US Presidential Election 2020

[leicsmac]

33 minutes ago, MattP said:

The way you talk it's like the US has a military budget that sky rockets every year no questions asked. That's just not the truth is it?

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/272473/us-military-spending-from-2000-to-2012/

 

So we have a base of somewhere between 600-700 billion and sometimes it's more and sometimes it's less. This isn't remotely comparable to a bloke just standing on a stage promising trillions but having no idea where it will come from.

Nah, it's like the US has a military budget that whatever the cost is never questioned in the same way that practically any other government spending is. Despite it being a higher proportion of US government spending than any other single matter - $934 billion this year, incidentally, two-thirds as much in one year as Sanders proposed childcare program would spend in ten years with, again, no questions asked about "where it comes from".

 

Just to be absolutely clear here and reiterate again, my ire is entirely with the seemingly special attitude towards that particular area of spending. I would ask why that attitude exists, but it would be a rhetorical question because than answer is obvious.

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Nah, it's like the US has a military budget that whatever the cost is never questioned in the same way that practically any other government spending is. Despite it being a higher proportion of US government spending than any other single matter - $934 billion this year, incidentally, two-thirds as much in one year as Sanders proposed childcare program would spend in ten years with, again, no questions asked about "where it comes from".

 

Just to be absolutely clear here and reiterate again, my ire is entirely with the seemingly special attitude towards that particular area of spending. I would ask why that attitude exists, but it would be a rhetorical question because than answer is obvious.

You know where it comes from - it's already in the budget as stated. It's also perfectly reasonable to be the biggest part of that budget given the place the US holds in the World and NATO.

 

And if Bernie's spending promises just revolved around free childcare it wouldn't be an issue, but you know that really don't you?

[leicsmac]

29 minutes ago, MattP said:

You know where it comes from - it's already in the budget as stated. It's also perfectly reasonable to be the biggest part of that budget given the place the US holds in the World and NATO.

 

And if Bernie's spending promises just revolved around free childcare it wouldn't be an issue, but you know that really don't you?

...then why can't "it's in the budget/it's going to be in the budget" be the same justification for other expenses? Why all the questioning about them and none about the military?

 

But then those questions are answered with the second sentence - because military spending and the application of force and suffering that it contributes to and the balance of power that it maintains (ostensibly in the name of "peace") means more to some people than helping people who often need to be helped.

 

FWIW I'm no economist so I'm not going to make much in the way of educated judgements on national budgets, but I do know power-mongering when I see it and giving military budgets a pass when scrutinising practically every other program (not just new, existing, too - look at what Trump has done to a great many social programs - where's their "it's already in the budget"?) is simply a manifestation of that, nothing more. At least those who advocate for it ought to have the stones to admit that's what they want rather than hiding behind twisted moral justifications for what they want - and just to be fair here, that applies to any nation that prizes military spending over other sources, whether it's the US, Russia, China or any other power.

[Guest MattP]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...then why can't "it's in the budget/it's going to be in the budget" be the same justification for other expenses? Why all the questioning about them and none about the military?

Because it's not currently in the budget. How can someone as bright as you not get this? If you want to add xxx trillion to current spending you need to budget for it and tell us where it's coming from.

 

National defence is currently part of that, free childcare isn't. So you need to find it. Just saying "something else is paid for so this can be as well" is again, student union politics.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

Because it's not currently in the budget. How can someone as bright as you not get this? If you want to add xxx trillion to current spending you need to budget for it and tell us where it's coming from.

 

National defence is currently part of that, free childcare isn't. So you need to find it. Just saying "something else is paid for so this can be as well" is again, student union politics.

I'm sorry, was

 

23 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

giving military budgets a pass when scrutinising practically every other program (not just new, existing, too - look at what Trump has done to a great many social programs - where's their "it's already in the budget"?)

missed here or something?

 

I'm well aware of the need to budget, but once again it's reasonably clear that focus on military spending has a special place in some peoples hearts whether compared to new or existing programs. And again, I think it's reasonably obvious as to why.

[Guest MattP]

35 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm sorry, was

 

missed here or something?

