Hillary Is Already TRIANGULATING Against Liberals

[Segami]

"...Her new attack on Bernie Sanders’ single-payer health care plan shows her indifference to progressive voters..."

"...Perhaps the Clinton campaign has some horrific polling data that’s leading them to launch this direct assault on Sanders, or it’s just trying to distract everyone from Clinton’s bizarre explanation at Saturday’s debate for her voluminous contributions from Wall Street over the years. But it also seems like Clinton feels like she has the nomination secure and is triangulating ahead of the general election, mortgaging progressive policy in the process. Does that sound familiar?..."

~snip~

Triangulating against Sanders (and, by proxy, the left wing of the Democratic Party) with conservative attacks does make some sense. For one, she is a Clinton, and this is what they do. At issue is Sanders’ support for a single-payer universal health care system, which he and others brand as “Medicare for all.” A single-payer bill he introduced in 2013 would have levied a 2.2 percent tax on individuals making up to $200,000 or couples making up to $250,000, and progressively increased that rate to 5.2 percent for income beyond $600,000. It also would have tacked an extra 6.7 percent payroll tax on the employer side, at least some of which employers would likely pass on to workers. The Clinton campaign is suddenly quite upset about that proposal and wants everyone to know. She has committed to the same (policy-constricting) pledge that President Obama took in 2008 and 2012, ruling out tax increases on individuals making less than $200,000 per year or joint filers making less than $250,000. This neatly positions her camp to say, by contrast, that the bug-eyed socialist Bernie Sanders wants to take all of your money.

“...Bernie Sanders has called for a roughly 9-percent tax hike on middle-class families just to cover his health-care plan,” a Clinton spokesman said Tuesday, via Politico. “Simple math dictates he'll need to tax workers even more to pay for the rest of his at least $18-20 trillion agenda. If you are truly concerned about raising incomes for middle-class families, the last thing you should do is cut their take-home pay right off the bat by raising their taxes....”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-taxes-middle-class-bernie-sanders-215958

This is a truly messed-up thing for the leading Democratic presidential candidate, who claims to be a progressive stalwart, to be broadcasting. A standard Democratic presidential nominee representing the center-left of the party might call a single-payer system politically impractical in order to argue against it. “If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” Sen. Barack Obama said during his 2008 presidential campaign, for example. He then explained why he wouldn’t pursue such a model: “People don’t have time to wait. They need relief now. So my attitude is let’s build up the system we got. Let’s make it more efficient. We may be over time—as we make the system more efficient and everybody’s covered—decide that there are other ways for us to provide care more effectively.” In the end that approach resulted in the Affordable Care Act, compromise legislation that greatly expanded coverage without really overhauling the country’s private health insurance model. But Obama didn’t really disown the idea of single-payer, which many progressives still prefer to the current system. Clinton, however, is going much further by appropriating one of the right’s central talking points against government-funded universal health insurance: Think of the taxes! She’s not just saying that a single-payer system is a political nonstarter with conservatives. She’s reciting the actual conservative talking point that would make a single-payer system a political nonstarter.

There are fairly obvious policy counterpoints to that argument. She is well-aware of them and chooses to ignore them, because they would either blunt or negate her convenient political attack. Sure, under Sanders’ plan, the combination of the income and payroll taxes would add up to 8.9 percent (assuming employers pass on the full 6.7 percent payroll tax) on most earners. But people would not be paying for health insurance anymore, and a universal, public system would save money by eliminating all of the actuarial costs and profit expectations associated with the private insurance system. If Clinton wanted to say that she wouldn’t push for a single-payer system because it’s a political dead-ender right now, or because she’s spotted another legitimate policy flaw with the idea, that would be more acceptable. What she’s doing, instead, is essentially red-baiting about Bernie Sanders’ Wacky Taxes in her dismissal of a policy that, on paper, draws plenty of support among Democratic voters. That’s not good for the single-payer health care movement, which is hoping that some blue states will be able to use ACA waivers to experiment with single-payer in their states but so far are running into trouble thanks to the exact talking point Clinton’s deploying. And it’s not good for American liberalism in general, which is supposed to defend the belief that government funded by taxes can solve problems and improve people’s livelihoods.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/hillary_clinton_triangulates_against_bernie_sanders.html

[pangaia]

1. She is in it for herself.

Senator Sanders is in it for the sake of other human beings.

[Joe Turner]

2. Well Put!

Kick

[ChiTownDenny]

156. I'm not following the math.

Why would an additional 8.9% in taxes be necessary if there are savings with Universal Health Care from areas such as profit expectations and actuarial costs? I read Bernie said there were dollars already in the Health Care system that would just have to be reallocated.

[daleanime]

4. +1

[bigwillq]

5. Yup.

[SammyWinstonJack]

35. Indeed she is....Not someone I am interested in voting for.

[LovingA2andMI]

59. Total Self Motivation....

In a Presidential Candidate should give a pause for concern....one would think...

[Major Hogwash]

89. ^^^THIS^^^

And it is obvious!!!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

105. So had it with Hillary.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[Betty Karlson]

132. Well put. eom

[closeupready]

134. Yup. Very obvious.

[arcane1]

3. Somebody has to take the side of the poor insurance industry.

Glad to see Hillary standing up for them

[JDPriestly]

57. And the Wall Street "investors" in the poor insurance industry.

It's Hillary's ties to Wall Street that make her anti-single-payer.

Wall Street profits from the private insurance scam.

The cost of medical care will probably decline if we adopt a single-payer, non-profit plan for our insurance coverage.

[arcane1]

66. Indeed, I'd rather pay a little more in taxes and do away with monthly premiums and copays!

But where's the money to be made with that?

[whathehell]

102. +10. n/t

[AgingAmerican]

171. It would be a lot cheaper for everyone

A Hill supporter was calling Sanders a 'tax and spend liberal' yesterday for proposing a 2.2% tax hike to pay for healthcare. I did the math on it for him. It would about $1100 a YEAR for someone making 50k. I told him that I am paying almost $800 per month NOW and that the 2.2% would be a LOT cheaper for me. His answer? "It's all about you, isn't it?" That was the best he could do. "It's all about you, isn't it?" lol

They are in over their head on this one.

