Live from New Hampshire, it's the 3rd Democratic Primary Debate!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Foffy said:
In reference to health care? She argued against Sander's approach to a single payer system and followed it up with that claim.

She used that argument to argue against single payer, which she does not support.
Click to expand...

Which is the biggest mark against her in my opinion. I doubt we'll see single payer in my lifetime regardless of who is in the white house.
 
damisa said:
She is only refusing tax increaes on lower income people. Same policy as Obama basically, which I think most people would agree with
Click to expand...

If the taxes go to a program like roads, social security or medicare, why be against it? Taxes build this country. Sure, make the rich pay more but it's unrealistic and gross that we've been stuck in a situation where taxes are some kind of dirty word since Bush Sr.

gutter_trash said:
all words spoken during the primaries can and may be used against candidates in the general election.

Hillary is being smart
Click to expand...

And when she signs a bill that increases taxes by $1.69 a week what then? She loses reelection.
 
cheezcake said:
No the moderators need more control. You can't have a good debate without good moderation, this shit show of people just continually shouting over each other is juvenile.
Click to expand...

They haven't been doing that though. They're just trying to respond when their names are mentioned but the moderators want to constantly hurry along to the next question. It's kind of frustrating to be honest.
 
Emarv said:
No way. Obama is a direct relation to the rise of the Tea Party/Freedom Caucus. Go look at Clinton's Senate record. The GOP is villainizing Clinton to be sure, but the hatred isn't nearly as strong as what it was for Obama.

It's just that that anger is already so high from 8 years of Obama that Clinton is now getting the brunt of it.
Click to expand...

Historically? I dont think so. Theres still a lot, lot of hatred still looming from her 90s debacles.
 
Jonm1010 said:
No you can't.

You absolutely do need to raise taxes across the board to pay for some of the actual meaningful reforms Democrats want at the core of their party like UHC.

Bernie is just more willing to come out and admit the truth and break this stupid vicious cycle democrats have gotten themselves into by playing into the hands of the GOP by universally demonizing tax raises to anyone but the richest of the rich.
Click to expand...

Because people don't want to hear that you're going to raise their taxes. They. Do. Not. Like. It.

A Democrat coming out and saying they're going to raise your taxes, even if it is for the best, is a very tough sell that it isn't worth the risk in a Republican president.
 
I'm done with this debate. So much fantasy land talk. The reality is that the next democrat president - clearly Hillary Clinton - won't get much of anything done domestically. The next democrat president's term or terms will be bogged down by endless republican obstruction, investigations, and economic sabotage. That president's worth will not be measured by legislative accomplishments and instead be measured by Supreme Court justice nominations, protecting Obamacare, defending the VRA in court, and every now and then securing spending concessions during budget fights.

College won't be "free" anytime soon. There will be no tax increase on top earners. Immigration reform will not be passed. Universal healthcare will not be passed. I hope people are realistic about this shit. No candidate is going to sweep into office like Obama did, with a wave of democrat senators and congressmen to pass your agenda. Republicans will continue to hold congress and will likely continue to hold the senate, barring some amazing turn of events.
 
Laevateinn said:
If the taxes go to a program like roads, social security or medicare, why be against it? Taxes build this country. Sure, make the rich pay more but it's unrealistic and gross that we've been stuck in a situation where taxes are some kind of dirty word since Bush Sr.



And when she signs a bill that increases taxes by $1.69 a week what then? She loses reelection.
Click to expand...

the last President who raised taxes was.......... A REPUBLICAN!!!!!!
 
B-Dubs said:
If you go into a general arguing for Single Payer you are dead in the water. We couldn't even get a public option, you might have more faith in the American electorate than I do.
Click to expand...

I've never met a person who didn't like single payer when it was understood. That sentiment breaches people of both parties. Genuinely asking, do people you talk to disagree with the idea of single payer?
 
