Down Ballot Democrats Nervous About Sanders

[LSHMEAB]

3 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

I agree with you on automation. The problem with automation is that it may be more efficient and less costly to have a kiosk instead of a person taking orders, but sooner or later that Wendy's restaurant won't have any customers that have any money. 

This has always been my fear. I actually prefer kiosks to people and it makes perfect fiscal sense for Wendy's to utilize it. But what happens, LONG LONG term, if robots are doing virtually everything?

 

I just don't know, but I suppose we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

[LB3]

4 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Over the long haul, and this predates Trump, folks are generally earning less (adjusted for inflation) than their parents. Nearly half of American's don't have 400 BUCKS in case of emergency. I'd also posit that the state minimum wage laws play a large role in the growth at the bottom. On the flip side, it's also true that the increases are reflective of a tightening labor market, which is a good thing.

 

I remember your post regarding quality of life and how it's better now due to readily available, relatively inexpensive technology. It was was interesting thought and has quite a bit of sway.

 

I'm skeptical that this particular trend will continue, but the numbers you cited were by and large accurate. I'm not going to change my economic views, but facts don't lie.

 

The elephant in the room in the coming years will be automation. I don't think anyone has a firm grasp on the implication there.

I got you, bro.

[IDBillzFan]

5 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Nearly half of American's don't have 400 BUCKS in case of emergency.

 

I suspect that has more to do with bad habits merged with the immediate gratification vibe than it does with making less money than their parents.

 

My parents didn't carry $1000 cellphones and watch every sporting event or TV show they could imagine on a 60" $400 big screen TVs, and PCs and tablets for all their kids with streaming data plans.  They didn't stand in line for three days to get the new iPhone. Or earbuds. And they sure the hell didn't pay $100,000 for a four-year degree. 

 

 

[LSHMEAB]

1 minute ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

I suspect that has more to do with bad habits merged with the immediate gratification vibe than it does with making less money than their parents.

 

My parents didn't carry $1000 cellphones and watch every sporting event or TV show they could imagine on a 60" $400 big screen TVs, and PCs and tablets for all their kids with streaming data plans.  They didn't stand in line for three days to get the new iPhone. Or earbuds. And they sure the hell didn't pay $100,000 for a four-year degree. 

 

 

Fair enough. There are many, many people who squander money, which leads to poor, self inflicted outcomes. There's no doubt about that.

 

But what about people saddled with medical debt because they were uninsured OR had insurance that didn't cover certain procedures?

 

Also, why didn't your parents pay 100k for a 4 year degree?

 

I'm not discounting your points, but there's more to the story. 

[LB3]

1 minute ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

I suspect that has more to do with bad habits merged with the immediate gratification vibe than it does with making less money than their parents.

 

My parents didn't carry $1000 cellphones and watch every sporting event or TV show they could imagine on a 60" $400 big screen TVs, and PCs and tablets for all their kids with streaming data plans.  They didn't stand in line for three days to get the new iPhone. Or earbuds. And they sure the hell didn't pay $100,000 for a four-year degree. 

 

 

Biggest lie Dems have sold is that you need a 4 year degree and that everyone deserves to go to college. Colleges are just as accountable accepting D students who need loans, especially when they can choose majors which give you almost no reason to be hired.

 

Some "uneducated" deplorables are some of the smartest people I know.  They passed on college and learned a trade and worked a decent job without acquiring unnecessary college debt.

 

On the opposite side of the coin, I know a few highly educated servers and retail employees who have mountains of debt and can't figure out why their liberal arts degrees aren't helping them and blame Trump.

[IDBillzFan]

9 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Fair enough. There are many, many people who squander money, which leads to poor, self inflicted outcomes. There's no doubt about that.

 

But what about people saddled with medical debt because they were uninsured OR had insurance that didn't cover certain procedures?

 

Also, why didn't your parents pay 100k for a 4 year degree?

 

I'm not discounting your points, but there's more to the story. 

 

That's actually my point. There's more to pretty much every story.

 

People saddled with medical debt is real, but there are more transgender kindergartners than there are people who file bankruptcy for medical bills. Funny how most of America was happy with their health insurance until Obamacare passed. My company paid full boat for all employees and their family members. Obamacare stuck a dagger in that within two years.

 

Lastly, my father died five years ago at the age of 92. Son of Italian immigrants going into the Bronx. Do the math. There was no money for college, but it sure the hell didn't cost $100K for four years in the early 40s. He worked odd jobs, got into sales, fought in WWII, eventually sold cars in Hackensack, eventually opened his own Ford dealership. Different time.

