You seem seriously un-informed and intent on spreading false propaganda. Why?
Bob, are you still squaring that circle? We should set you up as a neo-nazi, that way you could use your persnickity nature to bore people away from white supremacy.
In answer to your questions, just raise the cap. People earning over $132,900 can afford it; it's not going to take money off the table.
Try to understand what others are saying.
YOUR primary intent may be single payer, mine is universal health care.
Every time you say "Medicare for All", or even single payer, you are giving the opponents ammunition.
Try talking about Universal Heath Care. If they bring up Medicare for All or Single Payer, tell them you never said either of those things.
I would prefer the Japanese or Swiss system, either one of which will provide all the benefits of Medicare for All, without the handicap of being socialist.
ALL THE BENEFITS!
Work with those parameters.
Socialism does not work. Capitalism does not work.
The only system that works for the good of the people is a combination of both.
When Social Security was enacted it was done in as much detail as they could. It has to be that way, the law is what is written NOT what congress wanted to write.
It is one hell of a lot simpler than you want to admit, and more complex than you seem to understand.
Lets see how much you really know, using social security for the example.
The Social Security trust fund is expected to run out in 2035, at which time it will no longer be able to keep up payments to full benefits. The short fall in Payroll Tax collection is expected to be somewhere around 30%. IOW, Social Security taxes will continue to be enough to pay out 70% of benefits, though I have seen higher listed, let's work with 70%.
The solution the right has offered, and many agree with, is to raise the limit on earned income taxed for social security, and cut payouts now to extend the life of the trust fund.
Assume the last of the trust fund will be used up making the December 2034 payments. Comes January 2035 and the social security trust fund has nothing to contribute. Also ignore any increases in costs, inflation, increasing numbers of recipients in 2035 etc, just to keep it simple. All we are doing is looking at
Question 1: How much money does the trust fund have now?
Question 2: If congress decided to just keep paying full benefits, at the same cost as 2034, how much will taxes have to rise to make up the difference as of Jan 1, 2035?
Instead of blocking and throwing a persnickity fit, just don't respond.
Don't throw out reams of endless detail that split hairs and push people away from the primary intent: providing single-payer cost controlled universal healthcare.
You seem intent upon squaring the circle, AKA making the simple, quite complex, too complex and thus, undoing/diverting support.
Before you can go into such detail, you first need to "get" the big picture. Did FDR start the ball rolling for Social Security by wonking it up to the n'th degree?
A small portion of a planet where truth is valued.
I said too many action groups. I did not specify "For Peace".
If it really meant anything to you then you would have given a link. Obviously that is a group that just wastes people's time which is why you like it, because you are a time waster.
Are you confined, in prison or a care facility or at home? I wonder cause you seem to need attention desperately.
Start responding decently and reasonably, to the topic under discussion. Your next insulting response gets you blocked.
I do not support Medicare for All.
There are 4 different plans in effect in countries all through the world. There may be more I don't know about, but 4 main ones.
They are fleshed out and vetted, they are in practice in countries through out the world.
Switzerland established their plan at the same time as Hillary was screwing up her plan. Switzerland has one of the more expensive plans, and their plan would save this country $1 trillion a year.
Japan has one of the less expensive plans, yet it covers everyone and provides equal quality care, or better, for 100% of the population, with no medical bankruptcies, and would save this country $1.5 trillion a year.
Neither is Single payer.
Medicare for All is NOT the only choice.
Look into it.
tinyurl . com / sickroundtheworld
Can you please link of this "debate" rule? The DNC certainly regulates WHO is in the debates, so your forceful and all-encompassing comment ("The DNC can't allow or refuse anything") is inaccurate.
Not to be persnickitiy; but, many people repeat what they have been told prior to confirming what they have been told... especially if it agrees with their opinion.
The DNC can't allow or refuse anything. It can't tell moderators what to ask, and can't tell candidates what to say. Both groups will do what they want.
A photograph with Sanders in the frame with MLK doesn't exist, let alone "14 of them." It's just facts.
