One of the biggest criticism of Sanders is that he's pushing for a large expansion in government spending (free public college, universal health care, expanded Social Security, etc.) without specifying exactly how he's going to pay for it.
It's an absolutely fair question to ask whether people who support universal health care are actually willing to help pay for it. Look at Vermont where universal health care was ultimately too expensive for people to swallow. Look at people complaining about the Cadillac tax or how their ACA plan costs more because of benefits they don't use (by design, ACA gets the insured to subsidize the uninsured, men to subsidize women and the young to subsidize the old). Seems that people want universal health care in principle but not so much the paying part.
Sure he makes some vague references to a financial transaction tax (but of course the devil is in the details such as is he going to subject pension plans and 401k's to the tax? is the tax going to raise as much money as he thinks?) and raising the FICA cap (how does that change the benefits to people who pay more when they retire? Why does he have a donut hole below $250k?) and increased taxes on the 1% or corporations.
So, let's assume that Sanders has already risen taxes significantly on the rich and corporations and finds out that he needs more money. if Sanders proposes paying for his platform through something that affects you directly (you have to pay significantly higher taxes without getting net benefits), will you still support him? Let's say you're nearing retirement and he wants to pay for free college by taxing your pension or 401-k or Social Security. Or let's say you're a fresh graduate and he wants to pay for universal health care or expanded Social Security by raising your federal income taxes.
Here's the tax rates for Denmark
1 USD is about 6.5 DKK.
0%: Up to 41 000 DKK
37.48%: 41 001 279 800
43.48%: 279 801 335 800
59%: 335 801 and over
Should King have sued companies who were violating his copyright?
Just curious because you seem to think that public interest trump copyright law and protection of intellectual property.
If the pundits are wrong and that the majority of voters think Sanders crushed Clinton in the debate, eventually this will translate into support and (well) votes in the primaries and the general election.
So just chill, ignore the noise and play for the long game.
Sprouting conspiracy theories about the media really doesn't help your cause.
angry and belligerent and ultimately went nowhere.
If all the headlines are about Clinton winning, it will influence people who didn't watch the debate
Clearly it was a great night for Clinton.
Not only does she get to block Biden, she had the most airtime (you might not agree with her policies but Sanders needed the publicity more) and gets the most headlines.
Beyond the obvious that some people gravitate towards the winners, Sanders is the one who needs more publicity. Does not help him at all if all the news is about Clinton winning.
WPost:"Clinton's debate win","Sanders...often on the defensive","self-assured performance by Clinto"https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/14/does-clintons-debate-win-take-the-air-out-of-bidens-balloon/
Indeed, her expertise as secretary of state translated into stature on the debate stage a sophistication about global challenges and poise under fire.
She also won tactically by having the most airtime in a race where her opponent lacks her name recognition.
Cooper keeps coming back to her for follow-ups.
Profile InformationGender: Do not display
Current location: New York City
Member since: Fri May 29, 2015, 07:51 PM
Number of posts: 1,772