Bernie Sanders scares me as much as Hillary

catsareniice1

What concerns me about Bernie Sanders is the future financial stability of our country. A lot of people like him because he is promising free college, healthcare..... Nothing is FREE! How will this work? Won't successful people and companies leave the country resulting in even less employment? If people think college is expensive now, wait until you see how much it is when it's free.

There is nothing moral, spiritual or economic about stealing people's labor and giving it to those who do not earn it. There is no Constitutional mandate for the government to make things "fair". The government produces nothing in a surplus form, it only accumulates taxpayer funds. In order for it to give to one citizen, it must take from another. There is nothing fair about that.

The government takes MORE than enough in taxes. The problem is how it is spent.

He wants to raise taxes AND minimum wage. What companies will stay in business to pay employees??!

He will destroy people's savings, retirement and spending power.

Thoughts?

vlagrl29

yeah what he is offering scares me too, but I don't think he will win a general election.  I'd be shocked if he was the D nominee - I think it's fixed for Hillary.

vlagrl29

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/us/politics/delegate-count-leaving-bernie-sanders-with-steep-climb.html?_r=0

for the record clinton scares me more than sanders

nkjacobsma

I honestly don't understand the free college thing. College is really not that expensive. I am just exiting the college age and most of the people I know who have big college debt either 1)went to an expensive private school-their choice, or 2)took out all of the loans the government offered them, when there is never a need to do that.

My local university costs $6,500 to go to. This year, the government offered me nearly $40,000 to take out in loans. For a single twenty-something who has a job, $40,000 is more than enough to cover room and board, textbooks, gas, alcohol for the whole year, plus other fun stuff. There is no need to take out this much debt every year. I have a friend who took out this huge loan and developed really frivolous spending habits because she had so much cash all the time.

College is an investment. If you work hard, and choose a responsible major, you will definitely make that money back. Too many people see it as a something the government should give them for free rather than as an investment like a house or a car. 

snp605

It goes beyond the giving it to people who didn't earn it part for me. I don't think government is the fix for all that ails us. I'm really tired of government trying to fix problems that really aren't the government's to fix. Every time we do you end up with some other situation that it unfair to another group or an unexpected, unintended bad consequence just a bad as the original situation.

For example: It is not the government's place to make college cheaper. This sounds harsh but let's say college became so expensive people stopped going, costs would have to be cut and colleges would have to find a way to make it affordable to attract students. You'd have some people opt for vocational educations and fill gaps that right now are going unfilled instead of having 50,000 kids every year graduate with degrees that don't really prepare them for specific jobs or taking jobs off of their major after paying $80k for that education.

It's not the function of government to direct how people speak to each other or what bathroom they can use or teaching tap dancing to orphans. We tend to confuse things that might be a nice thing with things that are actually a function of government. It's not the government's job to level the playing field for anybody either. How families are formed or sustained is not the business of government. It is not a function of government to secure that every person can raise as many children as they want to without regard to cost or ability.

short+sassy

nkjacobsma said:

I honestly don't understand the free college thing. College is really not that expensive. I am just exiting the college age and most of the people I know who have big college debt either 1)went to an expensive private school-their choice, or 2)took out all of the loans the government offered them, when there is never a need to do that.

My local university costs $6,500 to go to. This year, the government offered me nearly $40,000 to take out in loans. For a single twenty-something who has a job, $40,000 is more than enough to cover room and board, textbooks, gas, alcohol for the whole year, plus other fun stuff. There is no need to take out this much debt every year. I have a friend who took out this huge loan and developed really frivolous spending habits because she had so much cash all the time.

College is an investment. If you work hard, and choose a responsible major, you will definitely make that money back. Too many people see it as a something the government should give them for free rather than as an investment like a house or a car. 

That's what drives me a little nuts also.  I realize big student loans are necessary for some people, especially for those seeking out an advanced degree, but I think it is often a choice.  And I don't mean a choice of "going to college or not going to college".

My parents had some college money saved for me and they gave me a small monthly stipend in college, but I paid for the majority of it myself (including living expenses).  I worked part-time from the age of 15 to start saving for college.  I worked part-time all the way through college.  I lived at home and went to a community college first, than finished up at a state college.  I never even looked into student loans, because I didn't need to.  I worked, I saved, I lived frugally.  And chose the much cheaper state school options.

Would it have been easier and definitely a lot more fun to have done the more "typical" college experience of going to a 4-year college the whole time?  Moving to the dorms right out of high school.  Not worked at all or barely worked.  Of course that would have been easier and more fun.  But, for me, it was 100x better to get my Bachelor's with no student loan debt.

