Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 4:29:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2019 13:50:31 GMT
This from the WSJ...
”Rahm Emanuel, Ex-Chicago Mayor, Is Going to Wall Street”
He is joining Centerview, a boutique investment bank, as a counselor to large firms”
Prompted this from AOC...
“Not all Democrats are the same.”
Yes there are all kinds of people that makes up the Democratic Party, that is why it’s known as the party of inclusion. They even let you in it. So what’s your point?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 4:29:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2019 14:13:27 GMT
trump..
”Everyone very excited about the new deal with Mexico!”
”Nervous Nancy Pelosi & the Democrat House are getting nothing done. Perhaps they could lead the way with the USMCA, the spectacular & very popular new Trade Deal that replaces NAFTA, the worst Trade Deal in the history of the U.S.A. Great for our Farmers, Manufacturers & Unions!”
Are all of you “very excited” about the new deal with Mexico?
From what I understand the biggest change in NAFTA is the name to USMCA.
Such a insecure vindictive little man.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 4:29:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2019 16:44:32 GMT
Kyle Griffin...
”NYT confirms WaPo: The W.H. tried to stop a State Dept. senior intel analyst from discussing climate science in congressional testimony this week.
The reasoning, according to a June 4 email, was that the science did not match the Trump admin's views.”
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jun 8, 2019 17:11:25 GMT
DOOMED!!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 4:29:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 0:20:15 GMT
David Axelrod...
”Sec. Gates, 75, on considerations for older candidates: "there's also a question about intellectual curiosity and intellectual flexibility. How willing are you to change your views? The truth is the older most of us get, the more set in our ways we get." #AxeFiles on @cnn”
There is truth in his statement. trump is a prime example of someone lacking intellectual curiosity. And so is, to a certain degree, Bernie Sanders. But Sanders is more lacking in intellectual flexibility .
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 9, 2019 0:41:14 GMT
trump is a prime example of someone lacking intellectual curiosity Not so sure that it is all age related......
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 4:29:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 3:31:02 GMT
And so it starts..
”#6- Crews battling #SandFire in #YoloCounty which has now spread to 600 acres. #CalFire #California #wildfires #wind #fire #Cawildfires #firefighters abc7ne.ws/2WzKmSf”
”5- #SandFire jump Highway 16 prompting mandatory evacuations. #CalFire says strong winds main reason for how quickly the #fire spread. #California #wildfires #wind #YoloCounty abc7ne.ws/2WzKmSf”
“California utility to cut power to 27,000 customers to reduce wildfire risk reut.rs/2IvXiOS”
”#SandFire Update: Wildfire burning off County Rd. 41 and Hwy. 16 in Yolo County is now 1,700 acres, Cal Fire says. Get the latest”
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 9, 2019 3:52:03 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 4:29:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 4:07:19 GMT
From the petty little man in the White House..
”Little @donnydeutsch, whose show, like his previous shoebiz tries, is a disaster, has been saying that I had been a friend of his. This is false. He, & separately @erinburnett, used to BEG me to be on episodes of the Apprentice (both were bad), but that was it. Hardly knew him,..”
“other than to know he was, and is, a total Loser. When he makes statements about me, they are made up, he knows nothing!”
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 9, 2019 4:09:15 GMT
RAnd so it starts.. ”#6- Crews battling #SandFire in #YoloCounty which has now spread to 600 acres. #CalFire #California #wildfires #wind #fire #Cawildfires #firefighters abc7ne.ws/2WzKmSf” ”5- #SandFire jump Highway 16 prompting mandatory evacuations. #CalFire says strong winds main reason for how quickly the #fire spread. #California #wildfires #wind #YoloCounty abc7ne.ws/2WzKmSf” “California utility to cut power to 27,000 customers to reduce wildfire risk reut.rs/2IvXiOS” ”#SandFire Update: Wildfire burning off County Rd. 41 and Hwy. 16 in Yolo County is now 1,700 acres, Cal Fire says. Get the latest” So very sorry the fires have started. And the midwest is under water.
|
|
|
Post by Crack-a-lackin on Jun 9, 2019 4:17:02 GMT
oh, my word, that’s embarrassingly arrogant
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jun 9, 2019 4:29:10 GMT
RAnd so it starts.. ”#6- Crews battling #SandFire in #YoloCounty which has now spread to 600 acres. #CalFire #California #wildfires #wind #fire #Cawildfires #firefighters abc7ne.ws/2WzKmSf” ”5- #SandFire jump Highway 16 prompting mandatory evacuations. #CalFire says strong winds main reason for how quickly the #fire spread. #California #wildfires #wind #YoloCounty abc7ne.ws/2WzKmSf” “California utility to cut power to 27,000 customers to reduce wildfire risk reut.rs/2IvXiOS” ”#SandFire Update: Wildfire burning off County Rd. 41 and Hwy. 16 in Yolo County is now 1,700 acres, Cal Fire says. Get the latest” I Liked your post but I really just wanted to do a sad face.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 4:29:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 4:41:29 GMT
trump...