 

I'm well aware of the need to budget, but once again it's reasonably clear that focus on military spending has a special place in some peoples hearts whether compared to new or existing programs. And again, I think it's reasonably obvious as to why.

It wasn't missed at all. The budget is scrutinised and then passed every year is it not? If you want to add or deduct things from it then go for it.

 

Whether you like it or not Bernie is going to have to tell us where extra spending is coming from, if he wants to reduce the military budget to do that then stand on that - at the minute he's being even more ridiculous than McDonnell and Corbyn were over here.

 

He is now the favourite to win this nomination. Its not a student rally anymore, it's time for to actually produce a serious programme to be the next leader of the global super power.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

It wasn't missed at all. The budget is scrutinised and then passed every year is it not? If you want to add or deduct things from it then go for it.

 

Whether you like it or not Bernie is going to have to tell us where extra spending is coming from, if he wants to reduce the military budget to do that then stand on that - at the minute he's being even more ridiculous than McDonnell and Corbyn were over here.

 

He is now the favourite to win this nomination. Its not a student rally anymore, it's time for to actually produce a serious programme to be the next leader of the global super power.

I agree, and also it should be held that any extra spending for military budgets (where'd the money for the "Space Force" come from?) and/or limiting of existing social programs should be accounted for too by often the same people who criticise Bernie for lack of fiscal awareness.

 

Even-handedness is all that is being looked for here, because right now there doesn't appear to be much.

 

To expand on the whole topic as it pertains to the election, I do think that if Sanders wins the nomination he needs to cost stuff but also challenge Trump on a variety of other matters - healthcare possibly being the biggest potential winner.

 

[Detroit Blues]

50 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I agree, and also it should be held that any extra spending for military budgets (where'd the money for the "Space Force" come from?) and/or limiting of existing social programs should be accounted for too by often the same people who criticise Bernie for lack of fiscal awareness.

 

Even-handedness is all that is being looked for here, because right now there doesn't appear to be much.

 

To expand on the whole topic as it pertains to the election, I do think that if Sanders wins the nomination he needs to cost stuff but also challenge Trump on a variety of other matters - healthcare possibly being the biggest potential winner.

 

 

I think healthcare reform should be the #1 priority in this country. Trump ran his 2016 platform on killing obamacare (the public healthcare option) and replacing it with something better. Through his first term, almost nothing has happened. Health care costs continue to balloon out of control, and the US ends up finishing at the bottom of the rankings on almost every healthcare metric among industrialized nations. 

 

Any Democrat that gets on stage should beat Trump over the head with his failed campaign promise of healthcare reform. 

 

I'm sure you hear all the time about how many Americans cannot afford health insurance, or are under insured, and that is true. But healthcare is not just a problem for the poor, it is an issue across the board. My wife and I do well enough. I have healthcare provided by my employer that I would wager is in the top 20% of healthcare plans. I want to show you what it costs me personally to have healthcare:

 

Employer Cost:

Each year, my employer contributes $9,600 to pay an insurance company to cover me and my wife.

My employer also contributes an additional $1,500 to me, in a health savings account which can be spent on anything healthcare related.

Total cost to my employer = $11,100

 

Employee Cost:

In addition, I pay $80 a month on a pre-tax basis from my paycheck to the insurance company. That is $960 a year.

I am also taxed > $1000 a year to pay for the medicare program that covers the young and the elderly.

 

Every time i go to a doctor or have anything done, my insurance company bills me the full amount. I went to the doctor a few months ago for a standard cold, and it cost me $125 for the visit. If i go to a pharmacy, I pay the full amount for the prescription drugs. My wife and I will continue to pay the full amount for everything until we hit our deductible, which is $3,000. After that, my insurance company will pay for 90% of my healthcare costs (which means i will pay 10%) until I have hit $4,600. 

 

That means that my personal cost of healthcare is at minimum $1,960 annually. At maximum it is 1960 + (4600 out of pocket maximum - 1500 hsa) = $5,060. 

 

Total Cost

So between me and my employer we are paying up to $16,160 on healthcare for 2 people.

This does not include the medicare tax my wife pays

This does not include what I pay for dental and vision. 