Definitely not judging anyone who has student loan debt.  It is an investment.  I just suspect that SL debt is often not taken on wisely.  Your friend is a good example.  Many people who take on SLs are teens right out of high school.  Legally adults, but totally inexperienced in the world of personal finance.

jtmh2012

The first thing to remember is that the president isn't a king.  Bernie, Clinton, Trump, etc can say whatever they want, but Congress writes the laws.  The president can only sign or veto said laws.  The only exception to that are executive orders.

As for the "free" college.  It's somewhat deceptive.  Other countries that do this do it because people with college degrees tend to earn more.  Those who earn more, pay more taxes.  So yes, the government gives Johnny a free college degree.  He goes out and gets a high paying job.   Then pays way more than his education back in taxes during his working years.

Just another thought to throw in there.....why is college so expensive these days?  School loans.  The more loans that students in general qualify for, the higher they can raise the rates.  If the freely available loans went away, prices would drop as less people would be able to afford it.

snp605

jtmh2012 said:

Just another thought to throw in there.....why is college so expensive these days?  School loans.  The more loans that students in general qualify for, the higher they can raise the rates.  If the freely available loans went away, prices would drop as less people would be able to afford it.

I think this is a factor as well as exorbitant spending. Our local community college (we have a major university here as well as several smaller colleges) just built a $56 million dollar Fine Arts Center. There are some offices upstairs which includes a $40K conference table. While I'm sure it's nice to have for some people, I'll bet there are students studying things like HVAC repair or nursing who could care less whether there is a facility big enough at their community college to bring in people like Liza Minnelli for performances. There are multiple other performance theaters in our town including one at the main University. It was literally a matter of something someone wanted to have and got it through via a school bond earmarked for "improvements to the community college campus". Most of us voted for it thinking they were going to get Ipads or Medical Diagnostic equipment.  Recently our local news found out that the community college president had paid memberships in the most prestigious city and country clubs in our area all paid for by the college. It was justified as "networking" but it's community college. It was over $36,000 per year they were paying for years for him to hobnob. How many kids could have had significantly reduced tuition at community college where the average semester costs around $1200 including books? They have average enrollment of around 25k students so essentially they spent over $1000 per student each year just for his club memberships. If colleges had to tighten their purse strings you'd start to see some of this gluttony get cut out.

I'm not saying those things are inherently bad, but sometimes you have to trade something that is good for something that is better. Something better here is affordable tuition.

nkjacobsma

I am expecting a lot of drama to come in the next 10-15 years for US universities. I've worked in higher education for 5 years and am about to graduate with a Master's degree. I was going to go for a Ph.D in psychology, but decided against it, simply because of how hard it is to get a full time job at a university.

State universities have so many spending problems. Then they cut money from paying their teachers. They hire less full time tenure-track professors, and the vast majority of researchers with Ph.D's spend the first 10 years of their career working part time at multiple university campuses (sometimes more than 100 miles away from each other) with no benefits and low pay. Then the tenured and tenure-track professors make less than local high school teachers. Then the university belongs to all these clubs and spends money hiring more people in administration with high salaries that aren't really needed.

It's really sad, and having less tenure-track professors in a department really affects the quality of education. I don't think it's to the point of revolt yet, but it will get there

ETA: This is also why I don't support "free" colleges. If universities can direct the majority of its money into it's main purpose (no, not athletics): education, then I'm willing to listen to it, at least starting with funding community colleges. But I'm not confident taxpayer money will be used wisely by a free college system.

als1982

snp605 said:

jtmh2012 said:

Just another thought to throw in there.....why is college so expensive these days?  School loans.  The more loans that students in general qualify for, the higher they can raise the rates.  If the freely available loans went away, prices would drop as less people would be able to afford it.

I think this is a factor as well as exorbitant spending. Our local community college (we have a major university here as well as several smaller colleges) just built a $56 million dollar Fine Arts Center. There are some offices upstairs which includes a $40K conference table. While I'm sure it's nice to have for some people, I'll bet there are students studying things like HVAC repair or nursing who could care less whether there is a facility big enough at their community college to bring in people like Liza Minnelli for performances. There are multiple other performance theaters in our town including one at the main University. It was literally a matter of something someone wanted to have and got it through via a school bond earmarked for "improvements to the community college campus". Most of us voted for it thinking they were going to get Ipads or Medical Diagnostic equipment.  Recently our local news found out that the community college president had paid memberships in the most prestigious city and country clubs in our area all paid for by the college. It was justified as "networking" but it's community college. It was over $36,000 per year they were paying for years for him to hobnob. How many kids could have had significantly reduced tuition at community college where the average semester costs around $1200 including books? They have average enrollment of around 25k students so essentially they spent over $1000 per student each year just for his club memberships. If colleges had to tighten their purse strings you'd start to see some of this gluttony get cut out.