”MEXICO HAS AGREED TO IMMEDIATELY BEGIN BUYING LARGE QUANTITIES OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT FROM OUR GREAT PATRIOT FARMERS!”
I guess someone saw the report that Mexico really isn’t buying large quantities agricultural product.
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Jun 9, 2019 6:30:36 GMT
Who in their right minds think Trump would draw that big a crowd in London? trump. To be fair, I did specify “in their right minds.”
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Jun 9, 2019 6:36:33 GMT
And so it starts.. ”#6- Crews battling #SandFire in #YoloCounty which has now spread to 600 acres. #CalFire #California #wildfires #wind #fire #Cawildfires #firefighters abc7ne.ws/2WzKmSf” ”5- #SandFire jump Highway 16 prompting mandatory evacuations. #CalFire says strong winds main reason for how quickly the #fire spread. #California #wildfires #wind #YoloCounty abc7ne.ws/2WzKmSf” “California utility to cut power to 27,000 customers to reduce wildfire risk reut.rs/2IvXiOS” ”#SandFire Update: Wildfire burning off County Rd. 41 and Hwy. 16 in Yolo County is now 1,700 acres, Cal Fire says. Get the latest” Okay, which one of you California ladies forgot to rake the leaves? /pissed off statement about our ignorant president. I really hope this is able to be brought under control quickly. How dry is it in that area? How are the winds? Any peas in the area? Stay safe ladies!
|
|
|
Post by LavenderLayoutLady on Jun 9, 2019 10:51:36 GMT
From the petty little man in the White House.. ”Little @donnydeutsch, whose show, like his previous shoebiz tries, is a disaster, has been saying that I had been a friend of his. This is false. He, & separately @erinburnett, used to BEG me to be on episodes of the Apprentice (both were bad), but that was it. Hardly knew him,..” “other than to know he was, and is, a total Loser. When he makes statements about me, they are made up, he knows nothing!” Can I just state aloud, yet again because it is important to remember and not get used to it : It is NOT normal for the president of the United States to publicly insult citizens. This cannot become the new normal.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 4:29:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 12:26:16 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 4:29:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 12:32:01 GMT
Why am I not surprised.. Washington Post. “Many Republicans said congressional subpoenas were mandatory. Now they suggest they’re optional.”“Some GOP lawmakers have argued Trump administration officials don’t have to comply. It’s a complete reversal from their earlier position. In the past few weeks, a growing number of Democratic lawmakers have called to begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump. This intensifying drumbeat stems in part from the Trump administration’s repeated defiance of congressional subpoenas. At least two of the four subpoenas issued by the House Judiciary Committee in 2019 have been ignored. It is unclear whether or how fully two other subpoenas — to former White House aide Hope Hicks and ex-White House counsel Donald McGahn’s chief of staff Annie Donaldson (the New York Times reported this week Hicks had given the committee only “four documents containing email chains”) — have been complied with. But amid this defiance, congressional Republicans have taken a starkly different position toward compliance with said subpoenas, examples of which you can watch in the video above. In July, Rep. Matt Gaetz (Fla.) joined 10 other House Republicans to introduce articles of impeachment against then-Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein for not fully complying with subpoena requests for classified Justice Department documents. Now, Gaetz says House Democrats are “trying to force” Attorney General William P. Barr to break the law by requesting the redacted grand jury material in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report, seemingly ignoring that Barr can legally petition the court to release grand jury material to the committee. In supporting the 2018 impeachment resolution against Rosenstein, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said “it’s all about transparency.” Eight months later, Meadows slammed a Democratic subpoena for the unredacted Mueller report, saying it was about the 2020 election, not transparency. In October, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) supported a subpoena threat against Rosenstein, after a New York Times report that Rosenstein considered wearing a wire to record Trump. “When you’re the guy who in reality is running the Justice Department and the chairman of the committee that has jurisdiction over your agency asks you to come, you are obligated to come,” Jordan said on Oct. 14. But after the Senate Intelligence Committee subpoenaed Donald Trump Jr. in May, Jordan told Trump Jr. to ignore it. And when former FBI lawyer Lisa Page initially defied a congressional subpoena in July, Rep. Douglas A. Collins (R-Ga.) said: “These