[arcane1]

173. An ironic answer, considering how much is about Them.

But, to be fair, it's not as if they can win on policy

[CoffeeCat]

103. How much did the insurance industry pay her?

Was it as much as Wall Street? Or how about the for-profit prison system? Can't forget the fracking industry!

Or my personal favorite...

The warmongering defense contractors like Boeing. Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation. A group of defense contractors, headed by Boeing, received $29 billion in defense contracts for fighter jets that will be delivered to Saudi Arabia.

This happened at the behest of Clinton's State Department.

For more horrifying reading about the Boeing deal:
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

[pangaia]

136. That should be enough to sink her chances of getting

anywhere near the white house. Of course it won't.
If Hillary Clinton is elected, we are truly fucked...

[floriduck]

137. Besides, this whole election

thing is really about "her turn".

[Segami]

6. A progressive my eye...

"....Clinton, however, is going much further by appropriating one of the right’s central talking points against government-funded universal health insurance: Think of the taxes! She’s not just saying that a single-payer system is a political nonstarter with conservatives. She’s reciting the actual conservative talking point that would make a single-payer system a political nonstarter...."

Using republican talking points to attack the 'single-payer' system is nothing but Third Way tactics!


The Democratic Party is in for a rude awakening.....

[cui bono]

9. +1

[Maedhros]

131. Using Republican talking points is a Republican tactic.

Trojan horse candidate.

[stillwaiting]

7. This genuinely infuriates me. This is not surprising to me. nt

[jeff47]

8. Oh goodie! We might get to see how well "Who else you gonna vote for?" works in a presidential year

Given the stunning "success" of that campaign theme in 2010 and 2014, I'm not looking forward to that.

[rhett o rick]

10. The enthusiasiam for Sanders is because people see an oppurtunity to break free of

the corrupt, big money politics. How are you going to convince them to vote for H. Clinton? Lesser of evils again? Well if you don't want the worst of evils, I suggest you don't nominate the lesser of evils.

How can Democrats back the 1% candidate? Rhetorical. Because they are afraid of the 1%. They are afraid to fight for freedom, liberty and afraid to stand up for the poor, our vets and our seniors. So they do what conservatives have been doing for decades, bow down to the big money, bow down to Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street.

If you want to help the poor, don't back a candidate that is financed by the corporations, because they don't give a crap about the poor.

[arcane1]

73. I think what we really need is a huge "revolution" at the state and local levels.

That's where votes, and voter turnout, have the greatest impact, but get the least attention.

And that's exactly the "revolution" Sanders speaks of.

[rhett o rick]

94. I agree. But we also need to figure out how to get control of the national Democratic

Party that has sold out to Big Money.

[grasswire]

90. hear, hear!

preach it, brother

[merrily]

13. "The left has nowhere else to go."

[jeff47]

17. Yeah...worked so great in 2010 and 2014.

But I can tell a lot of the Clinton supporters are getting very excited to heap blame on those terrible liberals and kids for not turning out.

[merrily]

19. That matters mostly on US message boards, where it gets soundly debunked.

[jeff47]

20. And then brought up over and over and over again after the debunking.

We still get plenty of "Nader cost us 2000" posts.

[merrily]

23. Bookmark some threads and posts. I never do enough of that, myself.

[Jack Rabbit]

51. Right now, I still don't see how the Republicans can win in 2016

But the Third Way leading the DNC will find a way. Just keep picking candidates who push the same tired and failed policies and calling those of who bellyache about it names and demand we vote for Third Way machine corrupt-to-their-socks candidates.

There aren't too many more election cycles I can take being bashed over the head and called a "retard" by as fine and honest a man as Rham Emanuel one minute and the next being asked by the same asshole to vote for candidate who is on every lobbyist's and crooked CEO's payroll.

[daybranch]

154. Yep, not giving them something positive to vote for did not help much

I also think 2012 was a very bad year, because Obama has not lived up to expectations he would be more in the progressive camp after progressives turned the tide against Hillary. He is what he is- a centrist or a Rockerfeller republican, supporting social issues and other issues when big business likes them or fears mobilizing anger of the people against their products and companies as well as themselves. As Obama's team leader for 2012 in my hometown I saw first hand onmany many canvasses how little people felt was their chances of bettering their lives under either candidate and I know they voted out of fear of Romney after over 3 years of Obama rather than change you can believe in. After the non-support of single payer health care by Obama, and his willingness to reduce social security payments, I had a very hard time telling people why he was so much better than Romney and certainly I could not hold him up as the change I believe in as a progressive. Being involved in the anti- Gerrymandering effort here in Ohio, an effort neither democrats nor Organizing for America (Obamas Political and so called grassroots group under National Direction) would get behind although their members supported it in huge majorities, I was so disheartened to hear young voters or non voters tell me that it did not really matter whether they voted or not because neither party worked for the people. Now they are supporting Bernie, the democrat we all wished John Kennedy would be and the democrat Bobby Kennedy had already proven to be. Bernie is us, and he embodies the values, ideals and policies we believe America should be. He can never lose, he has captured our imagination and shown us the promise of what America can be when it regains its democracy and I will teach that to my children , my grandchildren, my friends and my neighbors.

[JDPriestly]

63. It will not work for me. Not at all. I will vote for every other Democratic candidate, but not for

Hillary. Her statements about single-payer are just the kind of misleading nonsense that makes me not trust her.

She surely knows that the tax would work like the payroll tax and be returned to the taxpayer in the form of direct services and that the exorbitant costs of private healthcare insurance would pretty much disappear.

She surely knows that.

I really do not like Hillary. I do not consider her to be trustworthy or even a Democrat.

[Enthusiast]

123. I'm with you on all that 100%. Not trustworthy.

I would rather pay taxes than pay insurance premiums.

She does know it. We are certain she knows it. So she is representing...........not us.

[hedda_foil]

11. WHAT are they seeing in their polling to be pulling this out so early???

It's got to be something that worries or scares them considerably.

Plus, it's barely a half truth.

[Juicy_Bellows]

12. She is progessive like Flo in the commercials - i.e. selling insurance. nt.

EDIT - I meant this for the OP but made an oopsie!

[Cassiopeia]

32. I imagine the Clinton campaigns personal polling

doesn't look anything like the MSM polling so many here post all day.