You can say that you've never seen the photograph. Isolated for ignorance, perhaps?
But when you search you may be less isolated. Too lazy or too partisan?
Medicare exists and is limited to those qualified by age and by situation. Medicare for All would expand the service to those who are currently too young to qualify.
There are several versions being floated; but, they are merely being floated - not fleshed out or vetted. The devil is in the details and the details MUST be ironed out.
We need to ensure that Repubs and Blue Dogs are NOT involved in the details. Otherwise, as with ACA, they will work to kill M4A. Most people aren't even familiar with the corporate shill Liz Fowler, who wrote the majority of ACA. ACA was designed and implemented to prevent single-payer AND to fail at controlling healthcare costs - allowing corporate greed/profits to prevail.
You have literally not given a single fact in this entire exchange. You've just offered your lazy talking points about a man who has peaked at 15% and isn't going to win the nomination, and it won't be because the system is rigged against him. Bernie HAS NOT appeared with MLK in a single photograph. That's a fact.
No, you enjoy the diversion. You are not here for facts.
You are funny! Too many action groups for peace?
What planet did you say that you are from?
I'm enjoying this backtracking.
Anyways, there's not a single photograph of Bernie Sanders in the frame with MLK.
Bernie Sanders does not care about civil rights- he views civil rights as identity politics.
There is at least one photo showing Bernie in the march in DC.
He was never close to MLK that I know of, it was never claimed that he was close, only that he was there.
I would bet there were a million people who were active in the civil rights movement who never knew a top leader. There were thousands of leaders you never heard about, local leaders.
He was arrested in Chicago in a protest.
Seems you are the liar.
See, this is where I find you offensive and stupid.
Medicare is NOT universal, because universal does mean "for all".
Medicare for all is universal, so what? I never said it wasn't. If you want a 4 legged house pet I suggest a cat or a dog, but a cat is not a dog, even though they both have 4 legs. There is a humorous line about that I have not heard in years, the point being having some points in common does not make them the same.
Medicare for all is single payer.
England has single provider. Single provider is also single payer. However, Medicare is single payer, but not single provider.
There are four different Universal Health Care plans I am familiar with. Two are single payer, two are not. Of the non-single payer plans:
Switzerland has one Japan has the other.
Watch and learn.
tinyurl dot com slash sickroundtheworld
It will take a bit less than an hour of your life, but if you already knew what is in this video you have no excuse for behaving so ignorantly.
Nobody ever said Bernie was prominent in the civil rights movement.
When you have a mile long march, or 100,000 people gathered anywhere, I doubt you could ever find a "Prominent" leader in the movement to be able to verify every one of them. I doubt you could verify 10% of them.
Bernie was active in Chicago, where he was arrested in a protest over housing discrimination.
I doubt you will find a single prominent civil rights leader anywhere who will say Bernie was NOT active.
At no point have I seen anyone who claims Bernie was close to MLK, only that he marched.
Uh... unless you are a Quaker, or share their belief in non-violence under all circumstances, your comment is stupid. I can search, I did not bother for "Peace Action". There are too many action groups for me to bother looking up all of them.
Yes, I favor violence in some cases, not in some others. If I were walking down the street and found some man attacking a Muslim woman trying to rip off her Hijab, I would probably just wrap my arm around his throat and pull him away.
If I saw a group of men assaulting people because of their race or religion I would, if in possession of firearms, shoot them. If not, use any weapon that came to hand.
Yes, I favor violence in some circumstances, not in others.
I would wipe out Saudi Forces in Yemen. Also the forces supporting the regime in Syria.
They are killing innocent people, knowingly and without hesitation. You cannot assemble and move a military force that large without the world knowing about it. So they would have ample opportunity to pull out, but they had better do it immediately, and without further attacks, or they would be wiped out as they retreat if the military arrived in time. There would be no warning.
Too many innocents, too many children, have died because the so called good nations were not willing to do what was necessary to stop the murderous forces.
It is time for that to end. Yes, for that I support violence and killing.