subpoenas do not come with an RSVP. They’re supposed to show up.” Now, Collins is admonishing Judiciary Democrats for “abusing” their subpoena power. It is worth noting that Democrats have long been critical of Republican subpoenas, at times abstaining from votes or halting hearings altogether via parliamentary maneuvering. House Judiciary Committee member Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) even told Rosenstein to stop complying with subpoena requests in June 2018 (“I think he actually needs to start saying no,” Swalwell told CNN at the time). But since Trump’s election, House Democrats have been far less likely to suggest congressional subpoenas are optional, according to a review by The Fix. Indeed, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), then the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, called on Page to comply with the committee’s subpoena in July. Now, as Democrats mull an impeachment inquiry, the question of whether defying congressional subpoenas constitutes a constitutional crisis — as Nadler and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have asserted — is a central component of whether Democrats will ultimately start impeachment proceedings. “I think we’re on the threshold of ,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) said on MSNBC on May 13 (Schiff has yet to call for impeachment proceedings against Trump). “Where we would be in a full-blown crisis is if we get to court, the court rules against Trump and Trump says, ‘I don’t care, I’m still not going to comply.’ ”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 4:29:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 12:34:28 GMT
Steve Benen...
”Jobs created in the first 28 months of Trump's presidency: 5.4 million
Jobs created in the last 28 months of Obama's presidency: 6.1 million
Still no word from the White House on it thinks why job growth has slowed.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 4:29:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 13:04:50 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 4:29:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 13:18:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Jun 9, 2019 13:28:22 GMT
And so it starts.. ”#6- Crews battling #SandFire in #YoloCounty which has now spread to 600 acres. #CalFire #California #wildfires #wind #fire #Cawildfires #firefighters abc7ne.ws/2WzKmSf” ”5- #SandFire jump Highway 16 prompting mandatory evacuations. #CalFire says strong winds main reason for how quickly the #fire spread. #California #wildfires #wind #YoloCounty abc7ne.ws/2WzKmSf” “California utility to cut power to 27,000 customers to reduce wildfire risk reut.rs/2IvXiOS” ”#SandFire Update: Wildfire burning off County Rd. 41 and Hwy. 16 in Yolo County is now 1,700 acres, Cal Fire says. Get the latest” Okay, which one of you California ladies forgot to rake the leaves? /pissed off statement about our ignorant president. I really hope this is able to be brought under control quickly. How dry is it in that area? How are the winds? Any peas in the area? Stay safe ladies! He just ended a program where the forest service trained & hired people - less people to send out & do forestry things should ‘raking’ be needed. NJ does controlled burns to maintain the pinelands, the problem is when it’s too dry you can’t do that.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 4:29:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 13:36:28 GMT
The Christian Science Monitor..
“ Centrist Democrats are back. But these are not your father’s Blue Dogs.”
“The 2018 midterms gave Capitol Hill’s Blue Dog coalition new members and new clout, even as the definition of ‘centrist’ is shifting.
When Mikie Sherrill first ran into the congressional Blue Dog coalition in 2018, she wasn’t sure it would be the place for her.
She knew the caucus focused on fiscal and national defense issues, which she – a Democrat then running for a GOP-held seat in northern New Jersey – cared deeply about. But she also knew it had been founded by a group of white Democratic congressmen, most from the South, who felt they were being “choked blue” by the party’s leftward shift. She remembered that the coalition, back in 2009, had urged changes to the Affordable Care Act that some in the party say watered down President Barack Obama’s signature bill.
“I had some pause,” Representative Sherrill says in a phone interview. “I had some concerns about the policies, about the history.”
What won her over was Stephanie Murphy, the Vietnam-born Florida lawmaker who came to Congress in 2017 and now serves as the first woman of color to co-chair the Blue Dogs. The two women connected instantly on the issues. “She was incredibly thoughtful about how to move the economy forward, creating broad coalitions, moving on infrastructure,” Representative Sherrill recalls. They also shared experiences: young kids at home, careers in public service (the Pentagon for Representative Murphy, the Navy for Representative Sherrill), and support for LGBTQ and women’s rights.
