2018 Senate (& House)

True dat. The Comical printed nary a word of Lee P. Brown's underhanded deals to associates.

 

"President Trump remains King among the Florida Men.

One word from Trump has shaken up the governor’s race there, catapulting Rep. Ron DeSantis over Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam in the Republican primary. Once an underdog, DeSantis has become the heavy favorite to take the nomination.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way, though. Putnam had a bigger bucket of money and better name recognition statewide. As one Florida political consultant put it, Putnam could have easily smothered DeSantis “in the crib.”

And earlier on, it looked like Putnam would put an end to his opponent’s promising political career. A Fox News poll had him up over DeSantis by 15 points. That was June 15 and the last time Putnam had the lead. The next week, Trump dropped his full endorsement, and DeSantis has climbed steadily in the polls ever since....."​

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-race-around-for-unstoppable-rep-ron-desantis

 

Trevor Noah accidentally asks Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a tough question. Of course, he didn't press her on it but at least asked the question.



What I find remarkable though is he she and others like her can get away with this without serious challenge. She's asked about how she'll pay for her agenda (Medicare for all, green energy, free college, etc.). She talks about raising taxes by $2T over ten years and cutting the Pentagon's $700B ten year increase.

So where's the question about her agenda's cost and therefore the adequacy of her relatively modest tax hikes? Medicare for All is a $1.4T per year - figure $14T for ten years assuming it never goes up in cost (a laughable assumption). I don't think I've ever heard someone like her truly grilled for even superficial scrutiny of the numbers.

 

I wonder about the use of the term Medicare by the socialists instead of Medicaid.

 

One thing that has somewhat surprised me is the complete lack of professionalism from the media on this particular issue. I understand that they are rooting for the liberal position, but I expected at least enough integrity from them to ask basic questions and not let a politician shamelessly dodge the question. In this case, it is transparently obvious that Alexandria is completely out of her depth. I am actually embarrassed for her and the interviewers that show they are not real journalists. My comments are not really aimed at Trevor as he is not a journalist but more at the other news shows that she has appeared on.

 

They are different programs. Medicaid is a joint federal and state funded but state administered health insurance program for the poor. Medicare is a federally-funded (through FICA taxes) and federally administered health insurance program for the elderly and disabled.

The socialist is going to prefer to expand Medicare rather than Medicaid for two reasons. First, it's more popular than Medicaid and therefore easier to promote from a political standpoint. Second, it's structured entirely as a federal program, so hostile state governments can't screw with it like they screw with an expanded Medicaid program.

 

You said "hostile" and I read "intelligent".

 

It doesn't surprise me. I've been closely following politics since 1991, and I've never heard a mainstream media figure truly force a Democrat to justify the costs of any preferred social program. Literally not a single time in 27 years. A tax cut that's 1/10 the size of a big social program will get 1000 times more fiscal scrutiny. How often was the Bush tax cut blamed for budget deficits? Countless. How often is the Medicaid program that's many magnitudes bigger blamed for deficits? Virtually never.

They still trot her out there to appeal to and motivate younger voters. Dudes like her because she's hot. They're thinking with their dicks. Other young voters like her because she promises free stuff. Yes, she's dumb, but she only looks dumb to intelligent people like us who can do arithmetic. To other dumb people who can't, she doesn't look dumb.

 

Medicare is still not the correct term for Dems to use since a vast majority of people are employed and therefore make payments into Medicare plus do continue to make "premium" payments to Medicare for part B after they start receiving Medicare.
If you or your spouse did not pay into Medicare you can not receive it ( there may be exemptions but not many). Those people would get medicaid.

If I read what the people calling for Medicare for all I do not read any plan to make everyone pay into it.
People do not stop and think
and You are right MrD
They only use the term Medicare since it is a more accepted program but it is NOT what they are planning.

Edit I found this from the Fed site
"If you (or your spouse) have not been paying Medicare (FICA) taxes for at least 10 years, you’ll still be eligible to buy Part A coverage, but you’ll need to pay a premium, which varies based on your work history. Your premium in 2018 will be $422 a month if you’ve paid into Medicare less than 7.5 years, and $232 a month if you’ve paid FICA taxes for at least 7.5 years but less than 10 year of FICA taxes."

 

You're looking at Medicare as it's currently structured. The socialist would restructure it - make everybody eligible and increase the FICA tax as needed to finance the program. It would need a lot more money than it currently has. We'd probably be looking at a progressive FICA rate structure.

