Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Bernie 4 Prez anybody? - Page 30







Post#726 at 02-13-2016 03:27 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
02-13-2016, 03:27 PM #726
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
I'm moving to Medicare on April 1st. Medicare Part A is free, and I'll be paying $121 a month for Medicare Part B. My Medigap policy is roughly $145 and my Medicare part D is about $40. So my out of pocket insurance expense is roughly $300 a month, but my total out of pocket medical exposure is $167 a year. My drug expenses should be roughly $100, unless I need something new I'm not taking now.

This is what people want from their ACA plan.
Yes but you get that through the payments provided by tens of millions who pay into the system and receive nothing. To insure them on Medicare would require a major increase in payroll taxes. For many of these taxpayers you would be asking them to pay a lot more in payroll taxes in exchange for nothing, as the Medicare insurance they now qualify for is no better than the employer-provided plan they used to have.

This is why single-payer all-at-once is a political non-starter. On the other hand, Medicare as a public option is create an environment in which the ACA will evolve over time into single payer. This is why Wall Street Democrats* opposed the public option and all Republicans oppose the ACA.

*By Wall Street I mean supporters of free market capitalism, not that they necessarily got Wall Street donations.







Post#727 at 02-13-2016 03:33 PM by Cynic Hero '86 [at Upstate New York joined Jul 2006 #posts 1,285]
---
02-13-2016, 03:33 PM #727
Join Date
Jul 2006
Location
Upstate New York
Posts
1,285

People don't like Hillary not merely because of her politics and/or her record. People hate Hillary because she is the personification of yuppie globalist decadence. She is the personification of the delusional notion that has risen up and become dominant over the last 250-300 years, the idiotic belief that people can actually rule themselves. Prior to about 1700 AD if one looked just about anywhere in the world the form of government was basically the same, a military elite/aristocracy who ruled and provided military protection to the people in return for the submission of the people and the assertion leaderships right to extract produce from the populace any time the leader saw it as necessary. These leaders were usually hereditary and were trained from birth to be rulers.







Post#728 at 02-13-2016 03:45 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
02-13-2016, 03:45 PM #728
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86 View Post
People don't like Hillary not merely because of her politics and/or her record. People hate Hillary because she is the personification of yuppie globalist decadence. She is the personification of the delusional notion that has risen up and become dominant over the last 250-300 years, the idiotic belief that people can actually rule themselves. Prior to about 1700 AD if one looked just about anywhere in the world the form of government was basically the same, a military elite/aristocracy who ruled and provided military protection to the people in return for the submission of the people and the assertion leaderships right to extract produce from the populace any time the leader saw it as necessary. These leaders were usually hereditary and were trained from birth to be rulers.
And we had a Revolution that overturned that system almost everywhere. Progress moves on, and Hillary and other blue Boomers are among those helping to move it forward. Viva La Revolution! Death to all tyrants! The people shall rule themselves from 1789 onward!
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#729 at 02-13-2016 03:51 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
02-13-2016, 03:51 PM #729
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
Yes but you get that through the payments provided by tens of millions who pay into the system and receive nothing. To insure them on Medicare would require a major increase in payroll taxes. For many of these taxpayers you would be asking them to pay a lot more in payroll taxes in exchange for nothing, as the Medicare insurance they now qualify for is no better than the employer-provided plan they used to have.
I'm not so sure. Those who get services through medicare are already a large proportion of the population. While those younger people who would pay in through medicare for all would need much less in services. Medicare tax now is very small. I wonder how much it would really have to be raised to make it medicare for all.

Medicare as it is today doesn't cover everything. So private insurance would remain under that system, as part of Medicare Part C. And Part B still requires that people pay a premium of at least $105 a month. But people have a choice if they want this coverage, although they have to decide when they sign up.

This is why single-payer all-at-once is a political non-starter. On the other hand, Medicare as a public option is create an environment in which the ACA will evolve over time into single payer. This is why Wall Street Democrats* opposed the public option and all Republicans oppose the ACA.
It might evolve; that's one hope. Provided we keep the option alive. Since Bernie probably won't get single-payer, that will happen under Bernie. It depends on how great Bernie's rabble-rousing skills really are, how progressive his administration and congress would be. It wouldn't happen on Jan.20, 2017, that's for sure.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#730 at 02-13-2016 08:28 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
02-13-2016, 08:28 PM #730
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

The happiest countries tend to be the freeist, with a few exceptions.

http://www.fastcoexist.com/3045425/t...s-in-the-world
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#731 at 02-14-2016 12:51 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
02-14-2016, 12:51 PM #731
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
I read that post too. He touches on the problem, but missed the most important part. He talks about how inequality was high in the 1920's just like today, but was low in between. But he doesn't talks about how that happened. He says things like this:

He shows an outcome and then just states that a political side caused this to happen like magic. He doesn't go into more detail because he probably doesn't know HOW it happened. Well if you don't know how something happens how is the hell are you supposed to bring it about?

