“A man can believe a considerable deal of rubbish, and yet go about his daily work in a rational and cheerful manner.”
–Norman Douglas
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: I’m Gabe Evans, and This is the Worst Ad You’ve Seen in Years
BY: Conserv. Head Banger
IN: I’m Gabe Evans, and This is the Worst Ad You’ve Seen in Years
BY: davebarnes
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: harrydoby
IN: Get More Smarter on Friday (Oct. 4)
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: Gilpin Guy
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: spaceman2021
IN: I’m Gabe Evans, and This is the Worst Ad You’ve Seen in Years
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: psyclone
IN: BREAKING: Former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters Gets 9 Years
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Rep. Perry Buck didn't do so well in the Weld County commissioner vacancy race. Maybe the voting committee looked at her list of legislative accomplishments and noticed its near-nonexistence! Looks like Weld used sort of like ranked choice voting – results with rankings in order from the Greeley Tribune:
Brett Abernathy: Kevin Ross (the eventual winner); Elijah Hatch; Butch White; Perry Buck; Mike Finn
Nancy Teksten: Ross; Hatch; White; Buck; Finn
Tonya Van Beber: Ross; Buck; Finn; Hatch; White
James Welch: Hatch; White; Ross; Buck; Finn
Gene Stille: White; Hatch; Finn; Ross; Buck
Is this turning into a two-person race between the plutocrat and the Trotskyite?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/us/politics/bloomberg-debate-poll-numbers.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
They are the only two I've seen running commercials in CO.
Does this mean that you expect Bernie to die in México with an axe in his head?
Maybe he'll die with a Marguerita in his hand!
Just to clarify….. That was not an "axe" that got Trotsky. It was a mountaineering ice axe.
I’ve actually visited the Trotsky house near Frida Kahlo’s house in the Coyoacán neighborhood of Mexico City.
Nothing speaks for the class struggle like living in a villa in an upscale neighborhood.
I've seen ads for Sanders, Warren, Biden, Buttigieg & Bloomberg. The few Steyer ads I saw long ago were mainly on impeachment, not his candidacy specifically. I can't recall any for Klobuchar or Gabbard.
I'm not watching broadcast or cable tv, so those are the ones popping up for my computer site usage.
Perhaps I don't watch enough TV.
It's looking increasingly like it will be a Bloomberg v. Sanders contest.
Sigh. That's like when Utah gave a condemned man the choice of hanging or a firing squad!
I'm not agreeing to any prognostication until after Super Tuesday. That will feed results of two more debates, 16 more states or territories, and move us from the 1.5% of delegates chosen or in process to about 40% chosen (and others still in process).
Two really old white guys (or 3, if Biden stays alive) will make the choice much less exciting, and I think it squanders the chance to have a clear, physical difference from the really old really white guy (with painted on orange) on the other side.
I can’t think of any progressive voter I know or am related to that cares about gender, age or race.
Other than electability.
Before the inevitable baloney starts , none of them are looking for free stuff. None of them really care about a lot of trivial stuff that the media and the opposition seem to think we all care about.
YouGov did a survey asking who was "too old" to be President. In the cross-tabs, those self-identifying as Liberal looked at a list in 5 year increments and chose. Agreeing with the "too old" (and the cumulative) at
60-65….. 7% (..7%)
65-70… 10% (17%)
70-75….24% (41%)
75-80….12% (53%)
So …the other 47% says any age is fine.
And I am wondering about the questioners' use of "be". Seems vague.
Wait until you've had to deal with Alzheimers and dementia in your own family, Duke. The notion of a president with those afflictions is terrifying. Example Trump. Warren 70 is a good bet. Bernie, 79 upon taking office? Hardly.
I get your point, V. As I said…I voted for Elizabeth Warren. But you can rest assured, I will be voting Blue….no matter what😎
I'm kind of down to Amy and Warren. Buttigieg just too inexperienced. InNovember, Blue — no matter who!
