Bottomfeeder Sports

Members
  • Content count

    19,747
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,099 Excellent

About Bottomfeeder Sports

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Melissa

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team

Recent Profile Visitors

12,086 profile views
  1. That is the argument that globalization raised the standard of living for everyone except the middle class American worker? Don't think I need to see it as I am old enough and grew up and have lived my entire life around it, We were a better country when it was more expensive to cash out profits. No doubt.
  2. I believe that “Behind the scenes, however, Mr. Obama and advisors have been...negotiating deals with a degree of cold-eyed political realism potentially at odds with the president’s rhetoric.” was absolutely a characteristic of Obama's eight years. Usually it was a necessary evil, maybe it was one here also but I can't help but to think that Obama's desire to not spend all of his political capital on healthcare resulted in much of that political capital expiring when Scott Brown was elected. So in many ways I'm on your side. But the "public option" was not "single payer" which is not necessarily "Medicare for All". Obama negotiated away the "public option" where there were not the votes to pass anyway - true. But that did not thwart the passage of Medicare for All in 2010. Obama might had have the ability to go all in on "single payer" and get some form of it, but there was no chance that it would have looked like Medicare for All in 2010 because the idea of government takeover of healthcare was a winning argument against the relatively trivial changes that were ObamaCare until just recently. Now the thing is that while I was highly critical of Obama being an incrementalist in 2009-2010, I'm not so certain that we are not much closer to Medicare for All today than we would have been if Obama went all in at the time. To me ObamaCare and the GOP sabotage of the ACA and the fact that the positive "bend the curve" results from the ACA were never going to be enough look like necessary stepping stones to bring the masses away from the "you want the same people running the DMV handling your healthcare" arguments. If that 70% holds and becomes motivated this impossible dream of a decade ago might just be a reality soon enough. Ultimately those on the left have the same end goals. Some insist that we can just jump to the end goals while others insist that we need to painstakingly get there two steps forward and one step back. Both as absolutes are wrong. Most change is frustratingly slow incrementalism, but major change tends to happen overnight. Only a few "crazies" would have believed during the roaring twenties that Social Security was right around the corner. As the population was freaking out about gay marriage and voting shamefully to outlaw in state constitutions who would have thought we could have evolve so quickly. Similarly a decade ago only a handful of "nuts" thought Medicare for All was a good idea yet alone possible anytime soon. Hopefully the moment for one of these big changes has arrived. And hopefully we don't squander it with petty fights among those with the same goals but different beliefs on how to get there. Most years the incrementalist are correct, we just need to be ready to pounce on those exceptional years. (Says someone who has watch BIG support go from 3 guys occasionally mentioning it to - dare I say - being supported by pretty much a healthy cross section of this forums political spectrum.)
  3. Stay safe!
  4. You do realize that in 2009 and 2010 I was the poster that complained that Obama was letting a good crisis go to waste by "making tiny course adjustments on lots of things" rather than "shooting for the moon". So I get the sense that there was a lost opportunity to make one or two drastic changes for the better, Obama had a broader set of goals and was unwilling to spend all of his political capital on a long shot such as single payer. I'm not sure that I don't agree with you especially with the political price Democrats paid anyway in 2010 that Obama shouldn't have went big, but going big might have gotten single payer but I don't think it would have resembled HR 676 but instead have been more along the lines of vouchers to go buy coverage on an exchange. Support for Medicare for All in the House based on cosponsors existed to some degree in 2009 in the House but not in the Senate.
  5. The Senate passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act with a vote of 60-39. A second bill, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 was later passed 56-43 in the Senate with select amendments. The public option was believed to be no where near 60 votes or even 51. So basically the facts are facts! They just don't in any way support your assertion.
  6. Which single payer bill did he veto? Or thwart by openingly opposing legislation that would have otherwise passed? If your argument is that by linking his legacy to ObamaCare he made it impossible for future democrats to push for single payer then the 16 cosponsors in the Senate and 70 in the House for Medicare for All missed the memo. But since you have the facts please list them since I must really be missing your point since the closest thing I can think of is giving up the fight for the pubic option due to lack of Senate support - but that was not single payer.
  7. While I'd like to see corporate money out of politics and to a large extent public sentiment has been manipulated by that corporate money , the reason we don't have Medicare for All today has more to do with the fact that most Americans opposed it until just a few months ago.