Sanders talks about raising the top tax rate by 94%. Has a left ever accomplished this in American history? No.

During the New Deal FDR raises top tax rates by 25%, about the same as the 1993 28% increase under Clinton. Republicans raised the top tax rate by 140% just before the New Deal, and supported further increasing the top rate by 21% for the war.

So you see Sanders top pro-equality tool is something "the Left" has never been able to achieve in peacetime. The big increases that were an important contributor to the inequality reduction described in the cited article were mostly done by Republicans. Ask yourself, why did they do it? Can one arrange things so that they are willing to do it again?

He calls for a national minimum wage of $15. This is good. How about calling for a rally in Washington for a 70K minimum salary for exemption from overtime rules. This is something the president can do unilaterally. Maybe a call for a tariff. How about prosecution of those who hire the undocumented, combined with a path to citizenship for those those they employ who show a willingness to become Americans. Maybe steal a bit of Trumps thunder. What I am suggesting is open up a wide range of policy issues, all of which are unified in that they were possibly involved in the great compression. The vast reduction in inequality from 1929-1946 occurred in a world in which immigration has been sharply reduced in 1924, tax raises sharply in 1930, 1935 and 1941, a massive tariff passed in 1930, labor actions legalized in 1935, prohibition ended in 1933, economy flooded with money in 1933 and after, welfare programs established mid 1930's, massive stimulus in 1941-46, price and wage controls with an explicit income leveled objective built in, etc. Lots of moving parts. No one know for sure how big of a role any one of these played. Maybe the results came from most or all of these acting in concert. The more policies along these lines that can be thrown into the debate, the better. And the primary is the time to do it.
In the 1940s and 1950s the economic elites of America dreaded Communism. To ensure that they did not have to face a sullen proletariat ready to stab the economic elites in the back the elites made sure that working people had a stake in the system -- the consumer economy. With the consumer economy also came opportunity for the smart kids of industrial workers to join the middle class by attending college, having work that used their minds instead of their bodies, and buying tract houses in the suburbs.

Today there is no such fear by the economic elites. Those elites can act without conscience and get away with it because they can promote numbing stupidity in mass media, second-rate and limited schooling (college has become expensive and in view of its costs higher education cannot justify itself for the value of learning so much as for vocational training), brutal law enforcement (Ferguson, Missouri), and politicians who thoroughly believe that the first duty of a leader is to his financial backer.

From the late 1940s to the late 1980s, the Soviet threat ensured that the economic elites needed to offer an alternative to Socialism. Now those elites can offer a New Peonage with impunity. Social mobility? The elites need no middle class -- only people in a grim contest to determine who will earn the privilege of survival through their suffering.

Hunger Games, anyone?

I am tempted to believe that labor-management relations are the essence of the domestic struggle of this 4T.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#732 at 02-14-2016 01:49 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
02-14-2016, 01:49 PM #732
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

"I might get BERNED up by the Sun, but I had my fun!"

"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#733 at 02-14-2016 04:22 PM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
02-14-2016, 04:22 PM #733
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
In the 1940s and 1950s the economic elites of America dreaded Communism. To ensure that they did not have to face a sullen proletariat ready to stab the economic elites in the back the elites made sure that working people had a stake in the system -- the consumer economy. With the consumer economy also came opportunity for the smart kids of industrial workers to join the middle class by attending college, having work that used their minds instead of their bodies, and buying tract houses in the suburbs.

Today there is no such fear by the economic elites. Those elites can act without conscience and get away with it because they can promote numbing stupidity in mass media, second-rate and limited schooling (college has become expensive and in view of its costs higher education cannot justify itself for the value of learning so much as for vocational training), brutal law enforcement (Ferguson, Missouri), and politicians who thoroughly believe that the first duty of a leader is to his financial backer.

From the late 1940s to the late 1980s, the Soviet threat ensured that the economic elites needed to offer an alternative to Socialism. Now those elites can offer a New Peonage with impunity. Social mobility? The elites need no middle class -- only people in a grim contest to determine who will earn the privilege of survival through their suffering.