This is assuming all of my costs are "in-network." Doctors, hospitals and treatments that my insurance has already made a deal with to be covered by my plan. If I get an advanced form of cancer, and I want immunotherapy, or something exotic, my insurance my bill me more OR not cover any of it. 

This assumes that I remain employed. I work at an at-will state, meaning my employer may fire me at any time for almost any reason. If I were to lose my job, my family would lose our healthcare coverage.

 

Cherish the NHS

 

[WigstonWanderer]

28 minutes ago, Detroit Blues said:

 

I think healthcare reform should be the #1 priority in this country. Trump ran his 2016 platform on killing obamacare (the public healthcare option) and replacing it with something better. Through his first term, almost nothing has happened. Health care costs continue to balloon out of control, and the US ends up finishing at the bottom of the rankings on almost every healthcare metric among industrialized nations. 

 

Any Democrat that gets on stage should beat Trump over the head with his failed campaign promise of healthcare reform. 

 

I'm sure you hear all the time about how many Americans cannot afford health insurance, or are under insured, and that is true. But healthcare is not just a problem for the poor, it is an issue across the board. My wife and I do well enough. I have healthcare provided by my employer that I would wager is in the top 20% of healthcare plans. I want to show you what it costs me personally to have healthcare:

 

Employer Cost:

Each year, my employer contributes $9,600 to pay an insurance company to cover me and my wife.

My employer also contributes an additional $1,500 to me, in a health savings account which can be spent on anything healthcare related.

Total cost to my employer = $11,100

 

Employee Cost:

In addition, I pay $80 a month on a pre-tax basis from my paycheck to the insurance company. That is $960 a year.

I am also taxed > $1000 a year to pay for the medicare program that covers the young and the elderly.

 

Every time i go to a doctor or have anything done, my insurance company bills me the full amount. I went to the doctor a few months ago for a standard cold, and it cost me $125 for the visit. If i go to a pharmacy, I pay the full amount for the prescription drugs. My wife and I will continue to pay the full amount for everything until we hit our deductible, which is $3,000. After that, my insurance company will pay for 90% of my healthcare costs (which means i will pay 10%) until I have hit $4,600. 

 

That means that my personal cost of healthcare is at minimum $1,960 annually. At maximum it is 1960 + (4600 out of pocket maximum - 1500 hsa) = $5,060. 

 

Total Cost

So between me and my employer we are paying up to $16,160 on healthcare for 2 people.

This does not include the medicare tax my wife pays

This does not include what I pay for dental and vision. 

This is assuming all of my costs are "in-network." Doctors, hospitals and treatments that my insurance has already made a deal with to be covered by my plan. If I get an advanced form of cancer, and I want immunotherapy, or something exotic, my insurance my bill me more OR not cover any of it. 

This assumes that I remain employed. I work at an at-will state, meaning my employer may fire me at any time for almost any reason. If I were to lose my job, my family would lose our healthcare coverage.

 

Cherish the NHS

 

Sounds like US insurance companies and/or health providers are a bunch of greedy bastards

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Sounds like US insurance companies and/or health providers are a bunch of greedy bastards

Did you know that the Pope's a Catholic?

[Guest MattP]

That means that my personal cost of healthcare is at minimum $1,960 annually. At maximum it is 1960 + (4600 out of pocket maximum - 1500 hsa) = $5,060. 

 

 

 

Lower end of that is pretty good, less than a UK worker will generally pay into the NHS over the course of a year through taxation. The possible cost hanging over your head upto 5k is pretty ludicrous though.

 

As I've said before, long term the answer to this question isn't the UK or the US model - it's somewhere in between.

Edited 27 February 2020 by MattP

[leicsmac]

33 minutes ago, MattP said:

That means that my personal cost of healthcare is at minimum $1,960 annually. At maximum it is 1960 + (4600 out of pocket maximum - 1500 hsa) = $5,060. 

 

 

 

Lower end of that is pretty good, less than a UK worker will generally pay into the NHS over the course of a year through taxation. The possible cost hanging over your head upto 5k is pretty ludicrous though.