 

 

Edited March 4, 2020 by IDBillzFan

[GG]

4 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Fair enough. There are many, many people who squander money, which leads to poor, self inflicted outcomes. There's no doubt about that.

 

But what about people saddled with medical debt because they were uninsured OR had insurance that didn't cover certain procedures?

 

Also, why didn't your parents pay 100k for a 4 year degree?

 

I'm not discounting your points, but there's more to the story. 

 

Former LABilzfan went straight to the ending of the post I was going to write, but if you do a true analysis of the change in the purchasing power of Americans, you will see how greater government intervention affects the value of goods people buy.  The fastest rising costs over the last 4 decades have been housing, education and healthcare, far outpacing inflation.  All other costs have risen at inflation or less.    It’s difficult to compare previous generations to current one, because priorities are vastly different, which in many cases results in much worse financial position for the younger folks.

[LSHMEAB]

11 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Former LABilzfan went straight to the ending of the post I was going to write, but if you do a true analysis of the change in the purchasing power of Americans, you will see how greater government intervention affects the value of goods people buy.  The fastest rising costs over the last 4 decades have been housing, education and healthcare, far outpacing inflation.  All other costs have risen at inflation or less.    It’s difficult to compare previous generations to current one, because priorities are vastly different, which in many cases results in much worse financial position for the younger folks.

I would just say that I'm not exactly sure how government intervention has affected the cost of higher education. Ok. Train of thought. Policies that favor admitting more minorities. Got it. I guess it depends on one's perspective of that policy. But if you're a fan of the Office, you'll see quite clearly that the "promise" of free college creates tremendously higher graduation rates among minorities. Scott's Tots had a 96 percent graduation rate, far surpassing that of the school average. I kid.

 

WRT healthcare, I hold big Pharma accountable for the astronomical cost of healthcare/prescription drugs. I get it. They do their R/D in Cali, so the rationale is that we should pay 10 TIMES the price of what they charge in other developed nations. That's absurd.

 

These are precisely the issues Bernie is/was running on I personally believe they would would be a net positive for the country. But we've had that discussion and you made some very strong counterpoints; didn't change my mind, but offered a fully rational explanation as to why it WOULDN'T work.

 

At any rate, Trump has been re-elected tonight. Instead of debating Universal Healthcare, we'll be talking about Burisma from the right and "restoring the soul of the nation" from the left, whatever the he## that means.

 

Democrats appear to enjoy losing elections.

36 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

 

Lastly, my father died five years ago at the age of 92. Son of Italian immigrants going into the Bronx. Do the math. There was no money for college, but it sure the hell didn't cost $100K for four years in the early 40s. He worked odd jobs, got into sales, fought in WWII, eventually sold cars in Hackensack, eventually opened his own Ford dealership. Different time.

 

 

Dad sounds like a "grinder." That's positive slang for hard worker who never quit.

[3rdnlng]

20 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

I would just say that I'm not exactly sure how government intervention has affected the cost of higher education. Ok. Train of thought. Policies that favor admitting more minorities. Got it. I guess it depends on one's perspective of that policy. But if you're a fan of the Office, you'll see quite clearly that the "promise" of free college creates tremendously higher graduation rates among minorities. Scott's Tots had a 96 percent graduation rate, far surpassing that of the school average. I kid.

 

WRT healthcare, I hold big Pharma accountable for the astronomical cost of healthcare/prescription drugs. I get it. They do their R/D in Cali, so the rationale is that we should pay 10 TIMES the price of what they charge in other developed nations. That's absurd.

 

These are precisely the issues Bernie is/was running on I personally believe they would would be a net positive for the country. But we've had that discussion and you made some very strong counterpoints; didn't change my mind, but offered a fully rational explanation as to why it WOULDN'T work.

 

At any rate, Trump has been re-elected tonight. Instead of debating Universal Healthcare, we'll be talking about Burisma from the right and "restoring the soul of the nation" from the left, whatever the he## that means.

 

Democrats appear to enjoy losing elections.

Dad sounds like a "grinder." That's positive slang for hard worker who never quit.

The catalyst for the rapid rise in college costs has been how easy it is to get student loans. That has allowed colleges to raise costs at will.

[GG]

43 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

I would just say that I'm not exactly sure how government intervention has affected the cost of higher education. Ok. Train of thought. Policies that favor admitting more minorities. Got it. I guess it depends on one's perspective of that policy. But if you're a fan of the Office, you'll see quite clearly that the "promise" of free college creates tremendously higher graduation rates among minorities. Scott's Tots had a 96 percent graduation rate, far surpassing that of the school average. I kid.

