Whether it is or not depends on whether you are a winner or a loser and if you’re a member of a group that is important to the Democratic Party.
The first problem with single payer will be unions and their gold plated plans. They are going to get the cadillac tax killed. You think single payer has a chance in that environment?
So first you complain about Sanders’ taxes. Then you claim the program will never come to pass anyway for reasons unrelated to taxes. :smack: … Around and around in circles we go …
Do you see why trying to have a discussion with you is frustrating?
Fine, stick to the taxes then, even though Sanders is vastly underestimating what it will cost. You don’t think wages will drop because of the employer side of that payroll tax? Sanders is going to have to get serious about controlling immigration if he doesn’t want to see a huge wage drop under his watch.
You say wages will rise since businesses won’t have to pay for health insurance, but they do actually have to pay for health insurance still: through the tax increase.
I Googled around a bit - are there any reasonably unbiased data about
[ul][li]How much Sanders claims he will raise with his tax increases[/ul][/li]
[ul][li]How much he is likely actually to raise with his tax increases[/ul][/li]
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t think my firm would pay as much in additional taxes as we do not for our employee health plan.
Certainly employers will raise wages instead of buying that new yacht and a new Gulfstream G650. I’m betting you meant corporate perks and bonuses will rise, not wages and salaries.
Conor Lynch: Bernie Sanders could be the next Ronald Reagan. In terms of changing the ideological playing field, that is.
Why? Immigration from Mexico has been declining for years; from 2009 to 2014, there was a net reduction in the number of Mexican immigrants in the US as more Mexicans left the US than came here.
You are making the erroneous assumption that illegal immigration is only from Mexico. Surely you’ve seen the stories of the massive numbers now coming from Central America, which is at least partially offsetting the decline from Mexico so that the number of people here illegally is remaining about the same, not declining. Link.
The last two guys that accomplished that were extremely charismatic. I don’t think Bernie can pull it off, and there’s a lot of danger in him trying. 2018 is an ugly enough map for Democrats as it is. If Sanders pushed too hard, Republicans could emerge with veto proof majorities. That’s assuming they take no losses in 2016, of course, which is also possible, as Bernie would probably have poor coattails. Bernie’s success would probably inspire unwise primary challenges by socialist candidates which would cost some seats the Democrats otherwise might have won.
Bernie Sanders is apparently either pandering to the conspiracy theory Left, or he is actually a conspiracy theorist himself. This is the type of wackadoodle stuff you hear on late night talk radio:
Next he’ll be accusing Jay-Z of being part of the Illuminati, joining the Nation of Gods and Earths, and quoting from the Isis Papers.
It’s not that wackadoodle - a software company saying “Here, have this new voting app for free! It’s completely reliable! Promise!” ought to raise red flags even if you weren’t one of the ones questioning the reliability of Diebold machines in the past. The benefits of tampering are high and the accountability low - it’s entirely possible that the app is fine and they’re just doing it for the publicity or future contracts, but why take chances? People’s votes should be sacrosanct.
And best to make sure everything works fine before the election rather than after when any challenge will be seen as sour grapes.
Thank you for your concern-t-- . . . for your concern.
The idea that Microsoft would risk total and complete catastrophe, by being outed as fraudsters, in order to ensure* Hillary Clinton* wins the Iowa Caucus is indeed wackadoodle.
The chance that Microsoft would cobble together a piece of shit software that can’t even add properly and push it as a useful product is pretty high.
“D’Alessandro said he has complete confidence in the Iowa Democratic Party, and “absolute trust on integrity,” explaining that his own issue was with Microsoft only.”
This quote would scare me if I was a Sanders supporter. But, then again I wouldn’t understand the dynamics of government accountability vs. corporate accountability.
I don’t want to get into a tech geek argument. The campaign is expressly questioning the integrity of Microsoft, not the ability. In fact they are insinuating Microsoft is cunning enough and capable enough to pull off a vote heist. All because they are an eeeeevil corporation.
Apparently even with insurance premiums dropping to zero, people would be paying more in taxes than they’d save in not having premiums, according to a study by respected health care expert, Kenneth Thorpe (who Vermont actually hired when they tried to create their own single payer system):
I mean the trade off may be considered to be worth it, but lets not think single payer is something magical.
Integrity is not solely an issue of moral purpose. It includes more intangibles like commitment to quality, thorough testing, etc. I wouldn’t trust the Microsoft product either, because I have seen them produce buggy junk software for 30 years.
I won’t address the tech geek claim. Again, the campaign is concerned Microsoft rigged the app, not that the app won’t work.