2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumLet's go big, or go home.
As a Baby boomer, male, this about sums it up for me.
Hillary Clinton is a remarkable woman. She would not let the ship of state sink, as would Trump or Cruz. She's not as 'progressive' as I thought Barack Obama would be. And he disappointed me in a number of ways. To vote for Clinton, IMO, would be to vote for 8 more years of good intentions with relatively little to show for it.
For a few more bread crusts to go with the cabbage soup.
Holding out for the Golden ticket that never comes.
I'd rather hold with Sanders and say "You know? Maybe we can really right this fucked up country/world! If not here, in the USA..if not now in this early part of the 21st century, WHEN? WHERE?
I just saw a short report on a news program last night about the newest thing in housing, esp among Millennials: shipping containers! Are you fucking shitting me? Think about it!
Let's go big, or go home
Go Bernie Sanders!
peacebird
(14,195 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)On foreign policy, there's little to choose between them.
One Neocon in the White House would be just as bad as another.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/01/24/hillary-clinton-seeks-neocon-shelter
So I don't agree with the OP that a vote for Hillary would be a passive sort of thing where "not much would be accomplished"-- I believe that really BAD THINGS could be accomplished by it.
Bernie is the one.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)The next Democratic president, no matter who it is and no matter the rhetoric, will BUILD on what Obama has started, and he has started a lot.
Our only chance to lose our forward momentum will come in the general election. The GOP is determined to undo all and continue their march toward an authoritarian corporatist version of "democracy."
daleanime
(17,796 posts)when do you imagine us doing it?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)You guys would probably be a lot happier if you could accept that this is happening.
Creation of the plutocrat class is above all a conservative movement and a conservative achievement. Half the electorate, the conservative half of all of us, fought to CREATE the plutocrat class. Of course they were suckered. Conservatives didn't know that's what they were doing when they chanted "we have to get government off the backs of business," for decades. They didn't even admit the truth when they were asked again and again support tax cuts for the ultra wealthy no matter how much trouble they were in themselves.
Conservatives still do it, though, passionately, because they look at us and see The Enemy in the very same way you look at Hillary Clinton and see The Enemy. Mistakenly. They don't know who their enemies are.
The future is going to depend to on how many still fight us and how hard. This isn't about Bernie or Hillary. They're both on the same side, pulling the same direction.
This is about progressive advancement meant to restore prosperity and opportunity to all Americans prevailing over the conservative ideology that has dragged us into this hole.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)that we're unrealistic? The future is going to depend on how many of us fight and how hard we do, so why are you so insistent on having us stop fighting? Shouldn't you be joining us instead?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)however it turns out. Don't worry about it. Happily, you're wrong to assume only Bernie can make a difference.
Change always results from many people working together, and those who actually are busy making change happen don't waste their time yammering at imaginary opponents on political forms.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Was I going to vote for that other guy. Not a chance in Hell. Was my vote wasted? No.
I think if we had the same communications then as we have today, things might have gone differently. Who knows. But anyone who does not vote their conscience...needs a lesson in Civics...and I don't care which candidate it is.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)As Bernie says, every time, if we stand together, united, people of all color, genders, sexual orientation, there is NOTHING WE CAN'T ACCOMPLISH!
I fully believe in that, and know it can win.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There's actually a problem with disposing of shipping containers. Since we have such an enormous trade deficit, we're collecting a lot of shipping containers. It's cheaper to make new ones in China than to ship empty ones back to China.
So the shipping container thing is an attempt to re-use something that would otherwise clutter the landscape or release a lot of CO2 in recycling. Typically, they put several containers together when actually building the house:

Now, there are other situations where people are using a shipping container in lieu of something like a trailer home - a house that's much cheaper than a "stick built" house.
elias49
(4,259 posts)Hekate
(100,133 posts)It doesn't look like a gingerbread cottage, but then neither does a mile-high stack of apartments.
Jarqui
(10,909 posts)to the right, with no guarantee she'll retain the White House - particularly if her scandals catch up to her.
Bernie represents change though some could argue accurately that he represents what liberal democrats used to stand for.