 

As I've said before, long term the answer to this question isn't the UK or the US model - it's somewhere in between.

Implementing Medicare For All will allow exactly that to happen - it's not like private insurance will suddenly become unavailable (it's certainly available in the UK after all), all it will do is guarantee a baseline of care for everyone without the fear of being bankrupted. That does seem to work in practically all of the OECD apart from the US and UK.

Edited 27 February 2020 by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

On a slightly different note, a find about Trump, Covid-19 and the economy heading towards November:

 

"Today began with Trump tweeting. “Low Ratings Fake News MSDNC (Comcast) & @CNN are doing everything possible to make the Caronavirus look as bad as possible, including panicking markets, if possible. Likewise their incompetent Do Nothing Democrat comrades are all talk, no action. USA in great shape!”

Molly Jong-Fast, editor at the Daily Beast mused: Does anyone think it’s weird that Trump is so offended by #COVID-19. He thinks it’s a personal affront instead of a Public health emergency.”

 

Freelance writer Sheila Quirke nailed the answer: “Textbook narcissist. He is the center of all things, so, of course, a growing global pandemic is about him. This is true of ALL things and will not change. From his POV, the world, people, all things are only experienced in relationship to him being centered.”

 

Trump cannot see that there is good reason to be concerned about a pandemic, and that its effect on economic production will ripple through international markets. The drive to be prepared for the onslaught of the disease so that we weather it in the best way possible must be a personal attack on him.

 

Yesterday, the White House briefed Congress on its response to the coronavirus, but classified it, so members could not talk about it. Those who heard it were unimpressed on a bipartisan basis. Trump was also mad that Dr. Nancy Messonnier, a top official from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention who is handling the coronavirus, said it was not a question of whether, but of when, the virus would hit the United States. “She never should have said that,” a senior administration official told Washington correspondent for CNBC Eamon Javers. “It’s bad.”

 

Today talk radio host Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing commentators attacked Messonnier because it turns out she is Rod Rosenstein's sister. Rosenstein was the deputy Attorney General who took over the Russia investigation when then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions had to recuse himself because he was implicated in the scandal. Rosenstein is a Republican who was nominated to be the U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland by Trump himself. But because he appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller, another Republican, Trump has redefined him as an enemy, and today Trump’s supporters are trying to undercut his sister’s warnings about the coronavirus by saying that she is part of a deep state trying to tank the markets to weaken Trump.

 

And, indeed, Trump is deeply worried about the stock market, which lost more ground today and whose futures are already set to drop more than 300 points tomorrow. This reflects the news tonight that the United States has its first case of the disease that is a possible result of “community spread,” that is, we don’t know exactly where it came from. This would indicate a wider spread of the disease than we are currently aware of. The coronavirus has hit the world economy as quarantines in Asia have weakened supply chains, and those losses are gradually moving their way into manufacturing and supply here in America (as well as other countries). As the disease runs its course, the slowdown in manufacturing and the movement of goods will slow down economic growth everywhere.

 

Trump is worried about the dropping stock market because his strongest hope for reelection is a good economy, which he insisted the booming stock market showed. While many observers worried that a high stock market alone does not a healthy economy make, as people are working three jobs to make ends meet and 40% of Americans cannot find $400 for an emergency, the stock market was his go-to proof that things were good. If that drops, his best argument for reelection disappears. If he is not reelected, he is no longer protected from criminal indictment by the power of the presidential office, and many people—I am one—think this looms huge in his mind.

 

So an expression of concern about the coronavirus, which is hurting international markets (as well as killing people), by his definition is an attack on him by hostile Democrats or the Deep State. Tonight, Trump came to the briefing room podium for the second time in his presidency to defend his handling of the coronavirus, insisting his administration had handled it extremely well. He took the opportunity to call House Speaker Nancy Pelosi incompetent and partisan and to complain about Minority Leader Chuck Schumer while also insisting that his own poll numbers were terrific.