Individual 1 acts only in his own interests, I would love to see him imprisoned. He supports the Saudi murderers, the oppressors, and the most vile. I would kill them.
There is not photographic evidence that backs up that account. I am literally just listening to prominent civil rights leaders, none of whom remember Bernie Sanders being actively engaged in the movement. Just stop with the lying already.
"he could very well have used the bully-pulpit during the first year of his Presidency to rally the public to get us to single payer healthcare--something supported then and now by a majority of the American public across partisan lines. "
If Bernie was not so calcified in his positions, he might get away from "Single Payer" and move to "Universal Health Care".
While Single Payer is better than what we have, I do not consider it the best choice.
"Instead he trotted out an old--originally from the 1990s--conservative Heritage Foundation scheme"
That was a much under developed idea, just a suggestion of a direction to go.
A variation of which works quite well in Japan and Switzerland. Those are my two "go to" examples for National Health care.
He did NOT toss out the Public Option, he had to pull it to get the bill through congress. Just as he had to include the clause allowing insurance companies to grandfather old policies and include a clause banning coverage of abortion with federal money.
Just as they had a clause covering birth control at no cost to the insured, on the basis that paying for birth control was against some people's religious beliefs.
The bill was compromised, to get something started. Some compromises I recognize as necessary, some I think he should have stood firm on.
He could have is not the same as breaking a promise, just not giving you what you expected.
No president ever delivers on everything he promises. I do not forgive Obama for not closing Gitmo. He should have brought them here, and tell congress, either he brings them here as Unlawful Combatants, or as POWs, their choice.
It was congress that blocked it, and he accepted their decision, instead of doing it anyway, which is what I would have suggested.
He needed to be more plain spoken, and direct, and forceful.
However, he was the best choice we had, so that's what we got.
Not a single prominent african american civil rights leader remembers Bernie Sanders being actively engaged in the movement, but sure. Go ahead and call them all liars in favor of Bernie Sanders.
1. There is literally no documented photos of Bernie Sanders marching with King. None. Zero. That. Is. A. Lie. There is not a SINGLE photo of Sanders with King. You're a liar.
2. Not a single african american civil rights leader remembers Bernie Sanders being particularly active in the civil rights movement.
Just stop lying. Seriously.
It is absolutely not shown that Bernie Sanders marched with King in D.C. There are absolutely ZERO photographs showing this. Not a single African American civil rights leader active at that time remembers Bernie Sanders actively engaged in the movement. Just stop with the lying already.
I can't fix your brand of stupid. You know, the kind that can't search, favors violence and supports killing.
Maybe you'd feel more at home with tRump.
Medicare is universal; but, not for all. Medicare for All is Universal.
You just can't stop with the nonsense. A kitty is also a cat, my lil' buddy from another planet: Uranus.
Not familiar with Peace Action.
Personally I think there are some times war is a good idea. If I were president I would order the military to wipe out the Saudi Forces in Yemen.
Bernie should get the support of women. His stand on the issues is far better than most.
I disagree with him on Medicare for All, I support Universal Health Care.
However, in Bernie vs Trump I support Bernie.
In Trump vs my cat I support my cat, even though my cat died years ago, probably about the time Trump's brain died.
IIRC, the claim was that he marched with MLK, not that he was near MLK.
I have not seen one with Sanders standing next to MLK, I have seen photos of MLK with Sanders in the close background. Relatively close, a march may go on for a mile, and every one in that march was marching with MLK.
It is shown that Bernie did march in DC with MLK.
Lewis would have been close up to MLK, Bernie was back in the crowd.
I just looked it up. He did march with MLK in DC. As to Selma, the photo that was identified as him is not clear enough to be sure, and I did not find any real info on that part.
He was not prominent in DC, but he was there, and was a leader in the civil rights movement in Chicago, specifically at the University of Chicago, where he was a student.
The photographer who took the photo in Chicago that was in question found the originals in his files, and has published them, as proof sheets that show Bernie much more clearly, and have the attached records.
Just read Ronbo's comments, his pictures are better quality than the ones I saw before.