Such résumés would have been unusual, if not unimaginable, for the original Blue Dogs. Today’s coalition, however, looks a lot like the rest of the Democratic caucus: less white, less male, and less conservative. Current Blue Dogs hail from red and purple districts across the country, including the Northeast and the Pacific Northwest. And like Representative Sherrill, their newest members campaigned – and won – on bread-and-butter issues like health care and infrastructure.
Blue Dog members say they still stand by the old centrist mantra of fiscal responsibility, a strong national defense, and commonsense solutions to practical problems. But their membership today reflects how much the demographic and geographic profiles of the Democratic Party have changed – and how much the political center has shifted.
“It seems so cliché, but I can’t help but think, ‘This is not your father’s Blue Dog committee,’” says Representative Sherrill. “Those who say it’s an old, white, Southern caucus – I tell them they haven’t seen the Blue Dogs lately.”
“Democrats in name only’
The Blue Dogs were founded in 1995, the year after Republicans took control of the House for the first time in four decades. Though the caucus didn’t officially take positions on social issues, most of its members were Southern Democrats with conservative views on things like abortion and gun control. They focused on fiscal issues, however, and rose to prominence in their early years during budget negotiations. Their bills straddled the line between what Republicans wanted, which was usually tax cuts or reduced spending, and what Democrats called for, which was often more investment in federal programs.
The 2009-10 session, with the coalition at 51 members, was a productive legislative term for them: They got Congress to restore Pay-As-You-Go budget rules, which require lawmakers to offset the cost of any increased spending on entitlements by cutting funding for other programs or raising other revenues. They successfully opposed a public option to compete with private insurance companies under what would become the Affordable Care Act. And they sponsored a bill that required federal agencies to report their achievements every fiscal year so that congressional committees had a basis for setting each agency’s annual budget.
The work was rarely easy, or popular. Their role in the public option debate, for instance, drew criticism from the progressive left, which accused them of being DINOs – “Democrats in name only” – and using fiscal responsibility as camouflage for their support of corporate interests. “[They] seemed to exist to stop Democrats from achieving their objectives,” says Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, a progressive advocacy firm.
Blue Dogs are in the middle of the road all right – but only in the sense that a dog hugging the center stripe amid whizzing 18-wheelers is in the middle of the road,” Dennis Farney wrote for The Wall Street Journal back in 1997. “In today’s Congress the center may be the most dangerous and discouraging place of all.”
Over the years, as party lines deepened and conservative Democrats either retired, were challenged in the primaries, or defected to the GOP, the coalition – like centrists in general – dwindled. In the wake of the tea party takeover, Blue Dogs were down to just 15 members.
The situation began to turn after this last midterm. The so-called “blue wave” that brought to Congress the most diverse class of freshmen in history included 42 Democrats who had flipped their districts. Ten, including Representative Sherrill, became Blue Dogs, bringing the coalition’s numbers up to 27 – enough to influence legislation, given the Democrats’ 18-seat House majority.
“When they have a sizable number, like they do now, their votes are needed,” says Jennifer Walsh, a public affairs director for the D.C. law firm Foley and Lardner, and former chief of staff to California Rep. Dennis Cardoza, a Blue Dog who retired in 2012. “It’s fun when your votes are needed. People care what you think.”
“Newfound clout”
The Blue Dogs began taking advantage of their new numbers right after the election. Representative Murphy was among those who held back her vote for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi until leadership promised a group of moderates that bipartisan bills would have an easier time making it to the floor for votes. (Some Blue Dogs, like Representatives Sherrill and Ben McAdams of Utah, didn’t vote for Speaker Pelosi at all.)
Once the session started, they made sure that their party’s agenda-setting H.R. 1 included language around campaign finance and redistricting reform. They took vocal positions on infrastructure and rural broadband. They’re supporting Representative McAdams’ proposal for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and stalling a $15 minimum wage bill until it’s more amenable to rural areas.
Blue Dogs say these efforts prove they’ve stuck to the coalition’s founding vision of providing an alternative to the party’s liberal wing. “We’re still united around the same issues that we’ve always been united around, and that’s fiscal responsibility, national security,” Representative Murphy says at a meeting of the coalition’s co-chairs at her offices on Capitol Hill.