 

I have had an extremely long day (it’s midterms week) but my read on all this is that Trump is frightened that the weakening of the economy on the news of spreading coronavirus will tank his reelection, and he is circling the wagons to try to look strong. But, unlike Trump’s former opponents, the coronavirus cannot be bullied, and Americans worried by it will not believe it is “fake news” no matter how often Rush Limbaugh tells them it is a hoax by the fictional Deep State.

 

With this backdrop, Trump’s purging of experts he perceives as disloyal and his attempt to silence critics makes him look incompetent and weak. Tonight he announced he was putting Vice President Mike Pence in charge of handling the coronavirus preparedness, but he apparently didn’t mention that to Health and Human Services Secretary Alexander Azar, who is in charge of the task force addressing the coronavirus, until minutes before the press conference. After it, Azar took the microphone to assure reporters he was still in charge of the task force.

 

News broke this week of a new hire at the White House: a man who is a college senior is working for another man who used to be the president’s personal assistant (and who was fired by then-Chief of Staff John Kelley) in the office of Presidential Personnel, responsible for screening and hiring thousands of employees. These men are central to the Trump purge of those he considers disloyal, but that a college senior and a previously fired personal assistant are in charge of a White House office suggests that the caliber of the president’s team is not as high as presidential teams have been in the past.

 

Also today, news broke that Trump's reelection campaign has sued the New York Times for defamation, accusing it of “a systematic pattern of bias” designed to prevent him from winning in 2020. It claims the Times is in league with the Democratic Party, and it suggested that an op-ed published in March 2019 was false because the New York Times must have known about the forthcoming Mueller Report of April 2019. This is a clear call to Trump’s base, and will likely not be resolved before the election, but it strikes me as a terribly weak move.

 

It is, though, an attack on the freedom of the press, and is notable for that, if nothing else. Even more disturbing is today’s announcement that the Department of Justice has created a new section to take citizenship away from naturalized citizens found to be “Terrorists, War Criminals, Sex Offenders, and Other Fraudsters.” The government has stripped naturalized war criminals on so on of citizenship since WWII, including more than 300 former Nazis and 107 others for war crimes. What is new here is that the DOJ is creating a special section for this denaturalization, suggesting there will be widespread denaturalization occurring, and that they are including “Other Fraudsters.” In their example of such “fraudsters,” they note four people who claimed to be a family to gain admission to the United States. This sure seems like it’s a door to start stripping naturalized citizens of their status, another anti-immigrant policy that should appeal to Trump’s base.

 

As Trump becomes more and more concerned about his reelection, we can expect to see more and more of this kind of base appeal. We can also be fairly certain that his loyalists are not able to handle the coronavirus.

 

And on that note: Just as I finished this tonight, news broke that the patient who got the disease from community spread was transferred to the UC Davis Medical Center where the doctors asked the patient be tested for COVID-19. Since the patient did not meet the current criteria for the virus, the request was denied. When the test was performed three days later, it was positive. Ouch."

[Carl the Llama]

Not only winning the poll war but also the meme war.  Is there anything this man can't do?

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

Not only winning the poll war but also the meme war.  Is there anything this man can't do?

Win the Presidency I'd imagine.

 

God it's like moving back to 2017 with the Corbyn fanboys.

[Carl the Llama]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

Win the Presidency I'd imagine.

 

God it's like moving back to 2017 with the Corbyn fanboys.

Don't get all nostalgic on us.

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Don't get all nostalgic on us.

Don't get me wrong I hope Sanders wins, as @Innovindil said last week Trump v Sanders is going to be absolutely hilarious whatever happens to anyone outside of America.

 

You have been warned though twice now from this side of the Atlantic - last time told Trump could win with an alliance of blue collar workers and traditional conservatives post Brexit. This time the warning is putting up someone seen as too far left (even if you don't think he is) who will turn off a great many of those swing voters whilst only courting the young. 

 

In 2016 I felt a bit sorry for the Democrats as they had little warning of what was about to hit them, this time it's all on them though if they go in all hoping for a different outcome.

[Carl the Llama]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

Don't get me wrong I hope Sanders wins, as @Innovindil said last week Trump v Sanders is going to be absolutely hilarious whatever happens to anyone outside of America.