Hopefully, we realize and do what we didn't do for six Obama years: follow through and get the House & Senate for him. That's what it will take to get meaningful change.
enid602
(9,686 posts)"Let's go big, or go home." Kind of sums it up in the parallel bernieverse.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)elias49
(4,259 posts)Heating oil, too. But I'm not sure what you're implying.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)Fracking too I'm afraid but the point is that energy independence was an Obama promise and he's on track to keep it. Replacing coal too in response to last month's global warming summit. Coal states don't like it but it's got to be done and he's doing it. IOW big things have been getting done but we tend to focus on the media narrative which is predictably uninformative.
elias49
(4,259 posts)Those are admiral accomplishments. But they fall within the paradigm of huge multinational companies that are beyond the reach of 99% of us. And that says nothing about the other 3 billion people on this earth.
And that has taken 8 years!. Call me a little selfish if you like, but I'd really like to see THIS country, at least, on a more companionate path before I die. I've been dreaming of it all my life.
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)"To vote for Clinton, IMO, would be to vote for 8 more years of good intentions with relatively little to show for it. "
It's the good intentions part that I have a hard time swallowing.
Cheers!
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)The ACA is not a "bread crust." It is saving thousands of lives each year. It is a big fucking deal, to use Biden's words. Women, people of color don't have the luxury of being able to roll the dice with their vote. A Trump administration would be a disaster for us, but white males would be least affected. Right now Latinos and African Americans are disproportionately more likely to benefit from free health coverage under the ACA. With Sanders hating on the ACA, the GOP stands a chance of overturning it under a Sanders Administration, and certainly under a Trump administration.
Even if Sanders got in the Whit House, he would not be able to pass any of his "big" proposals. He is not a Democrat and would not have any coattails for down ticket Dems. He would be blocked at every turn by a GOP House and Senate. A Sanders administration would be a one-term failure.
leftupnorth
(886 posts)Because any democrat or anyone left of Ronald Reagan would face the same obstructions.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)As a Dem who donates and campaigns for other Dems, she has coattails. She could get more Dems elected to Congress. Just a few more Dems can make the difference in the Senate, and her voting rights efforts could blunt the effect of the jerrymandering in the House. She knows how to cut deals to get things done. That is how she got SCHIP covering millions of poor kids and $21 billion for NY after 9/11. She also got the Iran Nuclear deal rolling.
But regardless, it is ALWAYS better to have a Dem in the White House to veto the racist, sexist, fascist GOP efforts to turn this country back to Antebellum America.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)the only areas where she will get any republican support, peel or otherwise, will be on things like the TPP, the trans-America pipeline, and the next war. Basically only things that I don't support will be passed, that really makes me want to support her.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)I think she can get some GOP support, just enough to get it above 50% in the House and past 60 in the Senate, on things like her college plan. She knows how to work with her colleagues. That's how she was able to get $21 Billion for New York after 9/11 when she was Senator.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)considering that it was like pulling teeth to get her to come come out on either side during the campaign. Before the campaign she loved it.
I guess you enjoyed the gridlock of the last 7 years or you wouldn't be hoping for another term of it. This is a losing game and we have to change it. But there's no sense in causing either of us headaches. I absolutely do not want to be positioned to say 'I told you so' in 2017, the consequences look to be too dire.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)None of Sanders' pipe dreams have a snow ball's chance in hell.
elias49
(4,259 posts)stay the course.
And, my god! If you think I've ever flirted with Trump, let me correct you!
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)Hillary has achievable plans to expand the ACA, provide funding for college to those who need it, increase the minimum wage and all wages, expand clean energy use, implement criminal justice reform, and push back on the terrorism aimed at women's health clinics. Hillary has never said she wants to just "stay the course." She wants to improve on Obama's victories, not stay where we are.
elias49
(4,259 posts)hedda_foil
(16,985 posts)Remember, start where you want to wind up and wind up with the Republicans beating him over the head with it? And then there was the "offer them far more than the 99% can take" like the Social Security COLA distortion he tried to give them as part of some grand strategy. Hillary's plans look all too much like those moves to me.
Winding up there might be ok in some cases. Starting there is not
SamKnause
(14,896 posts)mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)"Hillary has achievable plans to expand the ACA, provide funding for college to those who need it, increase the minimum wage and all wages, expand clean energy use, implement criminal justice reform, and push back on the terrorism aimed at women's health clinics."