Hillary and Bill became big time millionaires.
Bernie's net worth is ranked at about $2 million, and almost all of that from two books he wrote.
He wrote three books, but the profits from one went to a charity.
Presidential pensions did not exist before Truman. They were created because Truman refused to make money off his presidency, and was quite poor.
Reagan, Bush I, Bush II and Trump have all been rich when they entered the White House.
As was Romney. McCain's wife was rich, but I do not recall McCain being rich.
Obama was a well to do lawyer, but not significantly rich that I recall, when he entered the White House, Clinton was a long time office holder, and Hillary was a lawyer. Neither was significantly rich.
I used to be at the bottom end of the upper middle class when I was working, but medical bills wiped out my savings as did the death of my first wife.
So, as much as I think Bernie is stupid to own a summer home worth $575K, the other two homes are normal for someone who works in DC but represents people in Vermont.
Universal Health Care... not Medicare for All.
Given his extraordinary popularity, his considerable gift-of-gab and charisma, he could very well have used the bully-pulpit during the first year of his Presidency to rally the public to get us to single payer healthcare--something supported then and now by a majority of the American public across partisan lines. But activating public action ceased--both times--from Obama as soon as he left the campaign trail.
Instead he trotted out an old--originally from the 1990s--conservative Heritage Foundation scheme for keeping private, corporate health insurance companies and Big Pharma dysfunctionally entrenched in American society, and sold that with a disingenuous lure attached to it called a "Public Option," which, once the public was hooked and being reeled in, he promptly tossed out.
Lots of other stuff like that--like closing GITMO, for another example--which was indisputably a promise he made. Sure we projected what we wanted to see onto Obama--but, feigning sympathy, he knew what we wanted and chose to ignore those things. "Pragmatic," he gave us what we "needed"--according to the bankers/Wall Street/Big Money and of course the MIC.
The "bro" part is a reference to black men - so there seems to be a racial element as well - so yes, it's not strictly sexist. All this hearkens back to when team Hillary originally elevated the term "Obama boys" to disparage Obama supporters. Team Hillary then re-ignited the sentiment to attack Sanders supporters.
Regardless, name-calling is not mature. It's a sure sign of bypassing logic or reason turning gender into an attack. I HATE identity politics as much as I LOVE diversity in politics.
My personal theory is that people berated and labeled "less than" in life are actually "more than" in politics. What some think of as being "damaged" often provides an enhanced sense of empathy, complexity, and compassion (something that you rarely find in millionaire politicians.
It's "Bros vs. Hoes" this round, huh?
But seriously--you gotta laugh at this silliness . . . : P
I actually disagree that the term is strictly speaking sexist--or at least there seem to be an awful lot of female bros who get tagged with it, usually on the basis of the total ignorance of the epithet-wielder. It is however knee-jerk idiocy and blind partisan bigotry. Maybe that amounts to the same thing?
Sanders attended the March on Washington where Dr. King gave his "I Have a Dream" speech. That's according to Sanders himself, and there appears to be photographic evidence backing up his account.
But of course this is totally intolerable to the Clintonoid, fraud-feminist faction among partisan DINOs, still sore that they didn't successfully cheat their way to the White House in 2016, losing the Electoral College to their wished-for "Pied Piper candidate" rival.
Now where will you go with this folly? Russia? Putin? Sexism? Sanders wasn't/isn't a "real" Democrat?
ITT won't allow posting of links... I've tried.
Perhaps you should learn to use google or duckduckgo. It's easier than you think.
It's really, really, really pathetic and telling how Right-wing fraudulent/failed liberals trot out the "Bernie Bros" epithet.
Have a nice Empire.
So John Lewis has a list of everyone who marched with MLK?!? Which march? You do understand that MLK was in more than just the one in Selma. Right?
According to Answers(dot)com:"How many marches did Martin Luther King Jr lead?50,000
In all of Martin Luther Kings protests he lead 39,056"
Sanders marched with MLK in Washington DC. as documented in photos and on Sen. Sanders CCTV show where he discussed fighting for racial equality.