[truedelphi]

14. Initially I believe she simply did not understand other people's life situations

Although she has always claimed she was middle class, she grew up in Nob Hill, Doctor's Row as a kid in Chicago. Most people do not have doctors or lawyers for fathers, but that was the milieu she knew from the day of her birth, and on until she went to Vassar, graduated and took a job in the Senate dealing with the impeachment of Nixon.

And most people do not then end up marrying someone who becomes the governor.

By 1993, she somehow made the following statement on C Span:

"Should the Health Care Plan that Bill and I support take effect, then a family of four living
on $ 24,000 a year would only be liable for four thousand dollars annually in order to be insured."

What family of four, in 1993, that was living on $ 24,000 a year had the money put aside to cover that premium? Possibly a family in Louisiana or Alabama where rents are (or were extremely low) but in almost every other place in the USA, a family of four would be crushed under the weight of that premium.

These days I don't think she is simply misinformed. These days I think she is pure evil. She supports GM foods, she supports fracking, she supports the Big Banks remaining as the top players in the economy while the middle class gets kicked to the curb.

[merrily]

21. It was Wellesley, then Yale Law, where she met Bill. "Living on $24K a year implies a higher gross

salary, before payroll taxes, etc. You can't "live on" what you never see.

[Juicy_Bellows]

22. Yowza - I hadn't read or heard that before.

On the hook for 4k making 24k? Inflation calculator puts that at 39k today and a premium of $6,500. That's pretty fuggin' steep!

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

[jwirr]

28. +1 She has no idea how people are hurting today. And this

post shows us exactly how she will act if elected.

[senz]

61. Hillary Rodham Clinton's childhood home

https://www.flickr.com/photos/zol87/5161741011/

[BeanMusical]

75. Poor Hillary was living in a slum!

[awoke_in_2003]

108. Her and Bill were broke when they left the WH

I wish I could be that broke.

[Scuba]

15. She'll be rolling out a new campaign slogan next week: Drill, baby drill!

[LovingA2andMI]

62. ROTFLMAO

[Nitram]

169. Typical Bernista smear.

Which news organization does that? Just makes stuff up? Or speculates as if something is already fact? Sounds like Fox News. Now you're associating Clinton with Palin. You'll win lots of converts to Bernie doing that.

[Scuba]

175. It's well known that liberals have much better senses of humor than conservatives.

[Nitram]

177. Well, I'll give you that.

In fact there is abundant evidence demonstrating the truth of your statement. Can we name one conservative comic who makes anybody laugh (unless it's AT them)?

[ruffburr]

16. If You really-

Ever thought that Hillary is into this for anything other than maintaining the status quo You have been bamboozled and played for a fool.

[Trajan]

81. Pardon us for being deluded dreamers ...

I wont be voting for her in the Primaries, that's for sure ...

However, your implied insult is duly noted ...

[Arugula Latte]

18. Ugh. I'm so sick of her.

[SammyWinstonJack]

40. So am I.

[grasswire]

91. I'm getting sicker every day

the hits just keep on coming.

[Nitram]

178. And I'm so sick of your negativity.

[Arugula Latte]

182. What?

I actually rarely comment on Hillary threads.

But I guess we're just expected to smile obediently as this Republican-lite candidate is shoved down our throats.

[Nitram]

186. There you go again.

You guys are just so mean! (Where's the smiley with a tear coming out of one eye?)

[Arugula Latte]

187. So mean? Really?

Politics are rough. This stuff affects real lives.

But here's a hug so you don't think I'm always a big meanie.

[Nitram]

189. Aww shucks!

Gee, you're not so bad after all. But stop pickin' on my friend Hilary. When ya'll attack Clinton unfairly it makes me hate Bernie.

[merrily]

24. All those stories about the Third Wayers "warning" her not to go too far left. LOL!

[Enthusiast]

124. She heeded their warning.

[merrily]

125. Why not? They were giving it on her behalf.

Picture this: Your friend/colleague is running for President. It's the primary. Primary polls are strongly in his or her favor. You think he or she is doing something wrong that will lose the gineral. You call to tell someone about this terrible mistake your friend/colleague is making, in the hopes your friend/colleague will correct course.

Quick: Are you calling your friend or the media?

[Progressive dog]

25. The Scandinavian countries

all have high (>20%) VAT (sales) taxes on just about everything to pay for about what Bernie is promising. Bernie should explain where the money comes from to pay for his proposals.

[jwirr]

31. He already did in the debate.

[Progressive dog]

37. The taxes he has proposed

won't come close to paying for the benefits he has proposed.
For example to pay for college-(from CNN)"To pay for it, Sanders would impose a 0.5% fee on stock trades, 0.1% fee on bonds and a 0.005% fee on derivatives. This would raise up to $300 billion a year, according to Warren Gunnels, his policy director, citing a 2012 University of Massachusetts Amherst report.

But a Tax Policy Center report that looked at levying a 0.5% fee on stock trades -- along with an average 0.5% fee on bonds and 0.05% fee on derivatives -- found that it would only raise about $51 billion a year, said Steve Rosenthal, a Tax Policy Center senior fellow. "

[Recursion]

70. And they don't even get actual single payer

They still have premiums and a fairly hefty deductible (about $400 in Norway's case).

We've seen multiple people work it out: it would take about a 15% payroll tax, a 25% corporate tax, or a 20% VAT (or some combination of that) to pay for it, because there's a whole lot of needed care that isn't happening right now. Usage will go up, dramatically, and that's a good thing, but also an expensive thing.

[TM99]

104. OMG!

$400.00 deductible! That is insane!

Seriously, considering the deductibles on most Bronze and Silver plans, that is a dream.

[Thinkingabout]

26. Bookmarked for future reference.

[senz]

69. Why announce it to everyone?

I occasionally bookmark a thread but have never felt the necessity to announce it to everyone on the thread.

What's that all about?

[Scootaloo]

27. Hell, she's already counter-negotiating against us.

"My colleagues want workers to make a $15 living wage, but I'll settle for $12!"

Is this how she plans to negotiate with Putin? Selling her positions short before even coming to the table?

[RiverLover]

29. It IS a truly messed-up thing! And its a truly messed-up time in American politics

Kick for exposure.

Viva la Progressives!