Just one of a million objections to what you're saying>
Is there ANYONE the GOPukes hate worse than they hate HSC? Anyone?
There is NO chance of her getting anything done other than what Wall Street wants, and that only because they are willing to pay for what they want. You can take it for granted that improving the ACA is not in their playbook.
Any GOPuke who goes along with ANYTHING she proposes will be primaried out of existence or RECALLED at the first possible opportunity. Even if they wanted a progressive vision, even assuming she has one, there is no way any of them can afford to support anything she puts forth.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Boy, she got chucked under the bus pretty fast by the supposedly AA-friendly Clinton folks here.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Also, advocating for a clear improvement to the ACA is not "hating on" it, but your comment is typical of the doublespeak we have come to expect from Hillary's team.
Because obviously, Hillary cannot run on the issues.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)A LOT of criticisms have been leveled against the ACA, particulary in regards to the coverage it affords to marginalized and at-risk populations. Huge copays. Crushing premiums.
This does not mean that it is not better than what came before, but it also does not mean that a SPHC system wouldnt be the IMPROVEMENT the American people need.
If you dont want the GOP to have a veto-proof majority, maybe you better get on the horn with Debbie Wasserman Schultz and tell her to stop yammering to the times about the joys of putting pot smokers in prison and how badly millennials suck, because she is damaging our brand.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)I'm sure he can get plenty of GOP help on the repeal part of that formula.
hedda_foil
(16,985 posts)Either you are purposely not paying attention or you need to tell your supervisor that this is a stupid argument. Oh ... maybe you've been out in the sun too long. That can disrupt your brain circuits. Take two salt pills and drink some Gatorade.
Yes, he wants to replace ACA, but not before getting all the necessary parts of SP passed in whatever increments are possible at the time. It's a goal.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)His goal is to get rid of the ACA, completely dismantle the state exchanges, and replace them with his state - administered single payer. That is the plan he has repeatedly presented to Congress but could not even get to the floor for a vote.
hedda_foil
(16,985 posts)I'll expect her highness to try it out in the debate, then ... tomorrow, is it? It won't work, of course, but how kind of you to let us all be in the know, so to speak.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I cannot believe you honestly think that Bernie Sanders as President is going to repeal the ACA and just leave it at that, or allow such a thing to transpire.
If you do believe that, you should extricate yourself from whatever noise chamber you're existing in long enough to take an objective look around.
If you don't believe that, you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking Hillary Clinton is so automatically entitled to this thing that it warrants such blatant and deliberate disinformation to get her the "prize" that she "deserves".
For reals.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)What if the GOP overrides his subsequent veto?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)So maybe we better run the actually stronger candidate, instead of the one who thinks its her turn.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)He has no coattails. He does not contribute to nor campaign for Dems running for office. He just bashes them..
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Polling suggests otherwise.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)you know, the people that DWS went out of her way to insult the other week.
And he will bring voters who support marijuana legalization, like the 34 million californians who will probably vote on that issue in November. Our party would benefit from having a nominee who agrees with the majority on that issue, not one who is closely identified with DWS, who in that same interview reiterated her support for putting people in prison for smoking it.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)Hillary explicitly said, "We have got to stop imprisoning people who use marijuana. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/hillary-clinton-marijuana_us_564cb3b2e4b08c74b7339bb4
Sanders is not for nationwide pot legalization. He wants to leave the issue to the states (see above link), like he does guns and our healthcare coverage. Good luck if you live in a place like Kansas.
And as far as the legalization issue brining out the voters, per the above link, "just 14 percent of Democrats, and 15 percent of Americans overall, say that marijuana legalization will be a very important issue in their vote for president."
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)which is the only specific reform Hillary supports. As for "leaving it to the states", what do you suppose Hillary is proposing when she says "the states are the laboratories of democracy"? She's saying "leave it to the states" so she's just as much of a states' rights (cue ominous music) person on this as Sanders is, derp.
If you think a Clinton administration would be better for marijuana users in Kansas, you're not paying much attention.