I'm not saying those things are inherently bad, but sometimes you have to trade something that is good for something that is better. Something better here is affordable tuition.

Also, athletics. I was a student government senator in college and every year we fought with the university on the annual increase in tuition that went to funding athletics. At the time, more than 15% of each student's tuition went to that, I'm guessing it's even more now. It may be an unpopular opinion, but those great football and basketball programs come at a cost.

hoffse

als1982 said:

Also, athletics. I was a student government senator in college and every year we fought with the university on the annual increase in tuition that went to funding athletics. At the time, more than 15% of each student's tuition went to that, I'm guessing it's even more now. It may be an unpopular opinion, but those great football and basketball programs come at a cost.

Yes and no.  The first time Alabama won the national championship under Nick Saban they made back his entire contract value in the first hour of memorabilia sales.  I believe he's the highest paid college coach in the country - his contract is for around $7 million per year. He is certainly the highest paid public employee in Alabama.  Our local news runs articles about his salary all the time.  

Then you have the royalties from television, which is on a whole different playing field.  My alma mater stays in the SEC as the doormat for every other team just because the royalties are so valuable.

Now I do agree with you that for Division 2 and 3 schools athletics can be a drain.  But as much as I wish the big state schools had less focus on sports, I can't deny that it's a huge money-maker for them, more so even than tuition or state grants.  In fact, Alabama's football program subsidizes the rest of the university, and as a result it's a really cheap state school.  In-state undergrad tuition is like $10K/year for full-time students.  It's a bargain.  It's cheaper than daycare.

Making college free is so ridiculous to me.  Not everybody needs to go to college.  It's not a human right, it never has been.  And newsflash - it's ALREADY free in a handful of states for in-state students who maintain a totally average GPA.  I grew up in GA and could go to any in-state public school in the state tuition-free if I maintained a 3.0 GPA.  Why don't we leave this calculation up to the states, instead of imposing it on every public school across the country?

short+sassy

hoffse said:

 Making college free is so ridiculous to me.  Not everybody needs to go to college.  It's not a human right, it never has been.  And newsflash - it's ALREADY free in a handful of states for in-state students who maintain a totally average GPA.  I grew up in GA and could go to any in-state public school in the state tuition-free if I maintained a 3.0 GPA.  Why don't we leave this calculation up to the states, instead of imposing it on every public school across the country?

That's true in Louisiana also.  It's called the TOPS program.  I don't know all the details/eligibility requirements for it, but there was a recent discussion that they might be raising the required GPA from 3.0 to 3.2 in order to cut down on the students eligible, due to funding problems.

formerlyGDaisy09

I'm obviously the minority here as a relatively liberal democrat. 

Bernie has been completely straight forward about how he plans to pay for everything he's proposing the big ones being free college and medicare for everyone. 

Free Public Universities: Wall Street speculation tax

no, not everyone needs to go to college, but it is increasingly becoming a requirement of many jobs where it didn't used to be a requirement (and arguably still isn't necessary to do the job). It's about access and the "american dream" where if you work hard you can get ahead, only that isn't the case for everyone. My hubby has been trying for the last 10 years to get a college degree, he did not have parental support and the cost of commuting, room and board, tuition, etc eventually became an insurmountable obstacle for him. The student loan system made it impossible to get need-based aid, and he just generally got screwed by the system (there was no one to educate him on the difference between private and federal loans, and the people "helping" him were in the business of getting his tuition paid, not helping him understand what exactly he was signing-up for.) This is a system that continues to put those children who come from low-socio-economic families at a disadvantage. 

Medicare for everyone: payroll tax (however remember that this would save you from having to pay insurance premiums; my employer contributes $650 a month towards my insurance, I'd be happy to pay a few percentage points more in taxes if I were getting that premium back).

 healthcare costs in this country are so high mostly because of the payer system that is in place, some of it has to do with fee-for-service billing, but the inflated prices on hospital chargemasters are generally due to the payer mix that those hospitals treat. hospitals loose money treating patients who use medicaid or are uninsured (and don't have the cash to pay for services). public non-profit hospitals have an obligation to treat everyone who walks through their doors needing care regardless of their ability to pay. Medicare reimburses hospitals very close to the actual cost of services, therefore hospitals have to turn to their patients who have private health insurance (hello, mostly people 18-64) to cover the revenue lost treating those with medicaid and who are non-payers, they also negotiate discounts with insurance providers, so the prices listed on their chargemaster have to account for both the discount and recouping costs...this is why it costs $15 for an asprin. this system, even with the ACA is unsustainable, and like it or not, working americans are already paying an unfair share into the health system, Bernies plan would actually help hospitals to lower their prices.