(Is it too much to hope that one day, we'll be free of DINOs?? )

[Ferd Berfel]

30. Hillary is a creature of Wall Street

SHE IS A CORPORATE whore

I do not trust her to keep my social security and medicare out of the hands of her corporate puppet masters. I just don't

[F4lconF16]

33. Yuck. Nt

[Persondem]

34. This part of his plan is worth opposing ( or very poorly thought out)

"A single-payer bill he introduced in 2013 would have levied a 2.2 percent tax on individuals making up to $200,000"

I hope all you Sanders folks realize that would mean that the lower 47% who pay no taxes would all of a sudden lose 2.2% of their income. A family of three living at about the poverty line would suddenly have to come up with about $400 that they don't have. It would force millions of Americans to choose between gas or medicine, shoes for the kid or a trip to the doctor etc.

Also, do you have an analysis showing the impact of a nearly 9% increase in payroll taxes would have a small businesses? Seems a glaring omission. Single payer is a nice idea, but details need to be developed for it to ever get traction. Otherwise it's just a pipe dream for "tax and spend liberals" (and socialists).

You do not have a Clinton quote disavowing single payer; you have a Clinton quote opposing middle class tax increases. Most of the rest is hyperbolic supposition.

As usual you have much hot air and indignity over little substance.

[AlbertCat]

43. "tax and spend liberals"

I cannot believe you typed that!

[Segami]

47. Familiar toolbox...

[Persondem]

82. Oh, you have no real response to my post ... funny that.

It's so amazing that such a detailed oriented person such as you could have overlooked the quotes. Perhaps if I had mispeled a word or too, you wood have noticed. .. and perhaps figured out why I used them.

[frylock]

76. Nice tell.

[Persondem]

80. Nice nothing, get a clue. quotation marks just might have meant something ....

[frylock]

83. Okay. Who were you quoting?

[Persondem]

84. Every GOP mouth piece for the last 35 years. Sanders wears a nice target on his back vis a vis taxes

[frylock]

121. And Clinton wears a nice target on her back vis-a-vis Clinton.

republicans will be climbing out of their death beds for the opportunity to vote against Hillary.

[Persondem]

141. No they won't. They came out of the woodwork to vote against Obama twice. for that decade

I was on the political front lines in my rural county in NC. The Clintons play much better with white conservative voters than Obama did. A recent poll in SC bears that out. Clinton almost makes South Carolina competitive, and the numbers put her ahead of Obama.

And again you avoid any real discussion of my points raised in my original post on this thread.

[frylock]

143. Conservatives had not been harboring a white-hot hatred of Obama for almost 25 years.

Some 30% of registered voters are democrats, and you're going to need 100% of them to come out and vote for Hillary. She may get a smattering of independents, but the vast majority of them will just stay home. And good luck getting Millennials to vote for her.

[Persondem]

146. Conservatives had been harboring a white hot hatred of people like Obama for nearly 400 years.

You must not live in the south. SC numbers show Clinton does just fine. Other polls show that she splits the younger vote with Bernie. She does extremely well with older voters who are the voters who vote most frequently.

And you are still ducking the points I raised earlier.

[frylock]

153. Your points were adequately addressed by other posters in this thread.

I have nothing more to add.

[Persondem]

155. None of my points were addressed!! One person sort of tried but had zero details & no numbers

Every other respondent has deflected.

This is just another anti-Clinton thread that is long on bluster and indignation but short on substance.

fyi - my original post was #34

[frylock]

157. What percentage of their income are these people currently paying for mandated health insurance?

is it less than 2.2%?

[Persondem]

79. Guess you conveniently overlooked the quotation marks. Work your brain a while ....

... you might eventually figure out why I used them.

Anything to distract from the substance of my post.

[AlbertCat]

88. Anything to distract from the substance of my post.

We all understood.

The quotation marks are not what that slur is about. I mean, if you have to go there to defend Clinton... well...

[Persondem]

100. How about replying to the substance of my post instead of trying to deflect?

And no, you didn't ALL understand. Check out the other responses to my post.

[Fairgo]

95. Oh, I was recently schooled by a "social democrat" on the job creators

You know, the 1%er's with whom we, the lumpen proles, have a symbiotic relationship.
Seriously.
The scholar claimed the social democrat label while espousing an economics of noblesse oblige.
Words mean nothing.

[jeff47]

68. Substance like forgetting that insurance isn't free now.

[Skidmore]

183. When has insurance ever been free?

[jeff47]

184. Never. But the "substance" in the post I replied to forgot to include that detail. (nt)

[tularetom]

85. Big fuckin deal - they'd lose 2.2% of their income

Since many of them are currentlypaying 10% of their gross income in health insurance premiums, and would not pay a dime under Sanders proposal, that sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

[grasswire]

92. thanks, Tom

You said it for me.

[Persondem]

107. I have looked for details on Sanders's SP plan without success

His campaign website doesn't mention it in any detail, and it's NOT one of the Issues highlighted on his Issues page.

[AgingAmerican]

98. You are attacking him with Republican ideology

Why is that?

[Persondem]

99. Defending the poor and middle class from a burdensome tax increase is

GOP ideology??? Guess you, like a bunch of other sanders folks with blinders on, ignore things like quotation marks.

How about addressing the points I bring up instead of trying to deflect?

[AgingAmerican]

114. Tax and spend liberals?

Reaganomics you push

[Persondem]

116. In quotes - don't be so obtuse

How about addressing the substance of my post?

[AgingAmerican]

120. You are crying about 2.2% tax for healthcare?

Seriously? Someone making 50k would pay about $1100 a year for their healthcare under a 2.2% tax. Boo hoo! I pay about $800 per MONTH right now so it would be WAYYYYY cheaper than what I am paying already for way better healthcare than I am getting now.

That's the stupid thing about using right wing slogans in lieu of policy. Sloganeers never think past the slogan and actually do the math.

[Persondem]

139. I am trying to get past Sanders slogans but can't find his math. Ideas?

I have tried his website and it's not there.

Also, I don't care so much about people making 50k; it's the families making 20k that are more of my concern. You know, those people who now pay zero income tax and for whom a 2.2% tax is real burden.

[AgingAmerican]

145. You said 2.2%

2.2% is about 1/10th what I am paying now.

[Persondem]

147. Got news for you. It ain't about you. nt.

[AgingAmerican]

151. Everyone else would pay the same rate

Now wouldn't they? It's about ALL of us. It's called 'simple math'.

Lemme guess, "Tax and spend liberals", right?