The difference between Sanders' and Clinton's specific position is, he would remove it from the Controlled Substances Act altogether, which is the only way to reconcile the conflict between state and federal law. A conflict which exists not just with the 4 states (and counting) that have legalized for recreational use, but also with the half or so states that have legalized medical marijuana. ALL are in conflict with federal law.
Hillary proposing to move it from Schedule I to II would at best allow big pharma to do more research, but would have almost zero real world legislative impact, and would certainly not impact the number of federal prisoners in there for non-violent marijuana crimes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-marijuana-reform_us_563e5fc4e4b0307f2cadb82a?x4ezsemi=
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Clinton's main rival in the Democratic presidential primary, has called for striking marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act all together. Earlier this week, he introduced the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act in the Senate, which would allow states to move forward with legalizing marijuana without federal intervention.
Beyond that, most Americans support legalization. CA is going to vote on it in November. It will be an issue- a big one- at the polls this November.
And not only does DWS still support putting people in jail for it, she has voted and campaigned (allying herself with Sheldon Adelson, of all people) expressly against Medical Marijuana. Reprehensible. And if you don't think people associate DWS not just with our brand as a party but specifically with Hillary Clinton's campaign, again, I don't think you've been paying attention.
But we can both sit here and make authoritative-sounding predictions. The fact is, people should support the person who most closely aligns with their positions on issues in the primary. One of the biggest lessons of 2004 was that strategically voting for the supposedly 'stronger' candidate can be a fools' errand.
And the exact same 'electability' arguments being used by Clinton supporters against Sanders were used by Clinton supporters against Obama in 2008. I am pretty fucking certain he performed better that November than she would have, had she gotten her way that cycle.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)We have a finite number of resources that to sustain a livable planet and way of living rather than settling for a meager existence. Believe it or not, we are embarking a number of steps towards changing the path of the working class. We MUST follow that path. The alternative is not good ... FOR ANYONE.
Go.... Go look down the road economically and see what kind of choices for working families there are to do nothing... It equates to handing off your next generation endless debt service and perminant service industry economy.
Do not decide to hide your head in the sand, or realize that you have been permanently made to unlearn how this country SHOULD work. Demand that it work that way. We have that power when we work together.
If you persist in looking at the Men-In-Black wand to avoid having to re-learn the lessons from our past 40 years, just give it up now. But, I don't think anyone who posts here really wants to deep down. We want better and we HAVE the ability to see it through. Enough is enough.
If you think that this country is worth rebuilding in a sustainable ways, then join people who want the same as you, regardless of their color.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)A Sanders nomination will gives us a horrific Republican President.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Funny how walking outside the customary reality makes it quite unstable. I realize that in order to hold your reality, it's risky stepping outside it.
Such is life.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Private insurance?
Or are you asking me to compare and contrast Medicare expanded to everyone with those components of the ACA, which was the compromise made, since Obama's reality wasn't even to include the public option?
Have you any starting point? What have you looked at thus far out of Sander's proposal for Medicare for All?
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)All I have seen are the versions he repeatedly tried and failed to bring up for a vote in congress. All of those would get rid of the exchanges (which my brother relies on) and replace them with state - administered single payer. That is not what most people think of when they hear "Medicare for All." I think actual Medicare for All is simple. It is just Medicare amended to have the minimum age 0 instead of 65. That takes all of 1 line of text. That is not what Sanders is proposing. He is proposing a whole different apparatus. But it is really hard to get details since has been so vague about it.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Your brother can relax. This is not a state administered plan. It IS an expansion of Medicare to include much more than currently covered, saving much more than continuing with the best thing we have so far in the was of the ACA.
Link: https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)That link just goes to a 1-paragraph description of "The Plan" but it only gives a broad claim of what his plan will purportedly do. It does not provide any actual text of the plan so I can tell if it will really do that.
It is not an expansion of Medicare. As stated in that paragraph,
Medicare already exists. What is he "creating"? If he is just expanding Medicare to cover everyone, why doesn't he just say so? Then there would be nothing to "create." The "Plan" would just consist of amending the eligibility age from 65 to 0. That is NOT how Bernie's website described the Plan..
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Of course Medicare already exists. But Medicare benefits have only been created for eligibles by either age (primarily at age 65) or by disability. This expands Medicare to every man, woman and child. Do you want the word, "expanded Medicare" to be explained?