Frankly, every single GOP candidate scares the pants off me, likely because I'm liberal, but most of their platforms on women's health issues are just plain dangerous (speaking with my degree in public health here); Planned parenthood has done so many amazing things for women's health, it would be completely irresponsible to defund it, and would also do an unfair amount of harm to women of lower socio-economic status. 

I don't trust Hilary. 

hoffse

I have huge huge issues with the Wall Street Speculation Tax.  

He's framing it as though it would only affect day-traders, but it's not.  I don't understand how anybody under the age of 40 supports this, given that social security should be wiped out by the time we're eligible.  We have to self-fund our own retirement savings, and the way we do that is by making small investments periodically, over time, with every paycheck.  Every one of those contributions will be taxed under his plan.

Here is the tax foundation's summary of his overall plan after modeling it.  They are a non-partisan organization that models tax proposals to see what the long-term economic impact would be.  You can read the whole report here:

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-bernie-sanders-s-tax-plan

I think the last bullet point is the most important:

Key Findings:

• Senator Sanders (I-VT) would enact a number of policies that would raise payroll taxes and individual income taxes, especially on high-income households.
• Senator Sanders’s plan would raise tax revenue by $13.6 trillion over the next decade on a static basis. However, the plan would end up collecting $9.8 trillion over the next decade when accounting for decreased economic output in the long run.
• A majority of the revenue raised by the Sanders plan would come from a new 6.2 percent employer-side payroll tax, a new 2.2 percent broad-based income tax, and the elimination of tax expenditures relating to healthcare.
• According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would significantly increase marginal tax rates and the cost of capital, which would lead to 9.5 percent lower GDP over the long term.
• On a static basis, the plan would lead to 10.56 percent lower after-tax income for all taxpayers and 17.91 percent lower after-tax income for the top 1 percent. When accounting for reduced GDP, after-tax incomes of all taxpayers would fall by at least 12.84 percent.

hoffse

short+sassy said:

hoffse said:

 Making college free is so ridiculous to me.  Not everybody needs to go to college.  It's not a human right, it never has been.  And newsflash - it's ALREADY free in a handful of states for in-state students who maintain a totally average GPA.  I grew up in GA and could go to any in-state public school in the state tuition-free if I maintained a 3.0 GPA.  Why don't we leave this calculation up to the states, instead of imposing it on every public school across the country?

That's true in Louisiana also.  It's called the TOPS program.  I don't know all the details/eligibility requirements for it, but there was a recent discussion that they might be raising the required GPA from 3.0 to 3.2 in order to cut down on the students eligible, due to funding problems.

Yes, one issue with it has been grade inflation to keep students' GPAs above a 3.0.  My dad is a public school college professor in GA, and he jokes that the 3.0 is the new 2.5.

emily1004

formerlyGDaisy09 said:

I'm obviously the minority here as a relatively liberal democrat. 

Bernie has been completely straight forward about how he plans to pay for everything he's proposing the big ones being free college and medicare for everyone. 

Free Public Universities: Wall Street speculation tax

no, not everyone needs to go to college, but it is increasingly becoming a requirement of many jobs where it didn't used to be a requirement (and arguably still isn't necessary to do the job). It's about access and the "american dream" where if you work hard you can get ahead, only that isn't the case for everyone. My hubby has been trying for the last 10 years to get a college degree, he did not have parental support and the cost of commuting, room and board, tuition, etc eventually became an insurmountable obstacle for him. The student loan system made it impossible to get need-based aid, and he just generally got screwed by the system (there was no one to educate him on the difference between private and federal loans, and the people "helping" him were in the business of getting his tuition paid, not helping him understand what exactly he was signing-up for.) This is a system that continues to put those children who come from low-socio-economic families at a disadvantage. 

Medicare for everyone: payroll tax (however remember that this would save you from having to pay insurance premiums; my employer contributes $650 a month towards my insurance, I'd be happy to pay a few percentage points more in taxes if I were getting that premium back).

 healthcare costs in this country are so high mostly because of the payer system that is in place, some of it has to do with fee-for-service billing, but the inflated prices on hospital chargemasters are generally due to the payer mix that those hospitals treat. hospitals loose money treating patients who use medicaid or are uninsured (and don't have the cash to pay for services). public non-profit hospitals have an obligation to treat everyone who walks through their doors needing care regardless of their ability to pay. Medicare reimburses hospitals very close to the actual cost of services, therefore hospitals have to turn to their patients who have private health insurance (hello, mostly people 18-64) to cover the revenue lost treating those with medicaid and who are non-payers, they also negotiate discounts with insurance providers, so the prices listed on their chargemaster have to account for both the discount and recouping costs...this is why it costs $15 for an asprin. this system, even with the ACA is unsustainable, and like it or not, working americans are already paying an unfair share into the health system, Bernies plan would actually help hospitals to lower their prices.