Hunger Games, anyone?

I am tempted to believe that labor-management relations are the essence of the domestic struggle of this 4T.
The US economy was also helped by having a very large share of the world's GNP after the destruction during WWII of much of Europe( including Russia) and Japan.







Post#734 at 02-15-2016 05:58 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
02-15-2016, 05:58 PM #734
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
Yes but you get that through the payments provided by tens of millions who pay into the system and receive nothing. To insure them on Medicare would require a major increase in payroll taxes. For many of these taxpayers you would be asking them to pay a lot more in payroll taxes in exchange for nothing, as the Medicare insurance they now qualify for is no better than the employer-provided plan they used to have.

This is why single-payer all-at-once is a political non-starter. On the other hand, Medicare as a public option is create an environment in which the ACA will evolve over time into single payer. This is why Wall Street Democrats* opposed the public option and all Republicans oppose the ACA.

*By Wall Street I mean supporters of free market capitalism, not that they necessarily got Wall Street donations.
One way to cost-shift without actually shifting costs at all would be to tax companies to recover the healthcare payments they'll shed by moving to Medicare For All. Of course, the devil resides in his usual habitat: the details. It wouldn't bother me too much to see piker companies, like Walmart, be taxed for the plans they should have offered but didn't. In fact, fairness might be a selling point. Then again, the transition method is OK too, but it can't be never ending or subject to a continuous series of steps -- each needing a separate approval by Congress.

The ACA is very weak tea. It will be whittled away to nothing unless it's improved dramatically. It needs an army of advocates ... like Social Security. I don't see that happening with the Rube Goldberg ACA of today.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#735 at 02-15-2016 10:46 PM by Ragnarök_62 [at Oklahoma joined Nov 2006 #posts 5,511]
---
02-15-2016, 10:46 PM #735
Join Date
Nov 2006
Location
Oklahoma
Posts
5,511

Quote Originally Posted by MordecaiK View Post
I think of Hillary's "victory dance" after Libya "We came We saw He died". And then I think of Hillary with nuclear launch codes and I cringe.

But, but, hey she can be my kind of woman.

MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP

There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."







Post#736 at 02-16-2016 12:08 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
02-16-2016, 12:08 AM #736
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by MordecaiK View Post
I think of Hillary's "victory dance" after Libya "We came We saw He died". And then I think of Hillary with nuclear launch codes and I cringe.
One quote is not much basis for cringing. And remember we did not overthrow Qaddafi; the Libyans did.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#737 at 02-16-2016 10:01 AM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
02-16-2016, 10:01 AM #737
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by radind View Post
The US economy was also helped by having a very large share of the world's GNP after the destruction during WWII of much of Europe (including Russia) and Japan.
Immediately after WWII the US was in an excellent position as an exporter. But see also those countries with market economies that largely escaped the ravages of a Crisis War to the US to their infrastructure -- Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Brazil, Mexico, Cuba, Sweden, Switzerland, Portugal, and (for a short time, as the country experienced few bombing raids or protracted battles) Czechoslovakia. British India (but not Burma, a war zone) enjoyed its most prosperous time ever.

On the other side, the US ended up with obsolete manufacturing plant because it was heavily pre-war (1920s and earlier) while Japan, Britain, and most of western continental Europe got more modern equipment.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#738 at 02-16-2016 11:52 AM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
02-16-2016, 11:52 AM #738
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
Immediately after WWII the US was in an excellent position as an exporter. But see also those countries with market economies that largely escaped the ravages of a Crisis War to the US to their infrastructure -- Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Brazil, Mexico, Cuba, Sweden, Switzerland, Portugal, and (for a short time, as the country experienced few bombing raids or protracted battles) Czechoslovakia. British India (but not Burma, a war zone) enjoyed its most prosperous time ever.

On the other side, the US ended up with obsolete manufacturing plant because it was heavily pre-war (1920s and earlier) while Japan, Britain, and most of western continental Europe got more modern equipment.
The modern equipment had an effect, but it took some time for them to rebuild. The US did very well for a while.
Japan also had the good sense to listen to Deming on the value of Quality. The US Auto makers ignored this move for way too long.
Detroit tried to blame poor quality cars on the workers when the real problem in quality and cost was the old manufacturing systems.







Post#739 at 02-16-2016 12:41 PM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
02-16-2016, 12:41 PM #739
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

I found an interesting HBR article on Statistical Quality Control(SQC) in manufacturing.