But they’re decidedly not the Blue Dogs of old. Though there’s still some variety in their social views – Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois, for instance, is prominently antiabortion – most members align with their party on issues like reproductive health, gun laws, and immigration. Many push back against being labeled conservative, or even moderate. Representative Murphy would rather they’re called “pragmatic Democrats,” willing to work with Republicans and progressives alike to move practical legislation forward.
And members say it’s she – who fled communist Vietnam with her family in 1979, and recently penned an op-ed defending capitalism – who embodies the new narrative that’s driving the coalition. She “was able to lift herself up and create opportunities for herself and her family,” Representative McAdams says in a phone interview. “Her personal story encapsulates for me a lot of what the Blue Dogs are.”
Skepticism from both sides
Some observers say this shows that the coalition, like the party, is drifting away from the center. The Blue Dogs may have regained some influence after 2018, but it’s hard to imagine the trend of polarization reversing itself. “They make a stylistically moderate point,” says Danielle Thomsen, a visiting scholar in politics at Princeton University and author of a book on the political center. But from the policy side, she says, “the actual demands that they’re trying to make might not differ so much from the party mainstream.”
Progressives like Mr. Lawson disagree; he says many Blue Dogs today use socially liberal views to win support from Democratic voters, despite the fact that on economic matters they represent corporate interests. He says the coalition wrongly identifies the political center as a place where Wall Street gets a bigger piece than Main Street. “It’s ‘fiscal responsibility’ that happens to hurt the people,” he says.
Blue Dogs say they’re used to skepticism from across the political spectrum. At the meeting with Blue Dog leaders, Rep. Kurt Schrader of Oregon remembers having to convince former Reps. John Tanner of Tennessee and Allen Boyd of Florida that he was serious about addressing fiscal issues. “Everyone assumed, ‘Oregon’s very deep blue, and therefore you’re a tax-and-spend liberal Democrat,’” Representative Schrader says.
He says the coalition’s growing diversity, reflective of both the Democratic Party and the country, shows that more Americans want what they offer than ever before. After most of the other members have left the meeting, rushing off to committee hearings and floor votes, he and freshman co-chair Anthony Brindisi of New York stick around to hammer their point home.
“Bipartisanship, fiscal responsibility, defense, and working with business as well as labor ... the country is more reflective of that Blue Dog philosophy now,” Representative Schrader says.
“Make America governable again,” Representative Brindisi adds. “That’s what got us into the majority.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 4:29:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 13:46:21 GMT
An opinion from John Delaney in Washington Post....
“Medicare-for-all is political suicide for Democrats”
“John Delaney, a Democrat, represented Maryland’s 6th Congressional District from 2013 to 2019 and is a candidate for president.
Medicare-for-all is bad policy for the country and bad politics for the Democratic Party. The Democratic nomination for president shouldn’t go to anyone who supports it, and Medicare-for-all shouldn’t be in the party’s 2020 platform. If we Democrats become the party of Medicare-for-all, advocating that every U.S. citizen is forced into a government-run health-insurance program, President Trump will be reelected and Republicans will control both houses of Congress — ensuring that today’s health-care system will be endangered by renewed GOP attacks.
I was alarmed last weekend at the California Democratic Party Convention to see some of my fellow candidates for the nomination and many convention attendees embracing Medicare-for-all.
The current health-care system needs improving, not dismantling — by Republicans or by Democrats. That’s why I have proposed a mixed-model universal plan that would guarantee health-care coverage through a government plan but would leave Medicare alone and leave private insurance available for those who wish to buy it, with limited tax credits if they opt out of the new plan entirely. The plan would also close the loophole that prevents the government from negotiating drug prices, an essential step for lowering costs.
Crucially, my plan would be fully paid for by steps such as ending the corporate tax deduction for employer-sponsored insurance, allowing the government to negotiate on prescription drug prices and instituting a cost-sharing requirement for higher-income individuals.
Medicare-for-all legislation proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), one of my opponents for the Democratic nomination for president, would basically make private insurance illegal; the federal government would pay all health-insurance costs. That sounds good — if you really, really like the government — but there is one fundamental flaw: Overwhelming evidence shows that, under Medicare, the government doesn’t pay the true costs of health care. According to data from the Urban Institute, Medicare pays providers 89 percent of costs, with higher reimbursements from private insurance companies making up the difference.