You are doing exactly what the OP states. Attempting to 'triangulate' by attacking Sanders with right wing policies/talking points.

[Persondem]

158. No one has been able to point me to a pace where the details of this wonderful plan exist

Sounds you are in favor of a regressive flat tax that applies to all.

I am attempting to get the details .. until then it's just pixie dust, wishful thinking, and a great yelling point without substance. Hell, Sanders doesn't even have any details on his website. You'd think the guy making the pitch would have some idea of how he's going to pull it off. Or has he figured out that a few trillion dollars in new taxes is a non-starter for a presidential candidate.

Deflect and label; that's all you've got. c'ya.

[AgingAmerican]

172. Yet you attack it with Republican talking points

"Tax and spend liberals"



Go on back to your Reaganomics.

[Persondem]

180. So freaking what!?? You want to push an ill thought out idea you better be ready

to hear some "GOP talking points"... notice I used quotes A-GAIN indicating that those are not my words.

But all you can see is an opportunity to deflect from the point of the discussion. Garbage, middle school debate tactics.

Done.

[Arugula Latte]

109. And the trillions we are wasting on Iraq? Why is that a given that that $ is there

but providing basic human necessities is just pipe dream of tax and spend liberals?

[Persondem]

115. Please provide some documentation for the trillions we ARE spending on Iraq.

In the past perhaps, but trillions already spent do help pay for future policies.

[Enthusiast]

126. "tax and spend liberals" is a Republican slogan. What does that make you?

Single payer is hardly a pipedream. Single payer is a reality for the rest of the developed world.

They all pay less than we do in the USA and have better outcomes.

Republican talking points won't fly here.

[Persondem]

140. Makes me cognizant of the fact that a high priced (i.e. hightax) SP system isn't going to fly

Those quote btw are GOP quotes, not mine. It's a GOP refrain because it works and it would work even better if it were tax and spend socialist.

So how about you give exact details on the numbers that the USA can use to make a SP system work. It makes a great talking point for speeches and such, but I have yet to see any hard numbers that make it work without a few trillion dollars in tax increases.

Bernie's website does not mention it. Odd don't you think. Perhaps he is now aware of the fact that proposing a massive tax hike makes his campaign far less viable.

[Enthusiast]

144. Exact details? You aren't going to get exact details.

If we examine the SP systems from Western Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand we see that they all have differences but one thing they have in common is they are all far cheaper than the status quo in the USA.

Taxes will replace insurance premiums. We will actually get something for our money instead of just fattening the bottom line of a parasitic insurance company.

No one can give you hard numbers because no one has yet to do the work. But, unless the USA is incredibly incompetent we can achieve savings on par with other modern nations.

Out of pocket costs will be less than what we pay now. Most insurance premiums will disappear and be replaced by taxes but taxes that are lower than the old premium rates.

[Persondem]

150. You might as well say pixie dust then. I'd like to see SP in the US, but without the details

it ain't happening.

So Sanders doesn't really have a plan; he has an idea. Big difference.

[Enthusiast]

161. Nonsense. You are just waving your hands around in an effort to hide the facts.

The truth is we can have single payer and we can have it now by exposing the American people to the truth.

[tblue37]

36. Once upon a time she actually attempted to find a way to provide health care access

to everyone. Sad to see her head rightward on the issue, purely for political expediency.

[MaggieD]

45. She did - it's called the ACA

Now if the final 9% could or would sign up for it everyone would have healthcare.

[tblue37]

46. No, I mean her herculean effort during Bill's first administration. nt

[AlbertCat]

48. it's called the ACA

I thought the ACA was based on a MA plan. And Obama implemented it.

[ljm2002]

87. No, everyone would not "have healthcare"...

Last edited Thu Nov 19, 2015, 02:13 AM - Edit history (1)

...everyone would have health insurance, often with inadequate coverage and still quite expensive to use. In other words it is still a market-based system where a large portion of the population is priced out of the market. At the lowest end, that means priced out of even having insurance -- that is why there are still 33 million people uninsured. But even if that "final 9%" could and would sign up, there would still be a huge gap in actual health care.

We can, and will no doubt, argue about whether this or that system is viable. The elephant in the room is the non-viable system we have now. I do not blame that on the ACA, which in my opinion made needed improvements; rather, I blame it on our unwillingness to acknowledge that the basic system we have, and upon which ACA is still based, is broken -- it provides inadequate coverage for many if not most of the insured, it is overly complex, it is way, way too expensive and it is much less effective than it ought to be.

Yes taxes would need to be raised to support a single payer system. In return, society would get huge benefits. First of all, people would seek medical care when they need it, not when it has become an emergency. Doctors' offices would not need as many clerical staff to chase down this, that and the other insurance company and go through coverage details. Companies would no longer need whole departments dealing with the complexities of providing medical coverage to their employees (they would have an increased payroll tax in its place). Employees would no longer be tied to one company based on coverage with their current employer.

The system we have right now is a Rube Goldberg-like contraption that is hard to navigate and expensive and rickety and really, just not that good. That's what we need to get into focus before we decide how to fix it or replace it. My vote is to replace it: I would not want to drive across a Rube Goldberg-like bridge, no matter how fortified, as it is not a solid structure to begin with. Neither is our current health care system.

[grasswire]

93. yes, health care costs would decrease overall.

money is fungible. It is cheaper overall to levy a small tax than to continue the current "system"

[RBInMaine]

38. Ultra-Left Hillary Derangement Syndrome.

[frylock]

77. Ultra-Centrist Derp Syndrome

[Nitram]

111. Ultra-deranged Bernie personality cult syndrome

And I don't see it as an ultra-left thing at all. Just a lot of wishful thinking.

[frylock]

113. Yeah, we're the personality cult droning on about poise and looking presidential.

putting gifs in our sig of our candidate copying Obama brushing the dirt Hillary slung at him. We're the personality cult scheming on other websites. Okay.

[Nitram]

162. Frylock, you were supposed to come up with a funnier and more incisive Utra-something-or-other.

C'mon, I know you've got it in you!

[frylock]

163. Oh gee, another admonishment from Nitram.

How fresh. Go find someone else to follow around the board and scold.

[Nitram]

165. Aw, it was all in jest, Fry old chap.

I'm just trying to keep you honest, Mr. Mole.

[beerandjesus]

138. That's rich!

[AlbertCat]

39. rest of his at least $18-20 trillion agenda.

