Election 2020

[nots]

You could, and might, say the same for medicare and medicaid. But most people appreciate them and do not want them to go away.

I am sure they don’t want to see them go away, but I also believe Medicare is on track to be insolvent some time this decade. A large tax increase is needed to properly fund it.

[Sour Masher]

I am sure they don’t want to see them go away, but I also believe Medicare is on track to be insolvent some time this decade. A large tax increase is needed to properly fund it.

Do you think it should be dissolved?

[GwynnInTheHall]

I agree but that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement for Medicare For All.

So from your perspective because Iowa has once again shown it has issues with getting correct results out in an accurate and timely fashion, it impunes the FEDERAL Govt's ability to run any kind of massive public program?

[nots]

So from your perspective because Iowa has once again shown it has issues with getting correct results out in an accurate and timely fashion, it impunes the FEDERAL Govt's ability to run any kind of massive public program?

No, of course not. I was just funning Stomper’s comment.
I do think most every federal program is characterized by massive overspending and/or a failure to honestly account for what it’s going to cost. Medicare has a looming shortfall, social security has a worse looming shortfall, Bush’s ‘revenue neutral’ Medicare Part D was about $2T short of being revenue neutral, our Middle East adventure trips always come in over budget, Obamacare was going to save everyone $2500/yr. etc, etc, etc.....there’s a pretty clear pattern here of over promising and a failure to acknowledge what it’s actually going to cost.

[nots]

Do you think it should be dissolved?

No, I don’t.

[Sour Masher]

No, I don’t.

If, someday, M4All was somehow implemented, would you later want it voted away, or once an entitlement is part of the fabric of society, do you think it becomes too hard to do away with? Or if medicare and medicaid were somehow done away with by Trump, would you want them brought back when he is gone? I'm just trying to get a handle on why a lot of folks who are against such things before they exist, seem to be okay with them once they become established. Is it because it is too hard to go back, but it is easier to stop expansion?

[nots]

I think once folks get an entitlement, it’s close to impossible to reduce or eliminate the benefit so I guess my answer to your last question is ‘yes’.

[GwynnInTheHall]

No, of course not. I was just funning Stomper’s comment.
I do think most every federal program is characterized by massive overspending and/or a failure to honestly account for what it’s going to cost. Medicare has a looming shortfall, social security has a worse looming shortfall, Bush’s ‘revenue neutral’ Medicare Part D was about $2T short of being revenue neutral, our Middle East adventure trips always come in over budget, Obamacare was going to save everyone $2500/yr. etc, etc, etc.....there’s a pretty clear pattern here of over promising and a failure to acknowledge what it’s actually going to cost.

I would say every endeavor has issues of one kind or another. Implementation, maintenance, expansion and many other facets of all things experience hiccups--some more severe than others-It should be expected to a degree and not used as an excuse to avoid trying to do something/anything.

Yes there will be challenges if M4A is law of the land, but not as many as are being tossed about in opposition. Sure funding will be tough, but if we can fund 25+ years of wasteful an unnecessary war abroad, we can fund a program to insure the health of oar citizens. Same thing goes fo Social Security--This is OUR money we've put in the hands of the Govt and it should be the FIRST thing anyone in charge should work to ensure doesn't get screwed with. If they can bail out banks and farmers and corporations, they can assure that SSI is viable going forward.

It's the right thing to do--we need someone in charge that at the very least will make a genuine effort to get these things done or at least pointed in the right direction. You know who I think that should be, though there are others who I trust to attempt to o something the same or similar.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I think once folks get an entitlement, it’s close to impossible to reduce or eliminate the benefit so I guess my answer to your last question is ‘yes’.

Entitlement?

I dislike that word--it sounds as though it's people asking for something for nothing.

[nots]

I would say every endeavor has issues of one kind or another. Implementation, maintenance, expansion and many other facets of all things experience hiccups--some more severe than others-It should be expected to a degree and not used as an excuse to avoid trying to do something/anything.

Yes there will be challenges if M4A is law of the land, but not as many as are being tossed about in opposition. Sure funding will be tough, but if we can fund 25+ years of wasteful an unnecessary war abroad, we can fund a program to insure the health of oar citizens. Same thing goes fo Social Security--This is OUR money we've put in the hands of the Govt and it should be the FIRST thing anyone in charge should work to ensure doesn't get screwed with. If they can bail out banks and farmers and corporations, they can assure that SSI is viable going forward.

It's the right thing to do--we need someone in charge that at the very least will make a genuine effort to get these things done or at least pointed in the right direction. You know who I think that should be, though there are others who I trust to attempt to o something the same or similar.

Yes, SS is our money, but it’s a program that was started and funded based on when the life expectancy was 67. Since then, we haven’t made the necessary adjustments to how much should be withheld and how much employers should contribute and now we are staring at a massive shortfall. Neither team wants to acknowledge that reality and the can keeps getting kicked just a little further down the road. What’s going to happen in 2030 when (as projected) there is no more road left?

