keepthefaith

I don't think Bernie even if elected could get the necessary support from a majority dem house and/or majority dem senate to pass medicare for all or his crazy tax rates.

He used to be my representative until re-districting. He's a complete idiot. So does a 25% cut mean we're changing laws? Of course not. Back it up Bill. Stooge.

This post makes me miss DC Tom. You're an idiot. The chart in the link is adjusted for inflation so it shows increased buying power over 50 years for 80% of the population. Have the top earners seen more increases, yes. Are they engaged in more demanding and greater risk/reward occupations. Absolutely. They've earned it and they're being heavily taxed. As for your tax claim, see link below which shows the top 1%, top 5% and top 10% paying an increasing share of federal taxes since 1980 with some flattening out (staying around peak numbers) over the last 10 years. See chart under "Tax Cuts and Tax Fairness" https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes Is there a nation anywhere that has done better for 80% of its people?

This started as Bernie and Tulsi can beat Trump. You'll need to back up some of your economic comments. Unemployment has dropped almost continually since before Obama's 2nd term. Same with the poverty rate. Wages for most earners have grown during this same period. Taxes for most are now less. The USMCA deal was signed last month? Hard to judge that yet. The bottom 20% of Americans have achieved the least wage growth since WWII. Nothing new there. Most of them deserve their place IMO based on them making a lifetime of decisions that keep them there or they're content to be there. (disabled excluded). I've hired and fired a bunch of them over the years. This discussion with lefties always ends up in the same place. Tax and spend. Pols of a certain ideology buying votes on the promise of other people's money. It's an incredibly lazy and simplistic approach to solving "problems"

Yes and I'm impressed with how much time they've spent on the issue and the results they've achieved over the past year.

Yes I know the answer. Either way his response or lack of one makes the point.

How so?

I think he's the Rod Rosenstein of the Senate. He's a pleaser. He'll go whichever way is popular among his people at the time.

WI, MI, OH, PA, NH, FL. Some Democrats and many independents in these key states elected Trump. The battleground this time around will likely be the same. I think it's more likely that more independents and dems in these states (particularly union members who have fantastic health ins benefits) will vote for Trump over Bernie or any dem this time around. Also Bernie's views on illegal immigration will be a real drag on his candidacy beyond the primary IMO. This stacks up as a very difficult cycle for the dems. A lot can change in 8 or 9 months and for sure the effort to tear down Trump publicly will continue but a continued strong economy buys a lot of votes. Going back to Eisenhower (and probably before that) no President with Trump-like economic numbers wasn't re-elected. Tulsi has a lot of positives but VP choices (good or bad) don't seem to matter and Bernie's too damn old.

Well, I'd say that whatever judgment makes you believe that Bernie's agenda is appealing or even possible practically or politically speaking explains your position that Bernie with any running mate can beat Trump ?. Medicare for all would be the largest political and legislative leap in 50 years, and that would be the easy part passing a law. Then you have to actually have it carried out to the satisfaction of 300+ million people and trust a government that can't manage the entitlements we already have. Of course the only way to validate either of us is to get a Trump/Bernie match up. Hope it happens and no I didn't vote for Trump in 2016.

I'm starting to like Joe, unfiltered.

Aside from the obvious name *****up, what on earth his her point?

LOL. Maybe you should have hung in there on the call. Maybe they were looking for a CEO for an olive oil company and you were the perfect fit!

Well, why is Graham going to call FISA abuse witnesses if Barr/Durham are investigating? Smells bad. Smells as if Barr and Durham not pursuing prosecutions. Other than to get more of this info out in public, I would think the Senate would sit tight.

My point was the player's union may make this a point of contention (not willing to accept overseas move or expansion) in the upcoming negotiations. It's already been raised as a potential roadblock and playing in London not popular with players. "It would be a significant change in the working conditions in one of our teams, so that would require agreement with our players' union," Waller said. https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/25124631/how-close-london-getting-nfl-franchise

Yes. Getting faster or quicker is probably a distant 2nd priority to improving his overall passing game.

With a new bargaining agreement coming soon, I would bet on the Player's Union saying NFW to a team in London or anywhere not in North America. The travel would be a big negative.

Well is that in Kansas or Missouri? ?

Well, your "statistic" simply isn't correct and how is "middle class" defined? The top 40% of wage earners over the past 50 years after adjustment for inflation have had significant wage growth and the middle quintile itself has seen on the order of a 40% increase (after inflation adjustment) over the past 50 years. That's 60% of wage earners whose income has risen significantly over that time again adjusted for inflation. And who are the hardest working people, the higher wage earners or the lower wager earners? Without a doubt higher wage earners are the hardest working people which I would define by their hours worked, their responsibilities and their commitment to improving their skills over time. The rich have mostly earned it. https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2019/11/26/u-s-household-incomes-a-50-year-perspective On what basis should the top earners who are already taxed significantly more than the bottom earners (with very few exceptions) be asked to pay even more and even further support those who are often less committed to their own work. On what basis should the top earners be required to further fund very fiscally irresponsible governments? Is there any more tired policy than to tax the most productive more and spend more on the others? That is a tired and lazy as hell policy.

So a debate on a Friday night? Very 2016-like. I suppose the schedule makers determined months ago that by now Joe would have a good lead and they didn't want to give Bernie and Liz a chance in front of a large audience.

Just read a bunch of it. Yes it is de-facto open borders. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5383/text So the headline after it passes the house will be: "McConnell and Republicans Continue Detaining Children In Cages By Refusing To Vote On New Way Forward Bill"

He'll be 76 then. He's not gonna run anyway. Well, he shouldn't.

The list of dem hail mary's that will pile up over the next several months is gonna be fun.

Like I said earlier this week, the dems had their worst month in years and in just a few days.

person's name?