"before the inevitable baloney starts…..none of them are looking for free stuff……"
Guess you didn't see the recent interviews on (Denver) Channel 9 with the young people almost jumping for joy that they wouldn't have to repay their student loans if Bernie gets elected.
Why should anybody pay for anything? Party on, Dude.
Brokered convention.
While I like Sanders, I can see where neither he nor Bloomberg receive a majority of the delegates on the second ballot.
In that situation, I think that Warren (my favorite), could gain the trust of both the left and establishment lanes.
In any case, consider which Democratic candidate you:
(1) Like the best
(2) Who do you trust to carry your proxy?
If it goes to the convention without a clear frontrunner – ie, 'winner,' think superdelegates. That would be the end of Bernie and Warren.
And probably the dominant two party system.
There are only 770 or so PLEOs (super delegates) who don't vote in the first ballot. And they certainly are not of one ideological stripe, particularly after Sanders did so well in 2016. If a candidate doesn't win on the first ballot and ONLY the PLEOs add (other delegates remain committed) , they would need to get half (385) plus the missing number to reach a majority — a hard task, indeed.
No prediction here — but a guess that candidates with less than 500 delegates would try to cut deals with those similar to them who are above 1000 delegate, in search of the 2,376 votes needed in the 2nd and later rounds. Those bargains would be at least as important as the PLEOs.
What I imagine is more likley
Bernie is not at 50%+1 on the first ballot
second ballot – supers and moderates pledged to Bernie go for someone "safe" and cue balloon drop.
It’s just like the Dems . . .
. . . the GOPers are on the ropes after years of lies, failed policies, blatant 1%er favoritism, environmental destruction, ignoring of facts, and a hugely unpopular President.
The Democratic response to which will be almost certainly a brokered, and fractured, convention. And, although that used to regularly happen, it hasn’t occurred now again in the past half-century. The upshot being that whoever emerges from the brokered convention will be seen to be lacking the legitimacy and the popular mandate that most voters have come to expect from a candidate who emerges as a Primary outcome winner. It was always gonna’ be a heavy enough of a lift, all by itself, just to get Sanders, or Bloomberg, or Stein, or Chelsea, or whoever — now Democrats will have to also hoist along their legitimacy as nominees to a suspicious potential electorate …
At that point, it doesn’t matter who comes outta’ thre convention.
Please, please someone in the media, preferably at tomorrow night's debate, demand that Sanders answer specifically, how much everyone's taxes will be raised to pay for his plans. For example, I suspect he will eliminate the cap on taxing Social Security earnings which is currently at about $138,000 (i.e., everyone earning over $138,000 will pay an additional 7.65% on their earnings). And, that's just for starters. Warren tanked when she answered that question. Bernie's supporters might be surprised at his answer.
How has he suggested he would pay for it? What makes you think a Sanders supporter would be surprised by his answer?
Sanders hasn’t clarified a cost for M4A this year, not even a revision to his campaign’s estimate of $16 Trillion for a decade that he had in 2016. He’s left it to others to do the math.
Standard answer in the few speeches/media appearances I’ve seen or read: “you’ll never hear the media say, the corporate media, you’ll never hear them say, “How are you going to pay for this war … “
In January, he was interviewed on CBS. Report on the program:
The Urban Institute, a center left think tank, emerged with this estimate on Sanders’ health care plan alone:
The Urban Institute estimate is not based on Sanders plan, They modeled their own version of a single payer plan they called “an ‘enhanced’ single-payer system ” and scored that.
Sanders does talk about paying for his plan, though. Although, of course, that will change if/when the policy gets hammered out.
Start here
First it would have to pass
https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/
berniesanders.com/issues/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all-1.pdf
or
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/15/sanders-applauds-new-medicare-all-study-will-save-americans-450-billion-and-prevent
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-health-202/2020/02/18/the-health-202-bernie-sanders-s-most-persuasive-medicare-for-all-argument-the-status-quo-is-worse/5e4ac975602ff12f6a671110/
There is a lot of information – this
trollposter will be happy when people start discussing it – and acknowledging the numbers are huge.If it's too impossible – the clear fearmongering implication – it will never pass.