 

You have been warned though twice now from this side of the Atlantic - last time told Trump could win with an alliance of blue collar workers and traditional conservatives post Brexit. This time the warning is putting up someone seen as too far left (even if you don't think he is) who will turn off a great many of those swing voters whilst only courting the young. 

 

In 2016 I felt a bit sorry for the Democrats as they had little warning of what was about to hit them, this time it's all on them though if they go in all hoping for a different outcome.

If that is indeed the case it will only be because of a concerted propaganda effort from rightists, which I'm sure they're hard at work on right now.  I'm not convinced his appeal is just the students this time around though, you don't expect him to pull in the polling figures or sheer number of individual donors that he has if that were the case.

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

If that is indeed the case it will only be because of a concerted propaganda effort from rightists, which I'm sure they're hard at work on right now.  I'm not convinced his appeal is just the students this time around though, you don't expect him to pull in the polling figures or sheer number of individual donors that he has if that were the case.

Now we are digging deep into Corbyn territory - I assume the Jewish lobby and the Clintonites are next up.

 

Least if it does go wrong we already know who definitely isn't to blame.

[Finnaldo]

Labour’s main issue in 2017 wasn’t the manifesto, it was the guy in charge who didn’t connect with his voter base and had a set of very concerning allies. 
 

Bernie, as far as my knowledge goes, doesn’t have links with the IRA or Palestinian terror organisations, and I certainly can’t imagine he’ll have any issues with anti-semitism. 
 

It really comes down to the reaction to Trump and Medicare really. Will certainly be an interesting ride.

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Now we are digging deep into Corbyn territory - I assume the Jewish lobby and the Clintonites are next up.

 

Least if it does go wrong we already know who definitely isn't to blame.

We really aren't, you're just seeing what you want to see.

[leicsmac]

https://news.yahoo.com/dnc-superdelegates-warn-block-bernie-174108813.html

 

Don't worry Don, you don't need to work to win, the Dems will do it all for you.

[Guest MattP]

20 hours ago, Finnaldo said:

Labour’s main issue in 2017 wasn’t the manifesto, it was the guy in charge who didn’t connect with his voter base and had a set of very concerning allies. 
 

Bernie, as far as my knowledge goes, doesn’t have links with the IRA or Palestinian terror organisations, and I certainly can’t imagine he’ll have any issues with anti-semitism. 

In the Ashcroft report the unrealism of the manifesto was actually given as the third biggest reason behind only Brexit and Corbyn. Bigger than antisemitism. 

 

From the focus groups quotes such as "bribery" "like living in an African country" and "what free stuff are you promising us today" was common.

 

17 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

We really aren't, you're just seeing what you want to see.

It's almost exactly the same arguments, quite surreal from our side.

 

9 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://news.yahoo.com/dnc-superdelegates-warn-block-bernie-174108813.html

 

Don't worry Don, you don't need to work to win, the Dems will do it all for you.

If Bernie wins it would be a disgrace to see the delegates overturn it, as I've been saying for a few years now - if democracy means anything you have to respect the votes you are given.

 

This wouldn't surprise me one bit though. They haven't respected the election of Trump so why would they Sanders either? The Democrat establishment is rank.

 

When was the last brokered convention in US politics? Certainly don't remember one in my lifetime.

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, MattP said:

If Bernie wins it would be a disgrace to see the delegates overturn it, as I've been saying for a few years now - if democracy means anything you have to respect the votes you are given.

 

This wouldn't surprise me one bit though. They haven't respected the election of Trump so why would they Sanders either? The Democrat establishment is rank.

 

When was the last brokered convention in US politics? Certainly don't remember one in my lifetime.

Having looked it up, it was 1984 - though it wasn't much of one. The last seriously contested one was 1972 - and there was a crook in the White House then, too.

[Carl the Llama]

38 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's almost exactly the same arguments, quite surreal from our side.

I'm worried you've lost the ability to differentiate between left-wing politicians and talking points if this is your honest opinion.  I agree that it's very surreal your side would genuinely believe this, very different candidates running in very different countries on very different key pledges.  Next you'll be telling me Bernie was seen at an IRA funeral in the 70s.