[nots]

Entitlement?

I dislike that word--it sounds as though it's people asking for something for nothing.

Your personal dislike notwithstanding, it’s a governmentally recognized term.

https://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/entitlement.htm

ETA—I guess legally recognized is probably more accurate than governmentally recognized.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Yes, SS is our money, but it’s a program that was started and funded based on when the life expectancy was 67. Since then, we haven’t made the necessary adjustments to how much should be withheld and how much employers should contribute and now we are staring at a massive shortfall. Neither team wants to acknowledge that reality and the can keeps getting kicked just a little further down the road. What’s going to happen in 2030 when (as projected) there is no more road left?

It should have been done decades ago, but politicians , as you've said, kicked the can down the road and it's been employers who've gotten the best of that so now it's time to correct the situation--not just make it go away because people didn't want to deal with it at the time. It's not OUR fault and WE shouldn't be penalized for it.

The reality is this--we are either a society that takes care of one another or we are not. If we are, suck it up buttercup--we share paying the freight. If not, well then--let's just get to it and regress 100 years--it is the 20's after all, why not revisit those days since they were so incredibly fun.

The GOP doesn't give a shit about a deficit, the Dems like spending money--seems like there's no one to really have the moral highroad when it comes to spending money we don't have--might as well spend it on something with merit. I have no issues with those making over a million a year being taxed more and even a higher rate on those making more. I don't see why anyone in here would have issue with that either. If people or corporates Ex Pat to avoid paying their share--revoke their citizenship and/or tariff their products should they attempt to run/l their businesses/goods I this country.

All I can say is that should the Govt. or whomever is in charge, end SSI or Medicare and like programs--I won't have an ounce of issues when the poor start doing whatever's necessary to survive. None. I'd be like the Juaquin Phoenix's Joker--You get what you deserve.

There TW, I just wrestled the mantle of Bad Guy Poster back from you.

[Sour Masher]

Here is an interesting article from the Atlantic on the negative impact of McKinsey and other management consultant firms on the middle class. Helpful for me, who have only heard or read more cartoon mustache twirling versions of why they are bad. But this make a good case for the extent of their negative impact without resorting to vilification (but still makes it clear how devastating they have been). I appreciated that, because the idea of technocracy, in the abstract, never seemed too bad to me. But the article makes a strong case for the negative impact of them as implemented by these firms. The short of it is that they stripped away the natural progression and rise of American workers from "the mail room to the corner office," and shifted the corporate ethos that used to consider the growth, training, and advancement of its employees to entirely serve the interest of shareholders and ruthless efficiency, even if it means massive layoffs, outsourcing, etc.

Although the article aims at explaining why Mayor Pete should be looked at suspiciously, for me, the secondary affect of this article is that it reaffirmed what first attracted me to Warren. Her specific proposals to regulate and change business are essentially a return to that old way of doing things, that gave workers the ability to start at the bottom, but rise up, through nurturing and training, and offered a shared sense of responsibility and ownership of a company at all levels. A way of not abandoning profit motives or the realities that such capitalistic motives lead to expansion and growth, but balancing them with that old corporate ethos that cared about and nurtured its workers, and gave them ways to advance, stability and security, and raises that outpaced CEO raises. For all of the attacks on Warren, and I admit some are warranted, I still like her vision of reform and believe it is the more realistic and better path than the revolution Sanders offers.

Here is the link, and any Sanders supporters, don't be turned off by my Warren conclusions. They are my own and have nothing to do with the article or its intent. The main focus of the article is to explain why Mayor Pete is viewed suspiciously by the left, and it accomplishes that goal effectively for me as well.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/comp...cE2?li=BBnbfcN

[Sour Masher]

TW, what do you make of this article from The Hill and the fact that South Carolina Repubs are advocating al Repubs to vote for Sanders? It very much seems like the GOP thinks Sanders winning the primaries is the best path to victory for Trump. Are you upset by this type of rigging and unfairness, even though it helps your man? If they were doing this for any other candidate, I think you'd be going ballistic: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elect...kTj?li=BBnbfcN

"The plan - orchestrated by Greenville GOP chairman Nate Leupp and several other prominent Republican Party leaders - revolves around GOP leadership's belief that Sanders poses the least amount of challenge to President Trump in November's general election"

[TS Garp]

Here is the link, and any Sanders supporters, don't be turned off by my Warren conclusions. They are my own and have nothing to do with the article or its intent. The main focus of the article is to explain why Mayor Pete is viewed suspiciously by the left, and it accomplishes that goal effectively for me as well.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/comp...cE2?li=BBnbfcN

The fact that someone as even-handed and seemingly open-minded as you has to add this disclaimer speaks volumes about the general nature of Sanders supporters.