Frankly, every single GOP candidate scares the pants off me, likely because I'm liberal, but most of their platforms on women's health issues are just plain dangerous (speaking with my degree in public health here); Planned parenthood has done so many amazing things for women's health, it would be completely irresponsible to defund it, and would also do an unfair amount of harm to women of lower socio-economic status. 

I don't trust Hilary. 

I too, am more of a liberal democrat. I'm not sure yet if I'm "feeling the Burn" or if I can trust Hillary or not. I just wanted to add on, while no candidate "scares" me. (That's just fear mongering, IMO). I do have a big disdain for the Republican party candidates, because a fair number of them want to impose their religious beliefs on this country. That's a deal breaker for me. Good moral character is subjective, and it doesn't mean you have to subscribe to the beliefs of any religion to be a good and decent person. I don't want politicians making laws and imposing their beliefs, from any religious books, I don't believe to be fact or truth, in my home, my bedroom, or my body.

hoffse

Ultimately I think we're looking at Trump v. Hilary, and Trump will win because Hilary is an easy target.  She has way too much baggage.  There's absolutely no way Bernie is going to sweep Super Tuesday next week.  There are too many southern states involved for that.

I think if Trump wins there will be very little that substantively happens from a legislative standpoint.  He's going to deadlock Congress.

So he'll use executive orders, and we might finally get some solid constitutional rulings on the parameters of those. 

snp605

but actually Bernie *hasn't* shown how he will pay for things. The taxes he's talking about imposing will not raise anywhere near the revenue needed to pay for those programs. He's said where he would collect it from but those sources don't have enough revenue so if you can't fund something fully how will you implement it? His medicare for all program ALONE would require us to confiscate 100% of all income from the top income bracket just to pay for it and that doesn't take into account the leave programs and college programs, etc. There is also no paying down of the debt which will completely financially cripple this country if it continues to grow.

It's like wanting to teach your kids a foreign language but you can't afford to pay for it. We can all see the merit in it and how beneficial it would be, but if your household budget can't pay for it, it doesn't make sense to let the house go into foreclosure to do it.

formerlyGDaisy09

I guess I'm looking at it as paying more taxes, yes. but reducing the cost of health care and college, which are huge expenses....my family spends $7,800 on health insurance premiums annually and $10,000 on student loan payments, 13% of our after tax income is $8,100....so in theory bernie's plan is still saving me money.  granted it would cost me $300 once our student loans are paid off, however his health plan would pay for a lot more than my High Deductible Health Plan...($5,000 family deductible, so it cost us $12,800 a year before anything is "covered", meaning before I have the help of co-insurance to reduce the out of pocket cost of the care I/we use).  I'd also hope that employers would pass on some of their savings from no longer offering employer sponsored health insurance plans to their employees, even if we just saw a fraction of what is paid into those health plans we'd more than break even. 

I get that there are some flaws in that math. and there are other faults with Bernie's plans (lets remember that any of his plans would have to make it through congress to actually happen). 

BlueBirdMB

hoffse said:

Ultimately I think we're looking at Trump v. Hilary, and Trump will win because Hilary is an easy target.  She has way too much baggage.  There's absolutely no way Bernie is going to sweep Super Tuesday next week.  There are too many southern states involved for that.

I think if Trump wins there will be very little that substantively happens from a legislative standpoint.  He's going to deadlock Congress.

So he'll use executive orders, and we might finally get some solid constitutional rulings on the parameters of those. 

I agree we are looking at trump vs Clinton (God help us) but I think Clinton wins. Trump doesn't win in polls against her. He is literally winning the nomination with about 10% of Americans... And everyone else hates him. It will be the battle of who is hated less but she will win. Every force in the universe has combined to give her this and I think she'll make an excellent one term president- by the the people will be worn out on the Democratic Party

hoffse

@Gdaisy,the $7800/year you pay in premiums is probably pre-tax.  Anything your employer pays in to lower the premium costs to you is currently a tax-free benefit.

Health insurance is one of the largest tax breaks out there.

If your employer passes their savings onto you, suddenly it's part of your taxable income.  You have to account for that side of it when running the numbers. 

Also, the extra 6.2% payroll tax means that - from the employer's perspective - every person they currently employ is suddenly 6.2% more expensive to employ.  It's as though every person on their payroll got a 6.2% raise.  Of course, normally you as the employee would see some part of that raise.  But in this case you are not - it's all going to the government.  It still has the same net effect for your employer though.

If you were an employer, where would you "find" that extra 6.2% in your budget?  Probably from health care savings. 