 

MrD
I have not seen a single proponent of this offer any plans on how to accomplish it.
Don't give them ideas.
Most seem to think the Fed gov't somehow has plenty of money

 

I found this on a DSA web site. They call it M4A
It does talk about paying for it through taxes somehow. Not realistic at all.

 

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. But she does have the talking points down: "Fair share." The "ultra wealthy." And she trots out the old idea of using taxes on bad things to simultaneously fund the government and shift people toward good things." Can't do both, folks.

And yes, I'm sure the military was saying "We don't WANT another fighter jet." Yeah. OK...

Ocasio-Cortez 2020: "It's back-of-envelope stuff!"

 

There are not enough taxes on income to pay for it so they would then need to confiscate savings as people stop working. Don’t stop being democrats liberals, you have an election to lose in November.

 

Politicians of all stripes offer as few specifics as possible. For example, how are these "contributions" levied, against whom, and how much will they be? Seldom does anyone ask those questions, and to the extent that they do, they certainly don't scrutinize the answers or ensure that the numbers even approach adding up. If not forced to answer, the socialist isn't going to.

 

Bernie Sanders' plan has a few more details than hers (which has none). Unfortunately for him there are policy wonks out there who worked through the math of his idea -- Bernie’s fantasy Medicare for All plan would consume close to 100% of all federal revenue. The entire federal budget is already ~$4 trillion, with revenues of ~$3.3 trillion.

"Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for all" plan would increase government health care spending by $32.6 trillion over 10 years, according to a study by a university-based libertarian policy center.

That's trillion with a "T."

The latest plan from the Vermont independent would require historic tax increases as government replaces what employers and consumers now pay for health care, according to the analysis being released Monday by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia. It would deliver significant savings on administration and drug costs, but increased demand for care would drive up spending, the analysis found....."​

http://www.bostonherald.com/busines...dicare_for_all_projected_to_cost_326_trillion

 

I am surprised that you are surprised.

Hot? Perhaps, but she's not Farrah hot.

 

It was not that long ago that Democrats were telling us how they would take the House and Senate in 2018.

Now it is down to -- they might take the House by razor thin margin, but no guarantees. And they dont get the Senate. Something most of them seem to be realizing right about now.

Which means that, unless something unusual intervenes between now and then, it looks like Trump will, once again, defy the normal expectations -- here regarding mid-term elections.

 

If Ocasio-Cortez had never opened her mouth, she'd be hotter than Farrah.

 

$1.4 TRILLION a year can buy more hot than that.

She can’t run for President until she turns 35 in 2025, so I’m not sure how that ever got mentioned.

She is just a silly young woman—maybe worth a drunk conversation at a Christmas party, not much else.

 

Hit it and quit it.

 

Some recent polling of note --

Rasmussen -- President Trump Job Approval 48%

Mason-Dixon - Florida Senate - Scott 47 (R), Nelson 44

Suffolk - Nevada Senate - Heller 41 (R), Rosen 40

Suffolk - Nevada Governor - Laxalt 42 (R), Sisolak 41

 

Not everyone knows this, but US Tax Law does allow you to overpay your income taxes. One way is to send it to the Treasury (Bureau of the Fiscal Service) via separate payment with the notation “reduce the debt held by the public.” There might be other ways too.

Given this, why arent people like Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez already voluntarily paying 70% (or more) of their income in taxes? There is no better way to lead than by example.

 

JF
Interesting that the ones who say the "rich" need to pay their fair share never pay more even when many can. Bernie for sure can.

Back when Warren Buffet was whining his secretary paid more in income tax than he did it was pointed out that people could pay into the Treasury.
I emailed Buffet and pointed that out to him and I hoped to hear back from him that he had sent the Treasury a check.

Never heard back. Imagine that.
the top 10% pay over 75% of income taxes collected. Not sure what would satisfy the lefties.

 

You're a sick man.

It's amazing how much pub Ocasio-Cortez is getting. First of all, she still has to beat Republican Anthony Pappas in Nov., which is probably a given in her district. If she does, she'll be a rookie Congress woman, one of 435 members and she'll have zero seniority. She's not going to be able to do anything, especially if the Repubs hold on to the House.

 

I think that’s the point, from so many different aspects.

 

Here's been the trend I've seen on social so far.

Media: Ocasio-Cortez is the darling of the left and represents a new wave of democratic socialists sweeping into the party across the country.
Conservatives: She's an idiot and doesn't know what she's talking about.
Media: Why are you singling out this young woman? She's just one person in a small liberal district of New York. You must be deathly afraid of her!

 

Why dont they?

 

​