Here's what your eyes should have read from the link. I've cut an pasted it for you.
Medicare for All: Leaving No One Behind
Twitter Facebook Email Link
It has been the goal of Democrats since Franklin D. Roosevelt to create a universal health care system guaranteeing health care to all people. Every other major industrialized nation has done so. It is time for this country to join them and fulfill the legacy of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson and other great Democrats.
The Affordable Care Act was a critically important step towards the goal of universal health care. Thanks to the ACA, more than 17 million Americans have gained health insurance. Millions of low-income Americans have coverage through expanded eligibility for Medicaid that now exists in 31 states. Young adults can stay on their parents health plans until theyre 26. All Americans can benefit from increased protections against lifetime coverage limits and exclusion from coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Bernie was on the U.S. Senate committee that helped write the ACA.
But as we move forward, we must build upon the success of the ACA to achieve the goal of universal health care. Twenty-nine million Americans today still do not have health insurance and millions more are underinsured and cannot afford the high copayments and deductibles charged by private health insurance companies that put profits before people.
The U.S. spends more on health care per person, and as a percentage of gross domestic product, than any other advanced nation in the world, including Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. But all that money has not made Americans healthier than the rest of the world. Quite simply, in our high-priced health care system that leaves millions overlooked, we spend more yet end up with less.
Other industrialized nations are making the morally principled and financially responsible decision to provide universal health care to all of their peopleand they do so while saving money by keeping people healthier. Those who say this goal is unachievable are selling the American people short.
Americans need a health care system that works for patients and providers. We need to focus our federal investments on training the health care providers. We need to ensure a strong health care workforce in all communities now and in the future. We need to build on the strength of the 50 years of success of the Medicare program. We need a health care system that significantly reduces overhead, administrative costs and complexity. We need a system where all people can get the care they need to maintain and improve their health when they need it regardless of income, age or socioeconomic status. We need a system that works not just for millionaires and billionaires, but for all of us.
Under Bernies plan, Americans will benefit from the freedom and security that comes with finally separating health insurance from employment. That freedom would not only help the American people live happier, healthier and more fulfilling lives, but it would also promote innovation and entrepreneurship in every sector of the economy. People would be able to start new businesses, stay home with their children or leave jobs they dont like knowing that they would still have health care coverage for themselves and their families. Employers could be free to focus on running their business rather than spending countless hours figuring out how to provide health insurance to their employees. Working Americans wouldnt have to choose between bargaining for higher wages or better health insurance. Parents wouldnt have to worry about how to provide health insurance to their children. Americans would no longer have to fear losing their health insurance if they lose their job, change employment or go part-time. Seniors and people with serious or chronic illnesses could afford the medications necessary to keep them healthy without worry of financial ruin. Millions of people will no longer have to choose between health care and other necessities like food, heat and shelter, and will have access to services that may have been out of reach, like dental care or long-term care.
Simply put, Bernies plan will provide all Americans with the sense of freedom and peace of mind that comes from knowing you always have access to the health care you need.
THE PLAN
BETTER COVERAGE
Bernies plan would create a federally administered single-payer health care program. Universal single-payer health care means comprehensive coverage for all Americans. Bernies plan will cover the entire continuum of health care, from inpatient to outpatient care; preventive to emergency care; primary care to specialty care, including long-term and palliative care; vision, hearing and oral health care; mental health and substance abuse services; as well as prescription medications, medical equipment, supplies, diagnostics and treatments. Patients will be able to choose a health care provider without worrying about whether that provider is in-network and will be able to get the care they need without having to read any fine print or trying to figure out how they can afford the out-of-pocket costs.
WHAT IT MEANS FOR PATIENTS
As a patient, all you need to do is go to the doctor and show your insurance card. Bernies plan means no more copays, no more deductibles and no more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges.
GETTING HEALTH CARE SPENDING UNDER CONTROL
We outspend all other countries on the planet and our medical spending continues to grow faster than the rate of inflation. Creating a single, public insurance system will go a long way towards getting health care spending under control. The United States has thousands of different health insurance plans, all of which set different reimbursement rates across different networks for providers and procedures resulting in high administrative costs. Two patients with the same condition may get very different care depending on where they live, the health insurance they have and what their insurance covers. A patient may pay different amounts for the same prescription depending solely on where the prescription is filled. Health care providers and patients must navigate this complex and bewildering system wasting precious time and resources.