I actually like Bernie the most from a personality standpoint.  I think he's a nice guy, and I think he's the only one who is being totally honest about what he actually believes.  But his tax math is just really bad.  He his spouting off static numbers, rather than accounting for things like lowered GDP (which you MUST account for to see real numbers). And even his static numbers don't fully fund everything he's after.

You're right though that it would have to pass Congress first.  They might be incompetent in a lot of ways, but they do model tax changes before passing any legislation in that area.  The models are not going to be compelling.

vlagrl29

I read Bernies plan on his website because I was curious how he was to pay for all these freebies.  I had read that he was to tax trades that you would make on your retirement like buying and selling funds.  No thanks.

If it is a trump vs clinton situation I believe Trump will win.  Did you know hilary has 3 investigations going on right now?  A lot of people don't trust her so I think that will put Trump as the winner.

emily1004

Bernie reminds me of my great-uncle on the east coast. Every time I talk to him on the phone, he's always yelling because he can't hear me or his own voice that well. Totally irrelevant, I know.

hoffse

Also, to be fair - here are the tax models for several other candidates:

Trump:

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan

Hillary:

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-hillary-clinton-s-tax-proposals

Cruz - he's slimy, but I could get behind this one, since most of the revenue raised is through a consumption-based VAT:

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-ted-cruz-s-tax-plan

hoffse

BlueBirdMB said:

hoffse said:

Ultimately I think we're looking at Trump v. Hilary, and Trump will win because Hilary is an easy target.  She has way too much baggage.  There's absolutely no way Bernie is going to sweep Super Tuesday next week.  There are too many southern states involved for that.

I think if Trump wins there will be very little that substantively happens from a legislative standpoint.  He's going to deadlock Congress.

So he'll use executive orders, and we might finally get some solid constitutional rulings on the parameters of those. 

I agree we are looking at trump vs Clinton (God help us) but I think Clinton wins. Trump doesn't win in polls against her. He is literally winning the nomination with about 10% of Americans... And everyone else hates him. It will be the battle of who is hated less but she will win. Every force in the universe has combined to give her this and I think she'll make an excellent one term president- by the the people will be worn out on the Democratic Party

I hear you, but she's such an easy target and gets flustered so easily.  Trump will take her reputation and trample all over it.  She's not going to get a word in edge-wise, and the entire general election rhetoric is going to be about her, instead of the issues.  Regardless of what she wants to talk about, Trump is going to be the one controlling the national conversation.

Regardless, I think it's going to be really close.

And I think when Trump wins the nomination, the Republican party leaders are going to need to have a serious look in the mirror to figure out how/why this happened.  They've completely lost touch with their base voters.  

Republicans need to move one from the same tired social issues.  Seriously, Roe v. Wade is not going to be overturned.  Gay marriage is here to stay.  They need to let those go and focus on things that might actually change.  The religion and guns thing has gotten completely out of hand.  Taking a hard line on immigration isn't all that palatable when there aren't many legal channels to get here, and many of us are first or second generation Americans anyway. Instead, they need to focus on things the Republicans are historically good at, like fiscal issues.  I think there are many Americans who would turn Republican if they (1) stopped trying to shove religion down everybody's throats, (2) acknowledged that nobody needs assault weapons to hunt, (3) and actually balanced the budget.

formerlyGDaisy09

hoffse said:

@Gdaisy,the $7800/year you pay in premiums is probably pre-tax.  Anything your employer pays in to lower the premium costs to you is currently a tax-free benefit.

Health insurance is one of the largest tax breaks out there.

If your employer passes their savings onto you, suddenly it's part of your taxable income.  You have to account for that side of it when running the numbers. 

Also, the extra 6.2% payroll tax means that - from the employer's perspective - every person they currently employ is suddenly 6.2% more expensive to employ.  It's as though every person on their payroll got a 6.2% raise.  Of course, normally you as the employee would see some part of that raise.  But in this case you are not - it's all going to the government.  It still has the same net effect for your employer though.

If you were an employer, where would you "find" that extra 6.2% in your budget?  Probably from health care savings. 

I actually like Bernie the most from a personality standpoint.  I think he's a nice guy, and I think he's the only one who is being totally honest about what he actually believes.  But his tax math is just really bad.  He his spouting off static numbers, rather than accounting for things like lowered GDP (which you MUST account for to see real numbers). And even his static numbers don't fully fund everything he's after.