Coriolanus said:
If the critique is related to the argument being carried, it is valid. If the critique is about the candidate and doesn't address the argument, then it is an ad hominem. Had he explained why bernie's position is not realistic in the slightest, it would have been valid.

he was just hurling offenses and never addressed the argument, thus yes, ad hominem.
Click to expand...

When you are discussing a politician, making a general statement such as "they are out of touch" is very related to the argument being carried.

It isn't helpful, but I don't see it as a personal attack.
 
B-Dubs said:
If you go into a general arguing for Single Payer you are dead in the water. We couldn't even get a public option, you might have more faith in the American electorate than I do.
Click to expand...

We couldn't get a public option because of congressional fuckery by Lieberman and some other fuckwits.

No reason that couldn't be a popular and pragmatic policy point to make the case for how to improve peoples healthcare and play into the long term goal of true UHC for the party.

There is an opening provided by Bernie and the interest he has created for the base and the extremism of Trump to carve out some areas of more liberal policy advocacy. That could then be used to rally democrats to help out in mid terms.
 
timetokill said:
Who said I'm a Sanders supporter?

I'll be SHOCKED if Hillary does anything to help deal with the student debt crisis.
Click to expand...

Really? I think there are 3 things a democratic president would have to tackle:

1. Student debt/the cost of a college education

2. Prescription drug prices

3. The minimum wage

The unifying reason being all 3 have become serious drags on the economy and major inhibitors to people's financial security, so much so as to point out the unfairness of capitalism in such a way that actually makes people want to reject the system all together.
 
Melkr_ said:
Historically? I dont think so. Theres still a lot, lot of hatred still looming from her 90s debacles.
Click to expand...

There's definite animosity, but there was work between her and the GOP in the Senate. Obama only received obstruction.

Hillary plays the game. Obama doesn't.
 
DietRob said:
I will I'm genuinely curious of your position that we don't need to address gerrymandering since it seems so absurd to me.
Click to expand...

I never said it doesn't need to be addressed, just that it is overblown. It costs Democrats only a couple of seats. If you want to tackle the issue then push for mapping multiple segments in populated areas and combating voter apathy.
 
PhoenixDark said:
I'm done with this debate. So much fantasy land talk. The reality is that the next democrat president - clearly Hillary Clinton - won't get much of anything done domestically. The next democrat president's term or terms will be bogged down by endless republican obstruction, investigations, and economic sabotage. That president's worth will not be measured by legislative accomplishments and instead be measured by Supreme Court justice nominations, protecting Obamacare, defending the VRA in court, and every now and then securing spending concessions during budget fights.

College won't be "free" anytime soon. There will be no tax increase on top earners. Immigration reform will not be passed. Universal healthcare will not be passed. I hope people are realistic about this shit. No candidate is going to sweep into office like Obama did, with a wave of democrat senators and congressmen to pass your agenda. Republicans will continue to hold congress and will likely continue to hold the senate, barring some amazing turn of events.
Click to expand...

Add risk of technological unemployment becoming a great potential risk, and you have totally summed up what will happen.

I wish you were a Nostradamus for another universe..
 
Macho Madness said:
Because people don't want to hear that you're going to raise their taxes. They. Do. Not. Like. It.

A Democrat coming out and saying they're going to raise your taxes, even if it is for the best, is a very tough sell that it isn't worth the risk in a Republican president.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying you do that. Not at all. I am saying you just don't have to literally echo the talking points of the GOP about taxes.
 
PhoenixDark said:
I'm done with this debate. So much fantasy land talk. The reality is that the next democrat president - clearly Hillary Clinton - won't get much of anything done domestically. The next democrat president's term or terms will be bogged down by endless republican obstruction, investigations, and economic sabotage. That president's worth will not be measured by legislative accomplishments and instead be measured by Supreme Court justice nominations, protecting Obamacare, defending the VRA in court, and every now and then securing spending concessions during budget fights.