Why doesn't he ask about Mayor Pete's tax plan?
I would say that the increase in federal spending is large, but in total dollars, American healthcare spending would be less than it is now. I think what folks who talk about “how will he pay for it?” really mean is “tell us about the taxes that we’ll be paying.”
Of course, there will be new taxes. Just as spending through payroll deductions, copays, coinsurance, deductibles all go away. In the end, I think the answer to “Oh no, mah taxes!” is “Would you rather pay lower taxes or have more money?”
"why doesn't he ask about Mayor Pete's tax plan…." Because Mayor Pete isn't promising the moon like Bernie is.
Maybe
More likely because while the numbers are still big, and the plan itself is confusing to most voters – no one really cares once the number is more than ten times their own household income.
It always cracks me up when lefties say: “Don’t worry about our crazy spending plans. Congress will never pass them!,”
You find it somehow less amusing when Righties like you say don't worry about our crazy spending plans, because we can cut taxes even more and get more revenue .. supply side stoopid… freedom!… oil… NASCAR good, socialism bad.
O.
K.
Boomer.
O.k. Stoner!
Good to see some good, sincere give and take and inter-generational meeting of the minds here. My cup runneth over !
Wouldn’t the top earners who have shifted a large percentage of their earnings to cap gains and dividends just shift even more to cap gains and dividends?
Or is that all part of the plan to tax all income sources as income and not let Buffett pay the same effective tax rate as his secretary ?
It is
Yeah, because back in the day (i.e., before 1986) when we had 70% top bracket, rich people actually paid that rate.
Well… let the accounting games begin and no one will understand it.
Trump cut taxes? Why did mine go up?
I have two years of data now – no kidding effective tax rate went up in my household.
I do catering gigs as the second job – all the while calling it the student loan job.
Clearly, the better strategy would have been to start a for profit college.Or choose rich parents.
Add eliminate carried interest and I’m with you, Sudafed./p>
"shift even more to cap gains and dividends……"
Matt C needs to understand that cap gains and dividends are a big part of the income of many retirees.
I’m a fan of the idea of eliminating the cap on SS and simultaneously lowering the rates to stay revenue neutral. Everybody wins (except a small handful of billionaires).
Eliminating the cap on Social Security contributions changes the entire justification of the program as a retirement savings plan. Note that it is called a "contribution" and not a tax. And, raising taxes on those making over $138,000 may sound good to some, but in reality, that is the sweet spot for so many suburban voters that we will need to defeat Trump and the GOP.
You might have missed the part where I said eliminate the cap and lower the rate? Stay revenue neutral in relation to the current cap?
Dang.
It is tax that is not a tax and since no one anywhere is willing to pay more tax that is not a tax, any D candidate who plans to increase it (all of them) will lose. D's are doomed.
Regardless, you favor raising taxes on employees (and their employers) making more than $138,000. Kiss the suburban voters goodbye. And, for what purpose? Because you're just proposing a revenue neutral redistribution of the SS costs. I'm still waiting to hear how Sanders ($50T) and Warren ($25T) plans will be paid for.
Yes. 84.5% of American households earn less than $150k/year. So just how is it political suicide to lower the rate on that population? Broaden the base, make the case for solvency well into the future and get on to solving the next problem.
By removing the link between contribution and benefit, mike, you'd make oasdi a welfare program. Ffdr fought that idea fiercely, for fear that it would weaken the program politically.
We're already making that argument moot by claiming we're going to have to reduce benefits expected for people that have already paid in?
There is still a link between contribution and benefit without a cap (I can point you to any number of millionaires in eastern Colorado receiving their monthly checks). Those in that bracket are just seeing a smaller return on their contribution.