OOOOOOOooooo... that lie!


It's not 20 trillion MORE than we pay now!

That's a 100%, whole hearted, tied up with a ribbon, misinformation GOP talking point.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

41. This is a fine example of how she self-destructs.

[INdemo]

42. Hillary Clinton most definately should have ran as a Republican

She could have easily won the nomination. Hell Terry McAuliffe could still be her running mate
So why is she attacking Bernie Sanders and the liberal message?
i don't get it. I think she is seeing 2008 unfolding right before her eyes and the 2016 nomination is getting away from her
He inter polling is telling her she is losing

[MaggieD]

44. Clinton is exactly right

Good thing Bernie isn't going to be president.

[AlbertCat]

49. Clinton is exactly to the right

There, fixed it for you.

[MaggieD]

50. Only if you're a socialist

In which case everyone is to the right of you.

[Jack Rabbit]

54. So what's wrong with that?

It sure beats the Third Way and it's tired, failed Republican-lite policies,

[MaggieD]

60. Whatever makes you happy

But it's a bit extreme to characterize someone with a very liberal track record of being a republican when your frame of reference is socialism.

We aren't a socialist country. And I believe Bernie is the only socialist in congress. If socialism were popular here that wouldn't be the case.

It just seems like an unreasonable smear on her. She pretty much in tune with the politics of most Democrats. Which is why she is polling 30% points ahead of him.

[Jack Rabbit]

67. If Mrs C had a liberal track record, it would be extreme

Taking money from Wall Street banksters and doing what they want isn't liberal behavior.

Let's see what the voting profiles of Americans look like after the middle class drowns deregulated banks and free trade agreements. Third Way policies are bad for most Americans.

That's not a smear. It is a fact.

[MaggieD]

71. You sound like you know absolutely nothing about her

What favors did she do for banks? I ask this of everyone that makes this accusation, but I never ever get an answer. Even Bernie could not answer it during the debate. Can you? Be specific.

Also, what trade agreements has she voted for? She voted against CAFTA.

So I'm not seeing ANY facts here. Just the smears.

[RichVRichV]

86. One article on Hillary's mixed record with wall street.

article

[Jack Rabbit]

160. I spent the day gathering a few more in that vein in addition to the one RickV posted

Why DOES Wall Street 'love' Hillary Clinton? (CNN)

As a debate maneuver, {invoking 9/11 in awswer to Senator Sanders' questions about Mrs. Clinton's political and financial ties to Wall Street} proved to be an effective answer that drew audience applause and changed the subject — for the moment. But it doesn't answer the question of who's giving money to Clinton, and what they expect in return.

One clue comes from the Open Secrets database of the Center for Responsive Politics watchdog group, which analyzed $37 million of the donations to Clinton's campaign committee — about 62% of the total — and found $3.2 million of that came from commercial banks and from securities, investment and financial firms, more than any other sector except lawyers and "retired" people who are sufficiently well-off to donate money, although they don't work.

Another index of the candidate's closeness to Wall Street comes from the website of the Clinton Foundation, which lists the places where Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton give speeches and how much they get paid for them. It turns out Hillary Clinton has spoken to Citibank, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Carlyle Investment Management and earned between $250,000 and $500,000 for each talk. That translates into a minimum of $1 million and as much as $2 million for giving four speeches

One wonders what pearls of wisdom could be worth such enormous sums. The answer, according to William Cohan, the author of "Money and Power: How Goldman Sachs Came to Rule the World," is that the big banks see Clinton as one of their own.

Hillary Clinton’s Fake Tough Talk on Wall Street (Daily Beast)
The true love story of Hillary and Wall Street (Washington Examiner)
Hillary Can't Explain Wall Street Ties For A Reason (Daily Kos)
Don't Expect Hillary Clinton to Stand Up to Wall Street (New Republic)
Hillary Clinton Unveils Economic Agenda, but Can’t Shake Wall Street Questions (National Journal)

{F}or skeptics, especially on the Left, Clinton's own history as a senator from New York may give them some pause. At one point in the speech, Clinton derided the bank HSBC for enabling Latin American drug cartels to launder billions of dollars without proper oversight.

"There can be no justification or tolerance for this kind of criminal behavior," she said.

After the speech, the anti-Clinton super PAC America Rising quickly pointed out that in 2011. HSBC Securities Inc. paid Bil Clinton a $200,000 honorarium for a speech he gave in Key Largo, Florida. The bank has also donated between #500,000 and $1 million to the Clinton Foundation.

While HSBC's lack of oversight did not come to light until 2013, its whiff of impropriety shows just how hard it continues to be for Clinton to disentangle her time as a New York politician with the tough-on-Wall-Street image she's trying to craft. At one point in the speech, a man in the audience shouted, "Senator Clinton, will you restore Glass-Steagall?" Security escorted him out, and the rest of the audience drowned out his shouts with applause for Clinton. Economist Alan Blinder, whom Clinton's campaign has hired as a policy adviser, told Reuters on Monday that Clinton will not try to reinstate the bank-break-up law.

As the primary campaign wears on, it will be harder for Clinton to avoid Democrats' lingering questions; eventually, she'll have to address her history, and even her regrets, from her time as a senator. There's still time for evolution.

I doubt that will satisfy you, ma'am, but I doubt you would be satisfied with anything that would further impugn Mrs. Clinton's alleged integrity. In any event, there is ample reason to suppose that Mrs. Clinton is ethically compromised in her dealings with Wall Street. These seems to be at least a substantial evidence to call her integrity into question.

I add one more link just for you, ma'am, for your consideration next time you use this word.

[Nitram]

166. It's a smear when you imply that that's what Clinton will do, Jack.

And that's the Bernista game, isn't it? If you can just persuade us that Clinton isn't a liberal, we'll switch our votes to Bernie. If I believed that were true, I'd support Sanders.

[Jack Rabbit]

174. I'm not implying anything

Hillary Clinton will do what the Big banks want as long as it is politically possible and refrain from doing what they don't want. That is a declarative statement, not an implication.