By moving to an integrated system, the government will finally have the ability to stand up to drug companies and negotiate fair prices for the American people collectively. It will also ensure the federal government can track access to various providers and make smart investments to avoid provider shortages and ensure communities can access the providers they need.
MAJOR SAVINGS FOR FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES
Bernies plan will cost over $6 trillion less than the current health care system over the next ten years.
The United States currently spends $3 trillion on health care each yearnearly $10,000 per person. Reforming our health care system, simplifying our payment structure and incentivizing new ways to make sure patients are actually getting better health care will generate massive savings. This plan has been estimated to save the American people and businesses over $6 trillion over the next decade.
The typical middle class family would save over $5,000 under this plan.
Last year, the average working family paid $4,955 in premiums and $1,318 in deductibles to private health insurance companies. Under this plan, a family of four earning $50,000 would pay just $466 per year to the single-payer program, amounting to a savings of over $5,800 for that family each year.
Businesses would save over $9,400 a year in health care costs for the average employee.
The average annual cost to the employer for a worker with a family who makes $50,000 a year would go from $12,591 to just $3,100.
HOW MUCH WILL IT COST AND HOW DO WE PAY FOR IT?
HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?
This plan has been estimated to cost $1.38 trillion per year.
THE PLAN WOULD BE FULLY PAID FOR BY:
A 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers.
Revenue raised: $630 billion per year.
A 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households.
Revenue raised: $210 billion per year.This year, a family of four taking the standard deduction can have income up to $28,800 and not pay this tax under this plan.
A family of four making $50,000 a year taking the standard deduction would only pay $466 this year.
Progressive income tax rates.
Revenue raised: $110 billion a year.Under this plan the marginal income tax rate would be:
37 percent on income between $250,000 and $500,000.
43 percent on income between $500,000 and $2 million.
48 percent on income between $2 million and $10 million. (In 2013, only 113,000 households, the top 0.08 percent of taxpayers, had income between $2 million and $10 million.)
52 percent on income above $10 million. (In 2013, only 13,000 households, just 0.01 percent of taxpayers, had income exceeding $10 million.)
Taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work.
Revenue raised: $92 billion per year.Warren Buffett, the second wealthiest American in the country, has said that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. The reason is that he receives most of his income from capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at a much lower rate than income from work. This plan will end the special tax break for capital gains and dividends on household income above $250,000.
Limit tax deductions for rich.
Revenue raised: $15 billion per yearUnder Bernies plan, households making over $250,000 would no longer be able to save more than 28 cents in taxes from every dollar in tax deductions. This limit would replace more complicated and less effective limits on tax breaks for the rich including the AMT, the personal exemption phase-out and the limit on itemized deductions.
The Responsible Estate Tax.
Revenue raised: $21 billion per year.This provision would tax the estates of the wealthiest 0.3 percent (three-tenths of 1 percent) of Americans who inherit over $3.5 million at progressive rates and close loopholes in the estate tax.
Savings from health tax expenditures.
Revenue raised: $310 billion per year.Several tax breaks that subsidize health care (health-related tax expenditures) would become obsolete and disappear under a single-payer health care system, saving $310 billion per year.
Most importantly, health care provided by employers is compensation that is not subject to payroll taxes or income taxes under current law. This is a significant tax break that would effectively disappear under this plan because all Americans would receive health care through the new single-payer program instead of employer-based health care.
Outside of what what the plan is and how it is paid for, you seem to be asking for the legislation. This legislation, once passed, provides the booklets that perhaps you and your brother refer to.
You do know how Medicare is administered, I would assume. So, what else are you looking for? Would you like it engraved in gold with a water seal that says...
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)I read all that in your excerpt. Your attempts to insult me shows you have nothing. It appears Sanders abandoned the legislation he has previously attempted to introduce after Hillary pointed out it would be administered by the states. So now he just makes a conclusory one-line claim that the "plan would create a federally administered single-payer health care program." It does not provide any detail as to structure like the legislation he abandoned. You obviously don't know. I don't think even Bernie knows.
