--we're raising taxes on the rich, so you can Go To College in the spare time you have between working two jobs!!!"

But but, you say--the minimum wage will go up to fifteen bucks! Who will need two jobs? Why, that extra money will go to the TAX MAN, to pay for that "Family and Medical Leave Payroll Tax." Back to the Second Job, back to the drawing board!!

[Broward]

52. That people who think like you are self-proclaimed Democrats

shows how far right the Party has moved.

[EndElectoral]

54. How is it smart to cut taxes and preach war escalation? Opportunistic, but not smart. Who pays?

[AgingAmerican]

75. She has dropped any pretense of being a Democrat

And is now assaulting Sanders with standard Republican talking points.

Just plain stupid.

[DonCoquixote]

76. so go appeal to those who think taxes are too high

then get blasted by the GOP that will promise no taxes altogether. Only a centre right democratic thinks a promise of hamburger will beat a promise of steak. Granted, those of us who see the emperor and empress have no clothes see what both are offering is dog food made in china, but who care about the truth?

[Attorney in Texas]

78. If Clinton truly believes she has a lock on the nomination, she should campaign on general election

issues by focusing on a purely issue-oriented debate against Sanders which would allow her to contrast her policies as distinct from the Sanders policies she denigrates as solcialist.

Such a focus would be welcomed by Sanders supporters who do not think the primary is over, and any Clinton supporters who think that the primary is already over should welcome the chance to position Clinton as the comparative moderate in time for the general election.

[CentralMass]

79. We can continue with the status quo of throwing the middle class a dog one to quiet them down

Last edited Sat Nov 21, 2015, 06:27 PM - Edit history (1)

to make it more palatable that no one has the guts to raise taxes on corporation and the wealthy so that "hard choices" like making more cuts to octal spending and funding of things critical to average Americans have to be cut.

[thereismore]

80. She is a smart republican. nt

[riversedge]

83. I just wish Sanders would clearly tell us how he plans on getting it passed in

Congress --other than his worn out--We need a political Revolution. what is the PLAN?

[NurseJackie]

104. It's not there. All hat, no cattle.

Hillary will be the winner. Bernie will be the loser. No doubt in my mind.

[DonCoquixote]

106. and wed will be the loser

as Clinton's "plan" is to keep doing what the republicans want.

[Teamster Jeff]

105. She and her Third Way Dem buddies should write up some sort of "No New Taxes" pledge!

Then they could all sign it.

That'd be cool!

[Rex]

108. Pic says "Bernie Closing The Gap With Hillary."

So you think in a month his numbers will tank?