PS, V: thanks for the insight from FDR. All of the comments on this issue are valid; we each have our own point of view. Just having the conversation is most important. We don't lack the tools or ability to fix any of these problems…just the political will and our reluctance to stand up to bullies.
Look – you have been warned previously about doing math and being practical.
I feel confident that the 15.5% you are referring already lean R.
But the political issue is most voters like to think they will pay estate tax, and they hate idea that when they get rich, they'll pay more.
A functioning society in its simplest form is a math equation. This presentation by Nick Hanauer is still one of the best:
But …. but … Michael Dell has a foundation, spending millions. And he knows better right?
I mean he's Michael DELL
https://youtu.be/PpzMHE0-m6k
Right?!?
I may welcome the robot overlords – but rich guys like Dell should go ahead and change their citizenship and get it over with.
I recommend he bank in Aruba, create LLCs in Panama, and reside in Moscow. Or Vilnius.
Next thing you know they think they’re an architect. Have you been in the Trump Hotel lately? At Christmas time?
This article is a good addendum to this discussion. I don't believe Dems, particularly CO Dems, are clueless as this article asserts. The national party writ large needs to do a better job of telling their story.
“Shit-Life Syndrome,” Trump Voters, and Clueless Dems
So tell me again why lowering the FICA rate on these 53 million would be a bad thing?
Duke – this article reminded me of recent visits to Rockcastle County and stops in the surrounding area. Nothing but despair and red hats.
In many ways, a shithole country, full of people living through shit-life syndrome.
Trump is crowing about his commutation of Rod Blagoevich’s prison sentence, how he was the victim of Comey and Fitzpatrick’s over-zealous prosecution, how poor Rod (“who is Democrat, not a Republican”) has been separated from his children for 8 years, yadda, yadda, yadda.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump’s next move is to tell Barr to go through all the inmates in federal prison and tag the cases which Comey or Mueller pushed, and then pardon them.
PS Bernie Kerouk, Rudy’s police commissioner, also got a pardon.
Trump had a busy day, flinging open the jail doors for every rich, white, corrupt male. Roger Stone has nothing to worry about — he probably will get pardoned before next week’s scheduled sentencing.
Is Juliette Parker going to win this weeks’ ” At least she’s not your (almost) Mayor ” award ? Man, what is it about the water in C Springs…
Damn, that's some crazy shit even by Lolorado Springs standards.
Drugging a new mom with a spiked cupcake while posing as photographers so you can steal her baby ? Yeah, that's crazy alright.
Now this is funny: Mike gets ‘er done
Good one, Michael, although I doubt even Mike has enough money to buy Greenland.
Watched part of Rachel Maddow last night. Not normally a big fan, but she is getting again into the complex and murky financial relationships among Trump, Kushner, Deutsche Bank, and various Russian interests. Interviewed the finance editor of the NY Times, David Enrich, who has a new book out today called Dark Tower, Deutsche Bank, Trump about those relationships.
Two levels of federal courts already have said that Deutsche has to comply with subpoenas for Trump’s financial records at Deutsche. His last hope is the Supreme Court. Would be wonderful if all his crooked ties with Russia finally get exposed just months before the election.
…and she’s only touching the tip of the iceberg with the Deutsche story.
I’m actually more interested in how you get on a departing plane in China with a bag of live chickens?!???
Welp. That didn't take long. Would anyone here be shocked that the Bloomberg tape released yesterday was creatively edited by the Trump campaign? It looks like Donnie is trying to stir up some outrage in farm country (it worked).
Edited video of Mike Bloomberg appears to insult farmers, factory workers, but there's more to the story
Overlooking the pejorative "Democrat" in the story, Yammie-pie's busted, again. So, he's scared of Bloomberg, is he?
I didn’t think there was enough empty space left in his brain for an additional resident after Nancy moved in but it appears I am mistaken: his galaxy brain is a two-bedroom condo.
h/t Vladimir . . .
No collusion.
Apparently, Barr isn't familiar with the old saying "If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas". He has thrown away his reputation for the mangiest mutt in the alley.