Wait till the legislation is passed? "This legislation, once passed, provides the booklets that perhaps you and your brother refer to."
LOL Good one.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)First you bait me to to explain what his plan is,
Then you insist it was changed somehow from that "state administered" rumor that was circulated by the Clintons themselves and their campaign,
You don't want information on single payer at all.
I'm finished with this wasteful effort. Good luck with your continued question for "knowledge"
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)
boston bean
(36,931 posts)elias49
(4,259 posts)Ah! I see! It's like "click here" on a computer screen.
Click here, watch the movie.
What a righteous riot.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Its her turn!
Faux pas
(16,357 posts)I AGREE!!!!
murielm99
(32,988 posts)then, in the same thread talk about homelessness.
If by some miracle Bernie gets the nomination, he won't win. Then you will have more to worry about as far as the 'go home' part is concerned. Even fewer will have homes to go to.
I am a boomer, too. Bernie is a losing proposition. I am tired of losers.
elias49
(4,259 posts)And I'm very concerned with homelessness. So is Sanders.
I don't follow you thinking.
And which 'losers' are you talking about? Clinton? Obama?
murielm99
(32,988 posts)Bernie is a loser, he will not win the general, and he will drag the country down with him because of his ego.
elias49
(4,259 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)murielm99
(32,988 posts)No one thinks he or she can be the leader of the free world if they have no ego.
Your Bernie is just another politician. Get used to it.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)elias49
(4,259 posts)Think Clinton will get 'reparations'?
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)You're the one arguing we should "go big or go home."
elias49
(4,259 posts)SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)elias49
(4,259 posts)Are you talking 'reparations'?
Cuz THAT can't happen. Not with Sanders, not with Clinton, not with anyone.
Sorry. It's reality.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)Yet Bernie has no problem reaching for the stars on something the white left want. But he suddenly goes pragmatic when it comes to what the AA left want. Hillary is consistently pragmatic.
Again, why does Sanders suddenly turn pragmatic when it comes to what the AA left want? It is Sanders' [div disparate treatment of the desires of the white left versus the AA left that has Ta-Nehisi Coates and many other AAs concerned.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bernie-sanders-reparations/424602/
It really is not a laughing matter, elias49.
Response to SunSeeker (Reply #36)
Name removed Message auto-removed
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)Response to SunSeeker (Reply #86)
Name removed Message auto-removed
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)It has worked in other countries...much like single payer. I don't think it is lost on African Americans that a revolutionary Democratic Socialist suddenly gets pragmatic when it comes to reparations.
Response to SunSeeker (Reply #89)
Name removed Message auto-removed
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)Wow. Just wow.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are saying this out of ignorance and not racism.
Here's one thing we can do: make funding for all public schools equal, so they are not dependent on local property tax revenue. Schools funding being tied to local tax revenues is why schools in poor black neighborhoods look like bombed out DMV offices while schools in rich white neighborhoods look like mini universities.This disparity perpetuates the disparity in opportunity that has existed since the days of slavery.
Response to SunSeeker (Reply #91)
Name removed Message auto-removed
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)No, schools in poor black neighborhoods have not had money thrown at them, not even close.
And since a much greater percentage of African Americans live in poor neighborhoods compared to whites, African Americans are disproportionately affected (i.e., hurt much more) by this school funding scheme.
Sigh. I can't believe I am having this conversation on a progressive board.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)uponit7771
(93,532 posts).... improbable for A and B then why not C
He needs to be consistent
elias49
(4,259 posts)And some turkey accused Sanders of being too egotistical.
She's not offering unicorns (which is a pretty stupid meme, but there goes the Clinton machine!).
She's offering...what?
Seriously. What? Name one thing she's going to do to make this country better.
And, no, saying she's going to put a chicken in every pot doesn't count.
I'll wait for something concrete. Anything.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)... follow her lead.
Outside of that she's not offering anything that she can't do without them, that's smart politics
People who understand the effect of the gop gerrymandering understand we have to wait
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)It's like saying "my goldfish is dead and so is my great great grandfather, therefore my goldfish is my great great grandfather."
