The 2020 Presidential Election Primary Thread

[Jeff Lebowski]

I have a number of Facebook friends who are very left leaning artists and ardent Bernie supports. The collective melt down due to the results of super Tuesday I am witnessing is fascinating. If Biden is going to beat Trump he is going to need the independent vote, because I am not convinced the far left wing of the Democratic party will show up to the polls, and if they do they will do it out of spite and to write in Bernie.

It is crazy similar the Talibern is to the MAGA crowd. Same dog, different leg.

[SeattleUte]

I have a number of Facebook friends who are very left leaning artists and ardent Bernie supports. The collective melt down due to the results of super Tuesday I am witnessing is fascinating. If Biden is going to beat Trump he is going to need the independent vote, because I am not convinced the far left wing of the Democratic party will show up to the polls, and if they do they will do it out of spite and to write in Bernie.

These are not liberals; they are wannabe totalitarians. The liberal tradition is all about continuous but incremental progress, consensus, representative government, free speech and uncertainty. The Democratic party is better off without them. Catering to them is what begat Trump. AOC's congressional saplings are all getting annihilated in the primaries.

[wuapinmon]

The liberal tradition is all about continuous but incremental progress, consensus, representative government, free speech and uncertainty.

If you're ever in South Carolina, I'd love to have you come speak to students. I'm being serious. oxcoug, pellegrino, and cowboy have spoken at Coker.

[Pelado]

If you're ever in South Carolina, I'd love to have you come speak to students. I'm being serious. oxcoug, pellegrino, and cowboy have spoken at Coker.

Does it have to be in Spanish?

[wuapinmon]

Does it have to be in Spanish?

No Cuffer need speak Spanish to speak to students, only be of good will and know the value of the Liberal Arts.

[frank ryan]

It is crazy similar the Talibern is to the MAGA crowd. Same dog, different leg.

They were part of the problem last election. Not because they turned to Trump, but because they wrote Bernie in or stayed home.

[Pelado]

No Cuffer need speak Spanish to speak to students, only be of good will and know the value of the Liberal Arts.

I guess that eliminates me.

[wuapinmon]

I guess that eliminates me.

The Liberal Arts love you, even if you don’t love them.

[Lost Student]

The Liberal Arts love you, even if you don’t love them.

But he lacks the good will.

[SeattleUte]

If you're ever in South Carolina, I'd love to have you come speak to students. I'm being serious. oxcoug, pellegrino, and cowboy have spoken at Coker.

Alright! Let’s do it. I want to visit the state that saved the nation.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Math is hard.

Embedded Tweet

[Omaha 680]

Math is hard.

Embedded Tweet

It's super hard! Reminds me of when Bernie got an actual question about the cost of his proposals in one of the debates. The moderator mentioned his $30 trillion in proposed new spending (which is the lower bound estimate btw). Bernie was quick to jump in with "over 10 years!" as if $3 trillion in new spending per year is nbd.

Im so glad the Democrats whacked that guy.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[wuapinmon]

It's super hard! Reminds me of when Bernie got an actual question about the cost of his proposals in one of the debates. The moderator mentioned his $30 trillion in proposed new spending (which is the lower bound estimate btw). Bernie was quick to jump in with "over 10 years!" as if $3 trillion in new spending per year is nbd.

Im so glad the Democrats whacked that guy.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Not a Sanders supporter at all. But, I find it disingenuous when people throw these numbers around as "new spending" when talking about healthcare. We're already spending that now on healthcare.

In 2017, the United States spent about $3.5 trillion, or 18 percent of GDP, on health expenditures – more than twice the average among developed countries.
Of that $3.5 trillion, $1.5 trillion, is directly or indirectly financed by the federal government. In other words, the federal government dedicates resources of nearly 8 percent of the economy toward health care. By 2028, we estimate these costs will rise to $2.9 trillion, or 9.7 percent of the economy. Over time, these costs will continue to grow and consume an increasing share of federal resources.

So. if we figure that the current non-governmental expenditures would come into the federal coffers instead of private industry, and we factor in the buyouts of private insurance companies necessary for Bernie's system, then the $3 trillion seems to be only $1 trillion in increases over the current spending (that number is troubling in and of itself, but it's not $3 trillion in "new" spending). Taking insurance premiums and calling them taxes and expenditures of taxes, is disingenuous.

[Omaha 680]

Not a Sanders supporter at all. But, I find it disingenuous when people throw these numbers around as "new spending" when talking about healthcare. We're already spending that now on healthcare.



So. if we figure that the current non-governmental expenditures would come into the federal coffers instead of private industry, and we factor in the buyouts of private insurance companies necessary for Bernie's system, then the $3 trillion seems to be only $1 trillion in increases over the current spending (that number is troubling in and of itself, but it's not $3 trillion in "new" spending). Taking insurance premiums and calling them taxes and expenditures of taxes, is disingenuous.

I don't think its disingenuous at all. The sum total of voluntary transactions by private citizens is very different in principle than government spending that we are all collectively on the hook for financing. Bernie's plan is absolutely a minimum of 3 trillion in new spending.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[old_gregg]

Not a Sanders supporter at all. But, I find it disingenuous when people throw these numbers around as "new spending" when talking about healthcare. We're already spending that now on healthcare.



So. if we figure that the current non-governmental expenditures would come into the federal coffers instead of private industry, and we factor in the buyouts of private insurance companies necessary for Bernie's system, then the $3 trillion seems to be only $1 trillion in increases over the current spending (that number is troubling in and of itself, but it's not $3 trillion in "new" spending). Taking insurance premiums and calling them taxes and expenditures of taxes, is disingenuous.

the estimates are for new incremental usfg spend