The statement is based on empirical evidence:

1. Mrs. Clinton receives huge campaign contributions from Wall Street.
2. It is counterintuitive to believe that a candidate who receives money from an industry won't make an effort to please the oligarchs in control the industry or wouldn't make an effort not to cross them.[ol type="a"]
3. Mrs. Clinton has already stated that she will not reinstate Glass-Steagall, something the banking industry does not want to see happen.
4. Mrs. Clinton has received vast sums of money from the banking industry over the years and continues to receive it, either in the form of campaign contributions, donations to the Clinton Foundation or exorbitant speaking fees.

The evidence that Mrs. Clinton has received money from Wall Street banks and continues to receive money from Wall Street banks is well documented (see posts 96 and 160).

A smear is defines as " a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization" (see the link at the very end of post 160).

The evidence that Mrs. Clinton acts to please the oligarchs who control the banking industry is substantial at leat to the point of making it arguable.

Therefore, it is not a smear to charge that Mrs. Clinton receives money from the banking industry and returns the commision favorable actions or the omition unfavorable actions on the industry's behalf.

[Nitram]

176. Jack, I'm afraid your logic and evidence are sadly lacking.

Gut feelings don't qualify as facts.

1. It may be counter-intuitive to YOU, but the laws of evidence require proof. Clinton has not provided any special favors for donors, and it is not a FACT that she will in the future.

2. Therefore, it is a smear to insist that Clinton will surely obey the bidding of corporate donors.

[Jack Rabbit]

181. It is counterintuitive to me

And not to you?

Up to now, I thought the Supreme Shysters writing in Citizens United are the only people who disagreed with that. I guess that I am wrong.

It is not a smear to say the Mrs. Clinton has and will continue to return large donations with the commission of favorable acts on their behalf and the omission of unfavorable ones. Her pledge not to restore Glass-Steagall, which would separate commercial banking from investment banking, is evidence that she responds favorably to receiving substantial support form the banking industry. Most economists agree that the repeal of Glass-Streagall contributed greatly to the 2008 meltdown. We can assume that if elected president next year (that's in the future) that she will follow through because she said she would.

If you want my opinion, then I would say that not only should Glass-Steagall be reinstated, but every word of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1990 should be repealed. And if you want an example of a smear, then a statement like Any woman who is stupid enough marry an iditot who would sign Gramm–Leach–Bliley into law has no business in any position of responsibility, let alone President of the United States is an example of a smear. Of course, I don't believe either Bill or Hillary Clinton are idiots. There's plenty of evidence that they are not. They may use their intellectual prowess in ways I'd rather they didn't, but they aren't stupid.

In any case, the opinion in Citizens United notwithstanding, it is counter-intuitive that Mrs. Clinton or any other politician who benefits from such corporate largess isn't influenced by it and the burden of proof really belongs on those who say that Mrs. Clinton isn't influenced by the generosity of the banking industry to show that she isn't.

Otherwise, I reject you contention that there is nothing in the articles I cited that show that she is, in fact, influenced by the largess of the banking industry and that it is ridiculous to think she will not continue to be. The statement is not smear.

[Nitram]

185. I see, so we make our political and judicial judgement based on intuition now?

Sounds like the George W bush method of presidentin'.

[Jack Rabbit]

190. Baloney

Sounds like the George W. Bush method of predentin' is also an example of a smear. It is an ad
hominem attack.

Hillary Clinton is bought and paid for by Wall Street banks still isn't a smear.

I'll tell you something else it isn't, either, though you seem to think it is. It is not a criminal indictment. Why do you insist that such a remark needs a level of proof as if we are talking about giving Mrs. Clinton a lengthy prison sentence for being bought and paid for by Wall Street banks? Please take your talk about what the law requires and put it back wherever you found it. It isn't relevant here. This is a discussion board, not a court of criminal law. Is it lost on you that I don't the power to put her on trial for corruption? I'm a sick old man blogging on a discussion, not a federal grand jury or a US attorney.

If Senator Cruz took as much money from the American Family Association as Mrs. Clinton takes from Wall Street, you would assume that he's in bed with the leaders of that organization. You would not question that he would make decisions as president (God forbid) that are consistent or refrain from actions that are inconstant with AFA's policies. You wouldn't call that a smear, nor would you demand a higher level of proof than is appropriate to the discussion.

Yes, I think Mrs. Clinton is bought and paid for by Wall Street. Yes, I believe that as president she will not to anything to jeopardize her cozy relationship with Wall Street. While based on intuition, there is nothing so wrong with concluding that a candidate for president would treat an industry favorably in the future in return for already receiving generous campaign contributions, generous contributions to a charity that she runs or exorbitant speaking fees that merit characterizing the judgment as a smear.

There is something wrong with indicting a corrupt politician for favors not yet given in return for money or other items of value received, but that is why one is indicted for already established acts of corruption and, if convicted, stripped of his office and put in the pokey so he can't do in the future.

That is still quite a different thing than a voter, seeing a politician take a great deal of money from an industry and acting favorably toward that industry, concluding that even if it isn't corrupt, it sure looks corrupt, and not voting for that politician as a result.

[Nitram]

191. It is a smear unless you clarify in the statement that it is based on your gut level feeling...

...and not on any evidence of wrong doing. My faith in Hilary is based on gut feeling and the things she has ACTUALLY DONE all her life for the liberal cause. And I'm not interested in your BELIEFS or instincts.

And with all your tough talk, you would be more persuasive without it, Mr. Baloney "stick it where you found it". Discussions go better without hyperbole and macho bluster.

[Jack Rabbit]

192. My good sir, I've been on this board for 14 years

You should know intuitively that what I say is something I believe at a gut level. Most people here are quite aware of that.

Mucho bluster? Me? I'm 64 years old and five-foot-three with more than a wee bit of middle age spread acquired in the last 15 years or so. I couldn't be less macho if I really were a rabbit.

[Enthusiast]

128. Social Security is the single most popular program in America ever—pure socialism.

The rest of the developed world has single payer.

The United States is the lone exception. The reason for that is clear. Politicians are protecting the insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry sacred cows.

[Buzz cook]

97. Anarcho-syndicalists are to the left of many socialists

And far to the left of Sanders.
http://www.uncanny.net/~wetzel/syndicalism.htm

[Segami]

53. BWHAHAHAHA....

very nice.....

[Jack Rabbit]

58. +1

[99Forever]

52. Indifferent to progressives Hillary?

That's okay, this progressive is indifferent to your unquenchable thirst for power.

See? We have something in.common.