 

WRT healthcare, I hold big Pharma accountable for the astronomical cost of healthcare/prescription drugs. I get it. They do their R/D in Cali, so the rationale is that we should pay 10 TIMES the price of what they charge in other developed nations. That's absurd.

 

These are precisely the issues Bernie is/was running on I personally believe they would would be a net positive for the country. But we've had that discussion and you made some very strong counterpoints; didn't change my mind, but offered a fully rational explanation as to why it WOULDN'T work.

 

At any rate, Trump has been re-elected tonight. Instead of debating Universal Healthcare, we'll be talking about Burisma from the right and "restoring the soul of the nation" from the left, whatever the he## that means.

 

Democrats appear to enjoy losing elections.

Dad sounds like a "grinder." That's positive slang for hard worker who never quit.

 

You really need to do a better job of learning the statistics of the points you’re debating.

 

Having a higher number of minorities getting into college was a relative non-factor in the runaway costs.  That’s because you have a far lower number of minority students attending college than whites (assuming that by minorities you are referring to black & Hispanics, and not East Asians or South Asians).    College enrollment has been growing, and a lot of that growth has been met with the rise of 2-yr programs and online college programs.   In usual circumstances, when you see a rise in demand by students, but a rather fixed supply of college seats, you’d expect some price inflation, but definitely not at the same levels that’s occurred since the ‘80s.  That’s because the government created a distorted financial aid and loan market that holds everyone else accountable for the rising costs, except colleges.   Do you honestly think that college costs would rise so much if the colleges were the ones who were extending the loans to their students, and have to take on the repayment risk?   Highly doubtful.

 

Same concept applies to healthcare.  Pharma gets beaten because it’s easy to quantify the cost of the drugs that are prescribed.  And they are high.  A big reason for the high cost is that US consumers subsidize the rest of the world, who get the discounts off the US payers’ back.  Bernie rails about the high cost of prescription drugs, but has no real plan to reign them in, other than yelling at them.  Trump on the other hand was the first President who’s introducing most favored nations clauses into drug pricing, which should equalize the drug costs across nations.

 

Yet, that still a sliver of total health costs.  A $1k/year prescription is high, but far worth it if it keeps someone out of a hospital, where a daily bill can easily run up to $3k/day.  

[LSHMEAB]

20 hours ago, GG said:

 

You really need to do a better job of learning the statistics of the points you’re debating.

 

 

Very good info regarding the cause of the astronomical costs of college, though you'd have to explain how the government profits from the student loan scam/program. You clearly possess a great deal of knowledge/data/statistics. But one could quite EASILY use that information in an argument in FAVOR of eliminating the middle men in both higher education as well as healthcare. None of it really runs counter to the progressive agenda.

 

Also, if there was a single insurance provider(Medicare), you really don't believe they'd have greatly increased leverage against big Pharma? I reckon they would. The U.S. CONSUMER is subsidizing the rest of the world in terms of drug costs. Why is that? You think Pharmaceutical Companies are out there doing God's work taking L's and offsetting that by ripping US off? Doubt it. Pretty sure they just take advantage of the only industrialized nation without a single payer HC system.

 

As to the minority quip, I was just assuming that's where the conversation was headed. Yes, I know what happens when you assume.

 

Finally, it really doesn't matter at this point; we'll see how Trump fares in his second term.

Edited March 4, 2020 by LSHMEAB

[GG]

4 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Very good info regarding the cause of the astronomical costs of college, though you'd have to explain how the government profits from the student loan scam/program. You clearly possess a great deal of knowledge/data/statistics. But one could quite EASILY use that information in an argument in FAVOR of eliminating the middle men in both higher education as well as healthcare. None of it really runs counter to the progressive agenda.

 

You shouldn’t look for a profit motive when it comes to government, because that’s not the incentive, like it is for the private sector.  For the government, and more appropriately, for elected officials who run that government, the payoff is to keep getting elected and maintaining the power.   History has proven that a very effective way to accomplish that is to make promises to the electorate.  The best promises for politicians are the ones where they don’t have to be responsible for the outcome, and even better when they can capitalize on the very bad system they helped create.

 

Nobody is against the push for more education and finding better ways to get everyone to finish high school and then continue their studies or learn a valued trade.  The breakdown came in the ‘70s when the trades became disparaged and everyone’s goal had to be a 4-year college degree.   The government stepped in with good intentions by increasing financing options, but without any real skin in the game.  This was the prime reason college costs skyrocketed.  Although many of the student loans were federally “guaranteed,” the banks first had to exhaust all repayment options, and became the obvious scapegoats.  Nobody stopped to ask colleges why tuition was rising when cheap financing was available, and not much disclosure provided about the risks of entering into those loans.