College won't be "free" anytime soon. There will be no tax increase on top earners. Immigration reform will not be passed. Universal healthcare will not be passed. I hope people are realistic about this shit. No candidate is going to sweep into office like Obama did, with a wave of democrat senators and congressmen to pass your agenda. Republicans will continue to hold congress and will likely continue to hold the senate, barring some amazing turn of events.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. But it is important that someone like Bernie Sanders and his ideas is getting the spotlight. He will influence a new generation to do what it has to be done.
 
This is from Bernie's Bill for single payer

The Program amends the tax code to create the American Health Security Trust Fund and appropriates to the Fund specified tax revenues, current health program receipts, and tax credits and subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. While the final structure of the financing component is still under consideration and is subject to change, the tax revenues in the draft include a new health care income tax, an employer payroll tax, a surcharge on high income individuals, and a tax on securities transactions.

The federal government would collect and distribute all funds to the states for the operation of the state programs to pay for the covered services. Budget increases would be limited to the rate of growth of the gross domestic product. Each state’s budget for administrative expenses would be capped at three percent.
Click to expand...

This is not the single payer you're looking for. Any single payer system which distribute to the states is ridiculous.
 
Laevateinn said:
If the taxes go to a program like roads, social security or medicare, why be against it? Taxes build this country. Sure, make the rich pay more but it's unrealistic and gross that we've been stuck in a situation where taxes are some kind of dirty word since Bush Sr.
.
Click to expand...

The real answer for roads and social security and such is to dip into the 55% of our entire budget that goes into the military industrial complex, but of course that's even more of a political non-starter than tax increases. Seriously, the 2015 budget is, at a glance, currently 66 billion for medicare and health and six hundred billion for military spending. You could double our current healthcare spending without tax increases on anyone and you would have a very hard time convincing me that it would significantly impact our military's ability to operate
 
Foffy said:
I have faith in reason.

I was born in the wrong society, obviously.
Click to expand...
Single payer doesn't work here because it's too much of a wrenching change from what we have. Logistical costs are astronomical, same reason we don't convert to metric. Public-supported private insurance can work fine (see: Car Insurance), we just need to sever the employment/healthcare link.
 
PhoenixDark said:
I'm done with this debate. So much fantasy land talk. The reality is that the next democrat president - clearly Hillary Clinton - won't get much of anything done domestically. The next democrat president's term or terms will be bogged down by endless republican obstruction, investigations, and economic sabotage. That president's worth will not be measured by legislative accomplishments and instead be measured by Supreme Court justice nominations, protecting Obamacare, defending the VRA in court, and every now and then securing spending concessions during budget fights.

College won't be "free" anytime soon. There will be no tax increase on top earners. Immigration reform will not be passed. Universal healthcare will not be passed. I hope people are realistic about this shit. No candidate is going to sweep into office like Obama did, with a wave of democrat senators and congressmen to pass your agenda. Republicans will continue to hold congress and will likely continue to hold the senate, barring some amazing turn of events.
Click to expand...
Preach it. These candidates are loons. It amazes me we don't have a good realist up there talking about how difficult the current political landscape is at the moment and say in real terms what we need to do today (I mean, not that we can do anything because of the political gridlock, but you know what I mean -- talk about the day-to-day tasks the president does and the things she or he actually has control over).

Melkr_ said:
I agree with this. But it is important that someone like Bernie Sanders and his ideas is getting the spotlight. He will influence a new generation to do what it has to be done.
Click to expand...
Influence them to do what... smoke weed and ignore minority issues?
 
Foffy said:
Add risk of technological unemployment becoming a great potential risk, and you have totally summed up what will happen.

I wish you were a Nostradamus for another universe..
Click to expand...

qs2uKU6.png
 
adam387 said:
This is from Bernie's Bill for single payer



This is not the single payer you're looking for. Any single payer system which distribute to the states is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the alternative is...what? I mean, let it be clear here; if we need a model moving forward, his is the best one. Even ACA is linked to states, is it not?