You're right though that it would have to pass Congress first.  They might be incompetent in a lot of ways, but they do model tax changes before passing any legislation in that area.  The models are not going to be compelling.

you're right, I knew my math was faulty. But I also know Congress would never let Bernie's first drafts of these plans pass, I agree with the ideas, even if they're far from perfect right now. 

as much as I don't trust Hilary, I trust her more than any of the GOP candidates. kasich is probably the least scary of all of them to me. If Trump wins, I might seriously consider a move to Canada (then I get my government sponsored health care and awesome Family leave). 

short+sassy

vlagrl29 said:

I read Bernies plan on his website because I was curious how he was to pay for all these freebies.  I had read that he was to tax trades that you would make on your retirement like buying and selling funds.  No thanks.

If it is a trump vs clinton situation I believe Trump will win.  Did you know hilary has 3 investigations going on right now?  A lot of people don't trust her so I think that will put Trump as the winner.

I'm not really posting this as a pro/anit Hilary, just some food for thought.  William J. Jefferson was a Congressman for Louisiana from 1991-2009.  In 2006 the FBI suspected him of bribery and raided his congressional office.  He was STILL re-elected that year.

In the 2008 election, he was now under indictment for bribery.  It was pretty much assumed he would be going to prison for at least some of the charges.  He finally lost, but BARELY.  He won the Democrat primary (is it called that for Congressional elections?), but then lost to the Republican candidate by only 3% of the votes.

Sure enough, in 2009, he was found guilty of 11 of the 16 charges and was sentenced to 13 years.  The longest sentence yet handed down to a congressman for bribery or any other crime.  And it was 3% of the vote away from having happened to a sitting congressman.

At the time, I was just incredulous at the sheer number of people who voted for a man in such serious legal trouble.  Yet, there ya go.

Interesting factoid, the Republican candidate who beat him was Joseph Cao.  A virtual unknown.  But he was the first person of Vietnamese heritage to serve in Congress.  

catsareniice1

formerlyGDaisy09 said:

I guess I'm looking at it as paying more taxes, yes. but reducing the cost of health care and college, which are huge expenses....my family spends $7,800 on health insurance premiums annually and $10,000 on student loan payments, 13% of our after tax income is $8,100....so in theory bernie's plan is still saving me money.  granted it would cost me $300 once our student loans are paid off, however his health plan would pay for a lot more than my High Deductible Health Plan...($5,000 family deductible, so it cost us $12,800 a year before anything is "covered", meaning before I have the help of co-insurance to reduce the out of pocket cost of the care I/we use).  I'd also hope that employers would pass on some of their savings from no longer offering employer sponsored health insurance plans to their employees, even if we just saw a fraction of what is paid into those health plans we'd more than break even. 

I get that there are some flaws in that math. and there are other faults with Bernie's plans (lets remember that any of his plans would have to make it through congress to actually happen). 

Then healthcare will deteriorate and there will be much longer waits. You can bank on that. No thanks! Nothing is free. There will be consequences.

catsareniice1

formerlyGDaisy09 said:

hoffse said:

@Gdaisy,the $7800/year you pay in premiums is probably pre-tax.  Anything your employer pays in to lower the premium costs to you is currently a tax-free benefit.

Health insurance is one of the largest tax breaks out there.

If your employer passes their savings onto you, suddenly it's part of your taxable income.  You have to account for that side of it when running the numbers. 

Also, the extra 6.2% payroll tax means that - from the employer's perspective - every person they currently employ is suddenly 6.2% more expensive to employ.  It's as though every person on their payroll got a 6.2% raise.  Of course, normally you as the employee would see some part of that raise.  But in this case you are not - it's all going to the government.  It still has the same net effect for your employer though.

If you were an employer, where would you "find" that extra 6.2% in your budget?  Probably from health care savings. 

I actually like Bernie the most from a personality standpoint.  I think he's a nice guy, and I think he's the only one who is being totally honest about what he actually believes.  But his tax math is just really bad.  He his spouting off static numbers, rather than accounting for things like lowered GDP (which you MUST account for to see real numbers). And even his static numbers don't fully fund everything he's after.

You're right though that it would have to pass Congress first.  They might be incompetent in a lot of ways, but they do model tax changes before passing any legislation in that area.  The models are not going to be compelling.

you're right, I knew my math was faulty. But I also know Congress would never let Bernie's first drafts of these plans pass, I agree with the ideas, even if they're far from perfect right now. 

as much as I don't trust Hilary, I trust her more than any of the GOP candidates. kasich is probably the least scary of all of them to me. If Trump wins, I might seriously consider a move to Canada (then I get my government sponsored health care and awesome Family leave).

Even after knowing she did not protect our national security as SOS and her lies about the Benghazi attack being based on a video? She is the scariest of all to me.