Over time, the government’s not paying the cost of health care would become a significant problem. In a free-market system — which would still exist even under Medicare-for-all — health-care providers are not going to pursue or maintain a business model that loses money. This year, the New York Times reported that Medicare-for-all would mean “some hospitals, especially struggling rural centers, would close virtually overnight, according to policy experts. Others, they say, would try to offset the steep cuts by laying off hundreds of thousands of workers and abandoning lower-paying services like mental health.”
Moreover, lower reimbursement rates and a lack of competition (remember, there is only one payer: the federal government) would mean there is no market incentive to innovate, develop new treatments or expedite care. Over time, that would be bad for patients and for medical innovation. Medicare-for-all would clearly lead to a decrease in both health-care access and quality.
But the impact would go beyond hospitals. It’s remarkable that this never seems to get talked about during these debates, but under Medicare-for-all, 150 million Americans would lose their current health insurance and be forced to switch to something new. These are people who have employer-based coverage, union coverage or private plans they pay for fully. Gallup polling data indicates that about 70 percent of those with private insurance are happy with their coverage. The coverage works for tens of millions of Americans, and it is one of the most valued things in their lives; Medicare-for-all would take it away.
Medicare-for-all might be popular as a slogan or as a tagline. But it is political suicide. If the Democratic Party emerges as the party that closed hospitals and made millions of people shift out of a health-care plan they like, the electoral cost will be severe. People on both sides of the debate recognize that Medicare-for-all is a significantly more disruptive policy change than the Affordable Care Act. But when the ACA, which was a good law and smart policy, affected people’s existing coverage options and led to higher prices for some, Democrats paid a significant political price. Medicare-for-all would guarantee that this disruption affects 150 million Americans.
It has been baffling over the past few years to watch so many Democrats rush to embrace Medicare-for-all, and it has been disappointing and sad to see many of them now try to equivocate on their position. The Sanders bill is crystal clear in what it would do, and Sanders, to his credit, is upfront about what he believes. But a lot of other candidates are trying to play it both ways with complicated and strange answers. We need to just drop this thing.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 4:29:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 13:51:38 GMT
trump...
”If President Obama made the deals that I have made, both at the Border and for the Economy, the Corrupt Media would be hailing them as Incredible, & a National Holiday would be immediately declared. With me, despite our record setting Economy and all that I have done, no credit!”
What positive thing has trump done? Tell me so I can give him credit.
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,790
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Jun 9, 2019 15:12:01 GMT
The name calling bully defenders don't want the name calling bully called names.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Jun 9, 2019 15:44:03 GMT
The name calling bully defenders don't want the name calling bully called names. LOL. Decorum, my ass. I read all the words on the list and every single one of them applies to Trump, and every single one has been proven, as in there’s actual written and/or videotaped evidence to support them. In spades. And that’s leaving aside a 448-page report that supports just about every single one of these descriptors. This is the same party that, way back when, relished the exposure of extremely salacious details of the Starr report. Such delicate, lily-livered creatures these House Republicans are, quaking in their boots that if they don’t kiss Trump’s backside they’ll end up not being re-elected, and all of a sudden so very concerned about offending sensibilities.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 9, 2019 15:56:43 GMT
Let us not forget "asshole" "shithole "countries, "bullshit" spoken loud and clear. Oops, thanks hop2
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Jun 9, 2019 16:04:51 GMT
Let us not forget "asshole" countries, "bullshit" spoken loud and clear. I think it was ‘shithole’ countries
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,790
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Jun 9, 2019 16:26:45 GMT
The name calling bully defenders don't want the name calling bully called names. LOL. Decorum, my ass. I read all the words on the list and every single one of them applies to Trump, and every single one has been proven, as in there’s actual written and/or videotaped evidence to support them. In spades. And that’s leaving aside a 448-page report that supports just about every single one of these descriptors. This is the same party that, way back when, relished the exposure of extremely salacious details of the Starr report. Such delicate, lily-livered creatures these House Republicans are, quaking in their boots that if they don’t kiss Trump’s backside they’ll end up not being re-elected, and all of a sudden so very concerned about offending sensibilities. exactly. Who's the real snowflake(s)? The largest flake occupies the oval office and the rest are at his rear, so to speak. Just like the biggest bullies on the playground, they can dish it out... I hope they did out the thesaurus to "offend" away with synonyms of those big, bad words. After all a rose is a rose.
|
|