 

Of course now that the government is fully on the hook for student loans, the political calls are coming in for free college education, which will be hilarious if it truly comes to pass, because the liberal academia will finally have to live under the rules they only preach by.   Which will happen in how I describe it below.  

 

Quote

Also, if there was a single insurance provider(Medicare), you really don't believe they'd have greatly increased leverage against big Pharma? I reckon they would. The U.S. CONSUMER is subsidizing the rest of the world in terms of drug costs. Why is that? You think Pharmaceutical Companies are out there doing God's work taking L's and offsetting that by ripping US off? Doubt it. Pretty sure they just take advantage of the only industrialized nation without a single payer HC system.

 

If you can freeze a point in time, then you can make an argument that for a split second a one-payer Medicare for all system would save money and not result in any loss of service.  But once that moment passes, the universal law of supply and demand kicks in.  

 

Bernie & co’s assumption is that changing the reimbursement formulas won’t have any effect on quality of future care or investment.  The annual savings that Bernie’s “experts” are touting exceed the total annual profits of the entire medical and health insurance industry.  That means their proposal would offer reimbursements that are below the full cost of providing that service right now.   How would that be possible without severely curtailing care?  

 

It’s the consistent flaw in any proposal to socialize a service, where the incentives for further investment are ignored and people think that companies will continue to buy and improve equipment and services.  What really happens is that they can’t buy anything new and they keep fixing the old until it finally disintegrates.   That’s why you still see 60 year old cars in Havana.   It’s not quaint, it’s a built in feature of socialism.

 

Quote

As to the minority quip, I was just assuming that's where the conversation was headed. Yes, I know what happens when you assume.

 

Finally, it really doesn't matter at this point; we'll see how Trump fares in his second term.

 

All Democrats had to do in the last 4 years was not to go insane.

[LSHMEAB]

On 3/4/2020 at 7:08 PM, GG said:

 

You shouldn’t look for a profit motive when it comes to government, because that’s not the incentive, like it is for the private sector.  For the government, and more appropriately, for elected officials who run that government, the payoff is to keep getting elected and maintaining the power.   History has proven that a very effective way to accomplish that is to make promises to the electorate.  The best promises for politicians are the ones where they don’t have to be responsible for the outcome, and even better when they can capitalize on the very bad system they helped create.

 

Nobody is against the push for more education and finding better ways to get everyone to finish high school and then continue their studies or learn a valued trade.  The breakdown came in the ‘70s when the trades became disparaged and everyone’s goal had to be a 4-year college degree.   The government stepped in with good intentions by increasing financing options, but without any real skin in the game.  This was the prime reason college costs skyrocketed.  Although many of the student loans were federally “guaranteed,” the banks first had to exhaust all repayment options, and became the obvious scapegoats.  Nobody stopped to ask colleges why tuition was rising when cheap financing was available, and not much disclosure provided about the risks of entering into those loans.

 

Of course now that the government is fully on the hook for student loans, the political calls are coming in for free college education, which will be hilarious if it truly comes to pass, because the liberal academia will finally have to live under the rules they only preach by.   Which will happen in how I describe it below.  

 

 

If you can freeze a point in time, then you can make an argument that for a split second a one-payer Medicare for all system would save money and not result in any loss of service.  But once that moment passes, the universal law of supply and demand kicks in.  

 

Bernie & co’s assumption is that changing the reimbursement formulas won’t have any effect on quality of future care or investment.  The annual savings that Bernie’s “experts” are touting exceed the total annual profits of the entire medical and health insurance industry.  That means their proposal would offer reimbursements that are below the full cost of providing that service right now.   How would that be possible without severely curtailing care?  

 

It’s the consistent flaw in any proposal to socialize a service, where the incentives for further investment are ignored and people think that companies will continue to buy and improve equipment and services.  What really happens is that they can’t buy anything new and they keep fixing the old until it finally disintegrates.   That’s why you still see 60 year old cars in Havana.   It’s not quaint, it’s a built in feature of socialism.

 

 

All Democrats had to do in the last 4 years was not to go insane.

Good post. The Havana reference seems a bit extreme, but I understand your perspective.

 

As to the Dems, they have certainly not behaved as Super Geniuses(Sorry, but that sh** was hilarious).

 

Point I'm making is that with Sanders, at the very least, the Dems and the left wing media would have to talk about issues; as would the right; I know they're prepared with Havana and Castro, etc. 

 

With Biden, it's gonna be full on TDS. You wanna know the truth? I think a lot of these people WANT Trump to win. There is a very thin line between love and hate.