Reply With Quote
Hilary's scandals, ALL FABRICATED, ALL FALSE OUTRAGE, to inflame you bubbas, rurals, rednecks and distract from Repugs who have no agenda, won't govern.
Fair dinkum.
Hilary's scandals, ALL FABRICATED, ALL FALSE OUTRAGE, to inflame you bubbas, rurals, rednecks and distract from Repugs who have no agenda, won't govern.
Unless you're in the top 0.1% income bracket in the US, you should be voting for him. The country has been going downhill for 40 years, wasting money on imaginary wars, and giving Tax breaks to the absolute richest people in the country while bridges and highways fall to pieces, the education standard keeps plummeting and the middle class shrinks.
Sorry boutons, but no. The benghazi "scandal" was bull , but the email thing was wrongdoing on her part and we still might not know anywhere near the full story.
When I see Hillary speaking, particularly about the email thing, she looks like she has something to hide.
Exactly. The welfare leechers are the top 0.1% who leech of tax rebates while everyone else pays their way.
Bernie Sanders' problem in the end will still be that he sounds like a whiny rabbi.
I would still prefer Martin O'Malley/Tommy Carcetti as a candidate, but any politician from Maryland probably has skeletons in his closet we don't know about.
I see people shilling for this socialist Bernie got everywhere these days, that can off back to tel aviv
I haven't heard a rabbi whine.
Bernie identifies many sandwiches the 1%/VRWC/BigCorp have served the 99% for decades.
Give me a handout, I'm en led!
FLASHBACK: When Millions Of Lost Bush White House Emails (From Private Accounts) Triggered A Media Shrug
The emails had been run through private accounts controlled by the Republican National Committee and were only supposed to be used for dealing with non-administration political campaign work to avoid violating ethics laws.
Yet congressional investigators already had evidence private emails had been used for government business, including to discuss the firing of one of the U.S. attorneys. The RNC accounts were used by 22 White House staffers, including then-Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who reportedly used his RNC email for 95 percent of his communications.
As the Washington Post reported, "Under federal law, the White House is required to maintain records, including e-mails, involving presidential decision- making and deliberations." But suddenly millions of the private RNC emails had gone missing; emails that were seen as potentially crucial evidence by Congressional investigators.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03...te-hous/202820
Tell us again who BROKE THE LAW and WHO HAD SOMETHING TO HIDE?
Yeah, I hate George Bush a lot more than Hillary Clinton. Not sure where I've defended him.
Not sure what this post has anything to do with Hillary Clinton either.
Hillary didn't break the law. Your "feeling" about her is useless. I don't like her but being Pres isn't a personality/popularity contest, beauty contest. She's miles better than ANY Repug Klown.
I think she's equally as bad as Rand Paul.
Bernie Sanders keeps single-payer dream alive: What the GOP Obamacare naysayers will never understand about health care
While Bush, Rubio and Paul speak in pla udes, Sanders — and the public — has a radical, popular, workable idea
But first, we should note what Bernie Sanders had to say, as he also spoke broadly, but without the deception or obfuscation. The broad statements he made could be backed up with specific facts. He also skillfully praised what Democrats had accomplished without forgetting for a moment that more remained to be done:
Today, because of the Supreme Court’s decision to protect the modest gains made under the Affordable Care Act, it is a good day for millions of Americans who will be able to keep their access to health care.
It’s also a good day for the small business owners who, before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, couldn’t afford the escalating cost of providing insurance for their employees.
But while I am glad the Supreme Court upheld the law, in my view, the only long-term solution to America’s health care crisis is a Medicare-for-all single-payer system.
This brings us back to Bernie Sanders, and what he had to say. Remember, Sanders already acknowledged that Obamacare has helped millions of Americans, a basic reality that all the GOP candidates are in denial about—similar to global warming, evolution or gay marriage. When the ruling came down, the latest figures from Gallup were 11.9% uninsured in the first quarter of 2015, down from a high of 18% before Obamacare went into effect. Since then, second-quarter figures came in at 11.4% uninsured. This is a program that’s working. But it’s still a far cry from what other countries have done.
That’s the comparative background for what Sanders had to say as his response continued: “But while I am glad the Supreme Court upheld the law, in my view, the only long-term solution to America’s health care crisis is a Medicare-for-all single-payer system.”
I start my approach to health care from two very simple premises:
1. Health care must be recognized as a right, not a privilege–every man, woman and child in our country should be able to access quality care regardless of their income.
2. We must create a national system to provide care for every single American in the most cost-effective way possible.
Tragically, the United States fails in both areas.