I do not want this woman running this country. omg!

formerlyGDaisy09

catsareniice1 said:

formerlyGDaisy09 said:

I guess I'm looking at it as paying more taxes, yes. but reducing the cost of health care and college, which are huge expenses....my family spends $7,800 on health insurance premiums annually and $10,000 on student loan payments, 13% of our after tax income is $8,100....so in theory bernie's plan is still saving me money.  granted it would cost me $300 once our student loans are paid off, however his health plan would pay for a lot more than my High Deductible Health Plan...($5,000 family deductible, so it cost us $12,800 a year before anything is "covered", meaning before I have the help of co-insurance to reduce the out of pocket cost of the care I/we use).  I'd also hope that employers would pass on some of their savings from no longer offering employer sponsored health insurance plans to their employees, even if we just saw a fraction of what is paid into those health plans we'd more than break even. 

I get that there are some flaws in that math. and there are other faults with Bernie's plans (lets remember that any of his plans would have to make it through congress to actually happen). 

Then healthcare will deteriorate and there will be much longer waits. You can bank on that. No thanks! Nothing is free. There will be consequences.

Yes, there are absolutely trade offs to improving finanacial access to healthcare (I have an advanced degree in health policy and am pretty well versed in global health systems). It is totally not uncommon for patients in the EU to have to wait 6 months to a year to get in to see a doctor, but that's already happening here too (several of the MDs I work with have their next available appointments some time in September).  The problem here is that many patients who need care don't get it because they can't pay for it, then they end up seeking a much higher level of care further down their care path for things that could have been taken care of for less money if they'd had enough coverage to get it paid for earlier. there are several patients in our practice whose disease is literally spirling out of control, but they cannot pay for their drugs (at $10K a dose a lot of people would have a hard time paying for that), so their disease just gets worse...eventually they're going to end-up needing emergency surgery which will likely cost them and the hospital thousands anyways.

Really we need a system reform, I'd love to see an ACO model of care where health systems that would include things like walk-in minute clinics, primary care offices, private practices, hospitals and academic centers get paid a lump sum, based primarily on population size and a predefinded set of quality measures to care for a population of patients, so the care providers basically become the insurance company, everyone gets care and the hospital is no longer incentivized to give low value care. That deals with both the issues of access (financial and scheduling) acute issues can be seen at walk-in care centers which leaves emergency rooms clear for true emergencies like MIs, strokes, and trauma. 

catsareniice1

formerlyGDaisy09 said:

catsareniice1 said:

formerlyGDaisy09 said:

I guess I'm looking at it as paying more taxes, yes. but reducing the cost of health care and college, which are huge expenses....my family spends $7,800 on health insurance premiums annually and $10,000 on student loan payments, 13% of our after tax income is $8,100....so in theory bernie's plan is still saving me money.  granted it would cost me $300 once our student loans are paid off, however his health plan would pay for a lot more than my High Deductible Health Plan...($5,000 family deductible, so it cost us $12,800 a year before anything is "covered", meaning before I have the help of co-insurance to reduce the out of pocket cost of the care I/we use).  I'd also hope that employers would pass on some of their savings from no longer offering employer sponsored health insurance plans to their employees, even if we just saw a fraction of what is paid into those health plans we'd more than break even. 

I get that there are some flaws in that math. and there are other faults with Bernie's plans (lets remember that any of his plans would have to make it through congress to actually happen). 

Then healthcare will deteriorate and there will be much longer waits. You can bank on that. No thanks! Nothing is free. There will be consequences.

Yes, there are absolutely trade offs to improving finanacial access to healthcare (I have an advanced degree in health policy and am pretty well versed in global health systems). It is totally not uncommon for patients in the EU to have to wait 6 months to a year to get in to see a doctor, but that's already happening here too (several of the MDs I work with have their next available appointments some time in September).  The problem here is that many patients who need care don't get it because they can't pay for it, then they end up seeking a much higher level of care further down their care path for things that could have been taken care of for less money if they'd had enough coverage to get it paid for earlier. there are several patients in our practice whose disease is literally spirling out of control, but they cannot pay for their drugs (at $10K a dose a lot of people would have a hard time paying for that), so their disease just gets worse...eventually they're going to end-up needing emergency surgery which will likely cost them and the hospital thousands anyways.

Really we need a system reform, I'd love to see an ACO model of care where health systems that would include things like walk-in minute clinics, primary care offices, private practices, hospitals and academic centers get paid a lump sum, based primarily on population size and a predefinded set of quality measures to care for a population of patients, so the care providers basically become the insurance company, everyone gets care and the hospital is no longer incentivized to give low value care. That deals with both the issues of access (financial and scheduling) acute issues can be seen at walk-in care centers which leaves emergency rooms clear for true emergencies like MIs, strokes, and trauma. 

I don't know anyone who waits more than one month. My parents are from Europe and would come to the states for healthcare. Always.