The Emerging Theory of Manufacturing


https://hbr.org/1990/05/the-emerging...-manufacturing


… "The Japanese owe their leadership in manufacturing quality largely to their embrace of Deming’s precepts in the 1950s and 1960s. Juran too had great impact in Japan. But U.S. industry ignored their contributions for 40 years and is only now converting to SQC, with companies such as Ford, General Motors, and Xerox among the new disciples. Western Europe also has largely ignored the concept. More important, even SQC’s most successful practitioners do not thoroughly understand what it really does. Generally, it is considered a production tool. Actually, its greatest impact is on the factory’s social organization.”…


… " Even after adjusting for their far greater reliance on outside suppliers, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan turn out two or three times more cars per worker than comparable U.S. or European plants do. Building quality into the process accounts for no more than one-third of this difference. Japan’s major productivity gains are the result of social changes brought about by SQC.”…


… “In the main, the United States has lacked the methodology to build quality and productivity into the manufacturing process Similarly, we have lacked the methodology to move responsibility for the process and control of it to the machine operator, to put into practice what the mathematician Norbert Wiener called the “human use of human beings.””…







Post#740 at 02-16-2016 01:57 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
02-16-2016, 01:57 PM #740
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by radind View Post
I found an interesting HBR article on Statistical Quality Control(SQC) in manufacturing.
Very good; very important IMO.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#741 at 02-16-2016 02:40 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
02-16-2016, 02:40 PM #741
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62 View Post
But, but, hey she can be my kind of woman.

Yep, and here's the other choice -





Given the American electorate IN THE GENERAL, which choice do you think the GOP is dying to run against?

Karl Rove knows, and is putting his money on it -

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/firs...didnt-ask-for/

Bernie Sanders Gets Some Outside Help He Didn’t Ask For

I'm reminded of those times the Dems had complete control of the federal government - WH and Congress - and couldn't get anything much done because of infighting and, well, not engaging brains.

It's amazing how Progressives screw up sure things for themselves.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#742 at 02-16-2016 03:15 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
02-16-2016, 03:15 PM #742
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

There's not the slightest doubt the Republicans will peddle that meme of Bernie riding the magic pony and giving away other people's money. But they will be equally hard on Hillary. They will whack whoever the Democrats nominate with equal glee. To them, anyone to the left of Attila the Hun is a socialist giving away other people's money.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#743 at 02-16-2016 04:10 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
02-16-2016, 04:10 PM #743
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
Yep, and here's the other choice -





Given the American electorate IN THE GENERAL, which choice do you think the GOP is dying to run against?

Karl Rove knows, and is putting his money on it -

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/firs...didnt-ask-for/




I'm reminded of those times the Dems had complete control of the federal government - WH and Congress - and couldn't get anything much done because of infighting and, well, not engaging brains.

It's amazing how Progressives screw up sure things for themselves.
I hope you're not one of those Clinton supporters who will sit on their asses scolding the Sanders team if Sanders does win.

Let's face it, both of the two remaining Democratic candidates have definite flaws. In my view, Clinton has an expired "sell-by" date (too long in the public glare), plus too many ties to the establishment for the mood of the country today. Sanders lacks foreign policy chops and is viewed as too radical. Both are older than I'd like my President to be. Both are very vulnerable to Republican attacks. And both are 1,000 times better than anyone on the other side of the aisle.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#744 at 02-16-2016 07:40 PM by Ragnarök_62 [at Oklahoma joined Nov 2006 #posts 5,511]
---
02-16-2016, 07:40 PM #744
Join Date
Nov 2006
Location
Oklahoma
Posts
5,511

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite

Wow, the unicorns are hot. The last I saw one was in granny's bathroom with the squatty-potty.

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite

Given the American electorate IN THE GENERAL, which choice do you think the GOP is dying to run against?

Karl Rove knows, and is putting his money on it -

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/firs...didnt-ask-for/
Hmm. lessee if we get this for the 2016 person of the year, 'kay?






Snakes are more trustworthy of Rove the Hut. I also have to admit, I don't have the magic words to turn sheeple into werewolves.

Why can't Bernie call up "Gentle Ben" ? "Gentle Ben" was also a kiddie show in the late 60's 'cause I remember it.



I take it , only werewolves, but not sheeple understand the above.


Quote Originally Posted by playwrite
I'm reminded of those times the Dems had complete control of the federal government - WH and Congress - and couldn't get anything much done because of infighting and, well, not engaging brains.
Yes.