Bernie Sanders was arrested in Chicago protesting unfair housing discrimination.
Be informed, not deceived.
Stop the Yemen war, not just pull out, but stop it. Stop Saudi Arabia from killing innocents for the benefit of the Saudis.
Recognize that Saudi Arabia is not our friend.
Revoke the recognition of Israeli rule over the Golan area. Move the embassy back to Tel Aviv.
Her resume is too thin for just those reasons. Warren may be a good fit for a cabinet post on domestic issues, but not for president.
Damn that was dumb.
ONLY issues should be raised in the debates.
There should be NO personal attacks, no discussion of the other candidates at all. They want to claim they are better than another let them pay for an ad.
There should be no personal questions. You want to ask Warren about her hair do a personal interview, it's too stupid to go into in a debate. Want to ask a candidate about his or her religious beliefs, that may be legitimate, in a personal interview, unless bigotry is your purpose. In the debates leave it out.
Every candidate should respond to every question. There are NO Warren questions and no Biden Questions and no Bernie questions. Either the questions should be answered by all or they should not be asked.
"Obama, after all, taught us we can’t rely on campaign promises,"
Just how did he do that?
Or were any of you dumb enough to believe any candidate can deliver on every thing he claims to support.
Believe what he will work for and that's OK. Believe he will deliver everything he he supports is stupid.
"and that we shouldn’t just see what we want to see in a candidate."
Which applies to Bernie and AOC and Hillary and "In These Times".
Here are the facts. There are ZERO, and I mean ZERO, documented photos showing both MLK in the frame with Sanders. This. Is. A. Lie.
For the record? It's really, REALLY pathetic and telling how Bernie Bros trot out this lie about "14 photos showing BOTH MLK WITH SANDERS!"
No, I'm not a climate change denier simply because I don't agree with you about Bernie Sanders being god's gift to mankind.
I'm simply choosing the words of black civil rights leaders like John Lewis, who actually marched with King.
Are you also a climate change denier?
There are 14 photos showing BOTH MLK in frame with Sanders. IT's well documented that Sanders traveled to Washington—his first time in D.C.—to march with and hear Martin Luther King speak at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.
You may be confused because SNOPES reviewed one photo and declared that it was not in "Selma, AL". True. It was in Washington DC! True.
Without research, you are doomed to appear ignorant... or be continually confused by half-truths and corporate deceptions.
Bernie Sanders DID NOT march with MLK. This is an easily fact checked lie that Bernie Bros continue to spread for some reason.
You "think" that Sanders was arrested 40+ years ago protesting for equal housing rights for blacks was part of his get-rich-slow plan?
His march with MLK was part of his get-rich-slow plan?
His first-ever unionized campaign staff was part of his get-rich-slow plan?
His calls for healthcare for all was part of his get-rich-slow plan?
You seem to be an idiot... of, by and for the corporate media.
The problem is, I see your point. But are you going to hold those less-than-perfect candidates accountable for foreign policy as well? The thing is, your point is right and so too are those that have complained against the US foreign policy.
I will vote for whoever is on the other side of the fence from Trump, even if they are not "ideologically 'pure'". In other words, I assent to your point.
At the *same* time, though, that doesn't mean these issues aren't real and we thus shouldn't be still *demanding* more of that 'less 'pure'' candidate *once* they *are* in place, *and* demand even better from the NEXT candidate on these things. You can do both, together, there is no logical mutual exclusion. Are you up for that plan? Yet I see no discussion of this option even though it 100% meets your requirements, at least if I understand where you're coming from, and if I don't, then I will need a more comprehensive post detailing your positions on the issue as I want to listen, correct, and build viewpoints because I want real solutions that actually *work* and that involve actually acknowledging *all* problems and maximal *in*clusion not *ex*clusion and not just picking and choosing and degrading into tribalism and pettiness (as unfortunately all the others who have responded to you have done below) *and* thus also considering all pragmatic issues as well while simultaneously not losing sight of the ball.