[WillyT]

55. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[Duval]

56. Ahh, Segami, what

would I do without your posts. They are always informative and on target. Thank you so very much for helping us understand what is going on.

[Segami]

72. You're most welcome Duval...

[YOHABLO]

64. We live in a greedy superficial and selfish country. Is tiered for profi healthcare ethical? NO

You know I live in a very Red state and my vote for her or Sanders won't even count. I may just sit this one out.

[ViseGrip]

65. Her answer re Wall Street, "I was a senator from NY" means she can't stand up to Wall Street

When I heard her say that, my first thought was she should never have become a senator form that state. As a matter of fact, she could have gone anywhere. She was from Arkansas. Then lived in D.C. So why NY?
hmmmmm.....

[closeupready]

135. In running for president, first doing a term as the "Democratic Senator from NY"

is the 'easy A' - spending an afternoon at the beach working on your tan and claiming a humanities credit under philosophy, since you spent the afternoon 'meditating.' You can't lose, and for her, it was kind of a set-aside.

[postatomic]

74. "the bug-eyed socialist Bernie Sanders wants to take all of your money."

If this is what is considered responsible journalism we're all fucked. Of course Hillary Clinton, nor any of her staff actually said the quote in my subject line. But it deflects from the truth and adds 'drama' to the assertions being made. Kinda' like showing a grieving woman laying on a grave.

His "bill" puts all the burden on the States. And for all you "progressives" that read past the first 50 words of anything, I'd invite you to read this "bill" which the Senate Finance Committee used to wipe its ass.

Check out the huge tax loopholes in this "bill" for those that "progressives" call the 1% that anyone who took Accounting 101 could take advantage of. And where do you think the money the State has to pay for is coming from? The 9% is just a starting point. It would go up every year from there.

Written by a Clinton Hater who should triangulate his job options and go work for Faux News. He knows nothing about what he is writing. Absolutely nothing. Oh, and ask the Governor of Vermont what he thought of this "bill".

[Todays_Illusion]

78. That is why I am a Bernie Sanders Supporter. It is becoming very difficult to be a liberal in

the U.S.A. We have one liberal candidate and the
news and propaganda keep trying to ignore Bernie Sanders.

[Buzz cook]

96. So the objection

Is to how Sanders proposes to pay for single payer, not to the system itself. That makes it a lot less controversial than other threads on the same subject spin it.

Thanks for posting relevant info.

[INdemo]

101. There is still time for Hillary to run on the

Republican ticket. For what reason would they not want her? She has the same financial backers as the other Republicans.
So she would not lose any financial support.

[WillyT]

106. Kick !!!

[ibegurpard]

110. She knows she's not going to make a dent

With the sizable number of people to whom she's not acceptable. The problem is her favorables are underwater with the general public and everyone knows who she is so she has no room to improve. The years of triangulation have painted her into a corner and we will all pay the price for her loss.

[FairWinds]

112. There are some reasonable arguments against . .

single payer that can be made, but the "taxes" one is not among them.

How stupid does she think we are?

[fbc]

117. She is the worst

[Nitram]

167. Incisive point, FBC.

Kind of covers all bases.

[fbc]

168. thanks!

I am an Obama fan, but the DWS appointment is one of his biggest failures as president.

[marym625]

118. K&R!

Excellent!!

#FeelTheBern #Bernie2016

[Fuddnik]

119. I get sicker of Hillary Clinton by the day.

[Buzz Clik]

127. ..

[Enthusiast]

122. K&R! Single payer is my litmus test. I'm not in favor of free money for insurance companies.

I'm also not in favor of paying the highest prices for drugs in the entire world.

Not everyone is a millionaire, Hillary!

[colsohlibgal]

130. Bingo!

The ACA is better than nothing but a lot of us are still vulnerable to paying big bucks so the big shots running the companies can still rake in tens of millions off the top. All those millions for those bloodsuckers contribute to higher premiums, higher deductibles, etc. What do these head honchos add to health care delivery?

This demented system is unique to us among non tinhorn nations.

[Enthusiast]

129. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

I am not allow to say what I think of Hillary. My post would be hidden.

[Herman4747]

133. Can't even wait until after the nomination...

...to begin with the triangulating.

[SoapBox]

142. Hill thinks the ACA just needs tweaking...but today

United HealthCare says they may pull out completely...'cause they ain't making ENOUGH money!

Single payer NOW!!!

Fuck the insurance companies and Pharma too.

[Fast Walker 52]

149. Aye, couldn't agree more

[Fast Walker 52]

148. is she getting desperate?

[Nitram]

170. You're the one that sounds deperate, Fast.

If you are so sure of Bernie, then why bother disparaging Clinton?

[PatrickforO]

152. I'm really, really, REALLY tired of, when I want to use my tax dollars for

stuff that would genuinely make my life better, like single payer healthcare, politicians tell me we cannot afford it.

Because, you know what? No one asked how much the forever war was gonna cost. And no one even batted an eye when it went up into the trillions.

But no single payer?

Bullshit.

[Art_from_Ark]

159. Funny how there's always money available

for stuff that is of little or no benefit for the average citizen.

Imagine what kinds of programs could be funded just from the money that the Pentagon can't account for.

[UglyGreed]

164. .

You got a lotta nerve
To say you are my friend
When I was down
You just stood there grinning

You got a lotta nerve
To say you got a helping hand to lend
You just want to be on
The side that’s winning

You say I let you down
You know it’s not like that
If you’re so hurt
Why then don’t you show it

You say you lost your faith
But that’s not where it’s at
You had no faith to lose
And you know it

I know the reason
That you talk behind my back
I used to be among the crowd
You’re in with

Do you take me for such a fool
To think I’d make contact
With the one who tries to hide
What he don’t know to begin with

You see me on the street
You always act surprised
You say, “How are you?” “Good luck”
But you don’t mean it

When you know as well as me
You’d rather see me paralyzed
Why don’t you just come out once
And scream it

No, I do not feel that good
When I see the heartbreaks you embrace
If I was a master thief
Perhaps I’d rob them

And now I know you’re dissatisfied
With your position and your place
Don’t you understand
It’s not my problem

I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
And just for that one moment
I could be you

Yes, I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
You’d know what a drag it is
To see you

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

179. At least she's not one of them Tax and Spend, bleedin' heart, libruls! K&R

[Fearless]

188. She had truly learned nothing in eight years