If you link it to states, eventually you can evolve that as a whole system, no? Even if it's the have/have not game you and I see as the problem in this country, it being a single payer platform, albeit a state one, is better than the insurance racket people have to be beguiled into.

Inebriated said:
qs2uKU6.png
Click to expand...

That explains it; from then to now, he swapped universes.

We got the one calling it right now.
 
adam387 said:
This is from Bernie's Bill for single payer



This is not the single payer you're looking for. Any single payer system which distribute to the states is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

It is not ideal to me but I would need to see more details of how that works out. If states merely act as administrators it isnt the worst thing in the world.
 
kirblar said:
Single payer doesn't work here because it's too much of a wrenching change from what we have. Logistical costs are astronomical, same reason we don't convert to metric. Public-supported private insurance can work fine (see: Car Insurance), we just need to sever the employment/healthcare link.
Click to expand...

That's why if we want to make the change that it has to be done step by step. Gotta make it so one day America wakes up with single payer and has no idea how it even got there.

Foffy said:
Yes, but the alternative is...what? I mean, let it be clear here; if we need a model moving forward, his is the best one. Even ACA is linked to states, is it not?

If you link it to states, eventually you can evolve that as a whole system, no? Even if it's the have/have not game you and I see as the problem in this country, it being a single payer platform, albeit a state one, is better than the insurance racket people have to be beguiled into.
Click to expand...

The ACA is only partly linked to the states, it gave them the option to play along, it still had a strong federal component if the states decide they won't play ball. Then the SC gutted part of it and here we are.
 
watershed said:
Really? I think there are 3 things a democratic president would have to tackle:

1. Student debt/the cost of a college education

2. Prescription drug prices

3. The minimum wage

The unifying reason being all 3 have become serious drags on the economy and major inhibitors to people's financial security, so much so as to point out the unfairness of capitalism in such a way that actually makes people want to reject the system all together.
Click to expand...

I'd love to be wrong, but Hillary is too beholden to her corporate masters to do anything about it, even if she wanted to, which I'm not convinced she does.
 
Foffy said:
Yes, but the alternative is...what? I mean, let it be clear here; if we need a model moving forward, his is the best one. Even ACA is linked to states, is it not?

If you link it to states, eventually you can evolve that as a whole system, no? Even if it's the have/have not game you and I see as the problem in this country, it being a single payer platform, albeit a state one, is better than the insurance racket people have to be beguiled into.
Click to expand...

And the ACA being attached to the states was one of the biggest issues. It rested on the idea that the Republicans would do what's best for their citizens. They won't. A single payer system must be run at the federal level in as non-partisan a way as possible.
 
Foffy said:
Yes, but the alternative is...what? I mean, let it be clear here; if we need a model moving forward, his is the best one. Even ACA is linked to states, is it not?

If you link it to states, eventually you can evolve that as a whole system, no? Even if it's the have/have not game you and I see as the problem in this country, it being a single payer platform, albeit a state one, is better than the insurance racket people have to be beguiled into.
Click to expand...

It is, but the vast majority of the problems were caused by giving states power and have Red states basically refuse money and not implement the proper expansions or not give a shit about their exchange. I don't think a single pay system handled by states will be much better than the way it currently is. It would fall to the same political divisions that causes issues for the ACA
 
Hillary playing sentimental again? The last time I didn't like it that much. Surely they most have told her to cut it out a bit?

Edit: She did, good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

New Hampshire man is 2nd person known to be living with a pig kidney
28
1K
Alebrije replied
  • Locked
I think it's time we take off and nuke Reddit from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
3
756
Aesius replied
First photos from the new Masters of the Universe movie
26
2K
Jenov replied
It's the 1st day of Summer!
2
68
317
12Goblins replied
From the World of John Wick: Ballerina | New Trailer | 2025
2
99
3K
Redneckerz replied
Top Bottom