It's amazing how Progressives screw up sure things for themselves.
I'd say it's more of the "American Sheeple" thing. Like it's only Sheeple who'd actually believe the Shrub brothers stating that they're good because they "protected us [from terror]". In actuality this is stupid because one never, ever makes friends and influences people by bombing them to smithereens.
Last edited by Ragnarök_62; 02-16-2016 at 07:45 PM.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP

There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."







Post#745 at 02-16-2016 09:24 PM by MordecaiK [at joined Mar 2014 #posts 1,086]
---
02-16-2016, 09:24 PM #745
Join Date
Mar 2014
Posts
1,086

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
Yes but you get that through the payments provided by tens of millions who pay into the system and receive nothing. To insure them on Medicare would require a major increase in payroll taxes. For many of these taxpayers you would be asking them to pay a lot more in payroll taxes in exchange for nothing, as the Medicare insurance they now qualify for is no better than the employer-provided plan they used to have.

This is why single-payer all-at-once is a political non-starter. On the other hand, Medicare as a public option is create an environment in which the ACA will evolve over time into single payer. This is why Wall Street Democrats* opposed the public option and all Republicans oppose the ACA.

*By Wall Street I mean supporters of free market capitalism, not that they necessarily got Wall Street donations.
It worked on a smaller scale for Australia when Australia implemented it's Medicare system under Gough Whitlam (to whom Sanders has an eerie political resemblance). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28Australia%29. So it CAN be done if the political will is there. Any history of how Medicare came to NZ, Taramarie?







Post#746 at 02-16-2016 09:25 PM by MordecaiK [at joined Mar 2014 #posts 1,086]
---
02-16-2016, 09:25 PM #746
Join Date
Mar 2014
Posts
1,086

Quote Originally Posted by The Wonkette View Post
I hope you're not one of those Clinton supporters who will sit on their asses scolding the Sanders team if Sanders does win.

Let's face it, both of the two remaining Democratic candidates have definite flaws. In my view, Clinton has an expired "sell-by" date (too long in the public glare), plus too many ties to the establishment for the mood of the country today. Sanders lacks foreign policy chops and is viewed as too radical. Both are older than I'd like my President to be. Both are very vulnerable to Republican attacks. And both are 1,000 times better than anyone on the other side of the aisle.
Actually, my first choice would probably have been Jim Webb, who does have defence and foreign policy chops.







Post#747 at 02-17-2016 01:29 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
02-17-2016, 01:29 PM #747
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by The Wonkette View Post
I hope you're not one of those Clinton supporters who will sit on their asses scolding the Sanders team if Sanders does win.

Let's face it, both of the two remaining Democratic candidates have definite flaws. In my view, Clinton has an expired "sell-by" date (too long in the public glare), plus too many ties to the establishment for the mood of the country today. Sanders lacks foreign policy chops and is viewed as too radical. Both are older than I'd like my President to be. Both are very vulnerable to Republican attacks. And both are 1,000 times better than anyone on the other side of the aisle.
No, that's not me. I'll be in my usual full attack mode to destroy GOP regardless of the Dem nominee.

I just wish E. Warren was running - all the attributes of the two current choices and none of the baggage.

What an unbelievable missed opportunity. :-(
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#748 at 02-17-2016 01:35 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
02-17-2016, 01:35 PM #748
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by MordecaiK View Post
Actually, my first choice would probably have been Jim Webb, who does have defence and foreign policy chops.
And probably a lot more warlike than Hillary Clinton.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#749 at 02-17-2016 02:00 PM by Cynic Hero '86 [at Upstate New York joined Jul 2006 #posts 1,285]
---
02-17-2016, 02:00 PM #749
Join Date
Jul 2006
Location
Upstate New York
Posts
1,285

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
And probably a lot more warlike than Hillary Clinton.
Hillary would take us into to war in order to defend other peoples lands and interests and not that of the US. A trump or a webb would go to war to advance AMERICAN interests.







Post#750 at 02-17-2016 02:05 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
02-17-2016, 02:05 PM #750
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86 View Post
Hillary would take us into to war in order to defend other peoples lands and interests and not that of the US. A trump or a webb would go to war to advance AMERICAN interests.
But Trump and Webb are boomers too.

Hillary would use some encouragements and apply pressure, like she did with Iran and recommended in Syria. And she helped and encouraged Obama to go after bin Laden. I haven't heard her recommend ground troops anywhere. But on Iraq, Webb and Trump were correct and she was wrong. Does one vote really suggest what she would "take us into," though?
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece
-----------------------------------------