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)... congress with no WORKABLE plan (culture shift, revolution and people power are not workable with this GOP gerrymandered congress)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)therefore, a car is an airplane.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)...not political revolution.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)every other idea that is unlikely to pass.
That's not logic, man.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)... posted makes perfect sense.
Revolution with an asterisk isn't a freakin revolution...
SANDERS titled himself that, not anyone else
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)because, you know, that would be pretty hard to achieve, too.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)... not being for them as much as he is sounds petulant at best.
He doesn't have room for compromise cause he gave none to anyone else !!
Building an elevator out of marshmallows isn't something the left has been calling for for generations.
SP is and reparations is...
REVOLUTION!!!! *
* - except for reparations
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Fresh Ground Pepper?

uponit7771
(93,532 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)you betcha.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)wildeyed
(11,243 posts)uponit7771
(93,532 posts)wildeyed
(11,243 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Thenewire
(130 posts)You think fucking with the rich by splitting the banks, causing health insurance companies to go out of business, limiting speculation and thus investments, and generally making a point that you are actively destabilizing the markets will not effect the regular worker? I dislike those things as much as anyone else but we can't deny the fact that going to the extreme and having even the remote possibility of accomplishing any of these things will lead to job loses and economic recession. What you will be doing is destroying whatever possibility you had in the first place to accomplish anything, when the population faces hardship they will turn towards right wing extremism.
elias49
(4,259 posts)starting with Reagan -
If not now, when?
I think the 'remote possibility of accomplishments' exists just as strongly in a prospective Clinton presidency. And her camp doesn't even care to have large ambitions: walking in place seems to suffice.
The only real ambition in the Clinton camp seems to be Hillary's ambition to be the first woman president.
Really helps the working class a lot.
Thenewire
(130 posts)That a xenophobic corporate asshole like Trump can be president. You think he plays fair or will not insult Sanders on the fact that he is a career politician? But I suppose to Sanders supporters it really doesn't matter if Trump becomes president. You all want to see the world burn anyways.
elias49
(4,259 posts)Isn't Hillary a career politician? Come on. Head out of sand. She's been coveting the White House for 25 years. More.You think the evil Trumpster won't attack Clinton? On emails, Libya, Syria...the list is long. How's she gonna run the country? From a Senate Committee hearings floor?
Go back to sleep. They say you can learn in your sleep.
Thenewire
(130 posts)To say he is the anti-establishment candidate against Trump who never held a public office. If he did he would be heavily criticized for being a career politician and don't get me started on the word socialism. The majority are untrusting of socialists even if they might agree on socialist polices. Sanders would effectively be labeled the biggest threat to America and a far worse option to Trump in every aspect. Sanders is relying on the same fanaticism Trump uses except Trump will say absolutely anything to win.
People already know who Clinton is and they have already made up their mind. A vote for Sanders is nothing more than voting for an ideologue and right wing enabler.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)campaign - I'd call that establishment.
And your statement regarding the break up of the banks. I am old enough to remember when they did not need breaking up. But too young to remember the 1920s when they did.
Glass-Steagall will definitely impact the working class - their money will not longer be dumped into the Wall Street investment market.
Further breakup will make them small enough to let a small bank failure happen without having to bail out all of them. Back when banks were small that is exactly what would have happened but now that we only have 6 huge banks they are indeed "too big to fail". I do not see how leaving the working class on the hook for another huge bailout is helping anyone but the banks.
As for ending the insurance industry - there will still be many workers to document and process claims in a single payer. The big thing is that we would not be paying out to the rich owners it would be run by government workers.
Your last paragraph indicates that you think we should vote for your candidate and forget ours. I have been a Democratic voter since JFK and think this is the exact opposite of what a primary is for. We are supposed to be voting for the candidate we think is best - not preaching fear so that others cannot.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)All that peace and prosperity! I got an Earned Income Tax Credit
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...as most of the problems we face have only become more severe.
We are losing ground to forces that will destroy us, and need to think and work bigger.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)Also, shipping container homes have been a thing for a while now. Not just with millennials either.... You can get them architect designed or do-it-yourself. Just FYI.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)we have to be compassionate to the poor, dejected Nope Fiends among us.