  8. Medicare for All While Medicare for All is the better name to sell "single payer, universal healthcare" there have been some problematic legislation that has been crafted using this label in the past where it was crafted as pretty much open ended fee for service programs which would not have been sustainable. So there could be variations on "Medicare for All" that should not be supported the general idea of paying for healthcare by shifting from collecting premiums from [mostly] employers and employees to taxation is not really something that seems controversial. Is there really a philosophical difference between premiums and taxes? The only difference I see is the unevenness of it as those making less are paying a higher percentage of income to cover themselves and, assuming the are healthy their peers. Now how to structure how these taxes are disbursed is more controversial but changing the mechanism should not. And once you take that first step I think the remaining will figure themselves out. Maybe some form of right wing vouchers to pay for private coverage would shock us all and be a better than just a single Medicare plan? Probably not Fully funded Public schools and Universities People go to college for a variety of reasons, but I think that for all but a few majors the differences in lifetime income makes this a sound financial investment for the individual. The question though is whether this would be a sound investment for society in general. Would we get enough back in tax revenue that this just pays for itself? Would earning 75% more over one's lifetime. Or, how much of that extra 900K on average needs to be recovered in future taxes to pay for the education (and lost opportunities to invest it elsewhere)? I think that unless there are solid arguments that these historical numbers would change significantly then this is easy to answer. That being said once upon a time on these boards I suggested that we should take and give every American an equal size basic income. But for children we should defer most of it into a savings fund to use for college or trade school or if none of that makes sense for them to use however once they reach a certain age. I'd still prefer that to "free college". At least after a transition period. Universal Jobs Guarantee I probably agree with conservatives on this one that administrative cost implementing such a program would mean that it would have been cheaper to just give those that benefit cash. So instead let us guarantee a minimum income and dismantle the welfare bureaucracy while we are at it. Housing as a Human Right Considering the Universal Job Guarantee and other safety net items I think this is more about the availability of affordable housing as opposed to programs to pay for housing, That is building homes that working class people can buy with a reasonable percentage of income going to mortgage relatively close to where they work. As opposed to places like San Francisco where those that have service jobs in the city generally can't live in the city. But even if this means a greatly expanded "section 8" voucher program society is better off if people are "off the street" "with a roof over their heads". Justice System Reform Kurt Schmoke was way ahead of the times when he killed his political career because he was tired of burying his friends that were law enforcement casualties in the war on drugs. He dared say that maybe we should treat drugs as a health crisis rather than a criminal one. Immigration Reform I don't really care about the fate ICE, but how can one argue that they support free markets and be opposed to labor moving to where there is an active job market? I mean I understand how those that can't compete might be opposed but beyond that? As for cost (you can't have open borders and a welfare state) I've long believed that the "illegal immigration" overall is probably pretty close to break even. What needs to be reformed is making sure that those local cost and benefits are spread out as close to evenly as possible so those benefiting aren't asking someone else to pay. Bringing everything out in the open would likely solve this, though I fear that we would lose out on the current system being one that favors those that initiative rather than stand in lines. "New Green Deal" to combat Climate Change No, we should let someone else "own" the "energy" of the future. Worked out well just buying oil from the "some of the best" around the world. Campaign Finance Reform How many hours a month are office holders expect to raise money for their parties? I'm not so sure that that soliciting skills should be part of governing. Maybe if we make the jobs more attractive to those that aren't good at asking for things from everyone else we would attract better candidates,
  9. I would think your faith should be reaffirmed by the exchanges in the "free market" of ideas.
  10. Whoa, wait a minute there guy, I thought: Oh, I guess this statement was patently false, right? What has changed in the last 35 minutes? Nothing changed. Obama inheriting massive deficit from the economic collapse and made the deficits worst in the short term to address the Great Recession early in his term to leave office with much lower deficits as shown on your graphs as "flattening" out. ETA: He also had higher deficits early on because everything that grew the debt was put "on the books". But this wouldn't show on the graph except to explain why W's reduction of "deficits" doesn't show as a reduction in the growth of debt. Clinton just happened to be in office when "3% annual deficits as far out into the future as one can see" became "3% annual surpluses as far out into the future as one can see". Obviously neither happened but the slope of your bars "flattened". Now Carter famously nearly doubled the debt in his four years, but as percentage of GDP the debt actually went down. Just like it did for Clinton and every president prior to Reagan back until WWII. That is prior to tax cut after tax cut after tax cut.
  11. Hmmmm, I guess the last decade doesn't count. We must also have a different definition of flat as it looks to have risen almost 50% during Clinton's tenure. But those are only concrete numbers and factual data, let's ignore that bc the other side is always wrong. Right the factual data is that the blue side is responsible for "massive" deficit spending to win WWII, to survive the Great Depression, and to survive the Great Recession, The red side has tax cuts and wars of choice and the economic collapses they facilitate. Both sides! Of course the "side" that is always wrong is the side that thinks they are "above it all" by blaming "both sides".. Like in this example.
  12. Yep the blue is either relatively flat or starts to flatten over time. The red, at least since 1980 only reaches higher. Both sides!
  13. As someone who embraced much of this in some form for more than thirty years already I hope to see the day that you are proven correct.
  14. I'm not sure about blaming generations. I am absolutely certain though that all but a trillion or two has been the result of the "fiscally responsible conservatives" taking over for the "tax and spenders". The tax and spenders are to blame for running up deficits that added to the debt ending the Great Depression, the Great Recession, and winning WWII. The "fiscally responsible" get credit for the "tax cuts that pay for themselves".
  15. "You don't know until you test it, but I think, I really believe I'd ..." - 2/26/2018