Keep in mind that the "herpes" here is, to use your analogy ("herpes hurts and AIDS kills") *is* "AIDS" to the people on the other side of American guns. And much of the ideology that backs it is steeped in the same sentiment that drove the colonialism that "underprivileged" a lot of people in the US who are not "privileged, white men". E.g. the idea that we should be deciding for everyone else their governments and politics, that we know best for them, and we should enforce that at gunpoint, is classic "civilizing mission" horseshit of the same kind that let to the decimation of Africa, and the decimation of Native America.
Haha. Bernie Sanders isn't working for you. Bernie Sanders is only running for President because it made him a millionaire.
Your sexist name-calling is childish. Your ignorance of reality reminds me of Hillary, who did not know of or understand the Electoral College - and subsequently lost to the idiot that she intentionally elevated.
Have you always been the mouthpiece for women... or is this your new job at Correct the Record?
Haters hate and obstructionists obstruct.
Your pity party can be stopped by following good ideas like expanding public education, a fair tax system, Medicare for All and a living wage.
Thank God, we have some candidates working for you.
Sorry, no. "Bernie Bros" is not the derogatory, sexist term. Comparing women candidates to STDs is literally a derogatory, sexist term, which you had zero problem with. Bernie does not have 1 million volunteers, and I promise you, he will not get the support of women.
No. Privileged white men vote with ideological purity tests simply because they don't want anyone else but Bernie. The rest of us don't have that luxury.
The problem is your personal grammar confusion combined with an error and (possibly) sexism. Simile or metaphor... research your shortcoming.
Smart people vote on issues... not identity politics and personality.
Try it. Please.
I think it's pretty telling that Bernie Bros have no problem comparing a woman presidential candidate to STDs.
I agree. It's time to let actual votes speak.
Unfortunately, should Bernie lose, undoubtedly the Bros will cry about a rigged election, simply because they did not get their way.
Bernie Bros are all about "letting actual votes speak." Unless, of course, the actual votes go against Bernie.
And... Sanders has a unionized staff... and equal pay... and 1,000,000 dedicated volunteers... and the youth vote... and the independent vote... and the disaffected-Republican vote... and the environmentalist vote... and .....
"Imperfect record"? Who has a perfect record? Sanders has the "best" record according to Peace Action.
"Bernie Bros" as used here is a derogatory, sexist and incorrect term. Of the 1,000,000 volunteers, 63% are women.
Perhaps Lynne Hughes needs to take a time out from her DNC/RNC propaganda. We've suffered enough from this DuNCe/RuNt Cabal.
Time to let actual votes speak.
" Bernie Bros once again show that they are completely incapable of recognizing the urgency of this moment. "
Hillary Hoes once again show that they are completely incapable of recognizing the urgency of this moment. They insist on forcing us to choose between nasty diseases when a healthy alternative is available. The result will be that we end up suffering with another four years of the worst disease of all , Trump.
For most of her political career Warren has been focused almost exclusively on domestic economic and financial issues. Her earliest foreign policy incursions were shallow and conventional, influenced at least in part, one suspects, on having three brothers with military careers. But she has a strong sense of fairness and has been moving steadily toward more nuanced views. Plus she is a quick study. One should probably judge her on what she says going forward in terms of a comprehensive foreign policy approach rather than a scattering of fragmentary and superficial past statements.
Only Bernie Sanders has dedicated media outlets and "jouranlists" bashing every other candidate while holding up Bernie's imperfect record as some kind of ideological litmus test.
And with that completely inaccurate analogy, Bernie Bros once again show that they are completely incapable of recognizing the urgency of this moment. You don't die from herpes. You die from AIDS.
Never trust a "former" Republican. Candidates who've played both sides will play both sides.
I hope that the DNC will allow actual issues to be raised in the debates. Otherwise, it's just going to be another repeat of 2016 - another loss for voting Democrats; but, a big win for DNC and the corporations that bribe fund them.
Warren is better than Biden, in the same way that having herpes is better than having AIDS.
To Fix the Looming Supply Chain Crisis, Nationalize Amazon