It very clearly is quite doable to ensure health care as a right. We simply have to make it a priority. Sanders continued:
The health insurance lobbyists and big pharmaceutical companies make “national health care” sound scary. It’s not.
In fact, a large single-payer system already exists in the United States. It’s called Medicare and the people enrolled give it high marks. More importantly, it has succeeded in providing near-universal coverage to Americans over age 65 in a very cost-effective manner.
It’s time to expand that program to all Americans.
What Sanders is proposing is far simpler than Obamacare—simple to say, simple to understand and simple to implement, too, considering the Medicare system already in place. What’s more, the idea already enjoys significant support, despite not being widely talked about—which Sanders is doing his best to change via his campaign. In the “Big Ideas” poll commissioned by the Progressive Change Ins ute (featured in my previous story about Sanders), people were asked if they supported or opposed a wide range of proposals, including two important questions about expanding Medicare.
The first is basically a re-articulation of the “public option” proposal, a toned-down derivative of the single-payer position health care activists supported overwhelmingly heading into the 2008 election, which Edwards, Clinton and Obama all agreed to during the 2008 primary.
While the public option enjoyed around 60% support in the polls in 2009 (see poll summary at top of a critical story here), this presentation did significantly better—71% of all respondents supported it, with only 13% opposed, including Democrats (77-9), Independents (71-13) and Republicans (63-18). At these levels, Republicansnow support it more strongly than the public as a whole supported the public option in 2009.
The second proposal tested is precisely what Sanders proposes: “Enact a national health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance through an expanded, universal form of Medicare.” This had the support of 51%, with 36% opposed. Democrats supported it overwhelmingly (79-11), while independents gave it a plurality (45-43) and Republicans opposed it (23-61). That means that outside the Republican Party, it enjoyed landslide support 66-24, and Democrats supported it roughly as much as they supported the more modest public option.
Sanders proposes a fresh start. Instead of taking up the toned-down public option idea, he returns to Medicare for all, which Democrats support as strongly as the public option. The reasons is simple: It will get the job done. It will ensure universal health care as a right; the public option will not.
By taking up the “more extreme” position, Sanders frames the debate on his terms: Will we have health care for all Americans? Or only for a fortunate subset? (Whose numbers we have swollen lately, but could well ebb once again, particularly if GOP lawmakers have their way.)
There is no question that we could have health care for all Americans—they do that in almost every country in Europe, as already noted. So let’s have the Republicans debate about who shouldn’t have health care, and why. Doesn’t that sound like a good Christian thing to do? A debate in the spirit of Matthew 25:31-46. That will be the position Republicans are in if they’re arguing against Bernie Sanders and Medicare for all, instead of against Obamacare.
That’s a debate that an ever-growing number of people would like to see.
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/18/bern...t_health_care/
Thanks to McCain and his Senate colleague Bernie Sanders, their legislation to cover up the VA scandal, in which 1,000+ veterans died waiting for medical care, made sure no one has been punished, charged, jailed, fined or held responsible.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...ates/30389993/
Bernie lied and a thousand veterans died.
Trump? you're quoting Trump?
And people wont buy more bread than they need? You haven't allowed the market to function. Is it possible that some people will buy more than they need because they were further ahead in the queue? I don't know why I am arguing this. Even the most liberal of economists agree with me.
ter McGee
There are plenty of times when classical economic theories are shattered. The minimum wage is one of them. A classic shortage brought on by a disaster is not.
ter McGee
So you're content to let the market correct itself even when it clearly has no time to do so?
How does it not have time to do so? The market changes based off information. Gas stations don't see a storm coming, laugh, call their buddies, and all jack up prices at once just to the little guy, despite what liberals like to think they do...and then wait for the numbers.
Double post
You got a couple of people to take a swipe at your little straw man. I like the way you keep claiming these are liberal policies while simultaneously conceding the most liberal of economists agree this happens. At least I provided a GOP presidential candidate warning that price gouging is illegal in the state he governs. Who are these liberals championing anti-price gouging legislation?
That's some Elvis judo, friend. Fat and lazy.
Usually, people in a queue can only buy a limited quan y of items, in order to ensure a greater number of individuals can purchase supplies. In fact, a "free market" solution would tend to over buying far more, as the first person in line buys all he can, then when the store runs out, that first person can charge extra because supply is low and demand is high. (Much like a ticket scalper.)
True or False: In a crisis, supply is usually lowered and/or demand is raised, so supplies one might normally afford could become unaffordable to lower classes.
You've failed to explain how price gouging makes things better. Is it introducing more supply? Unless it is, you're just shifting who gets to purchase limited amounts. It depends on how you define fairness. If you think fairness is anyone setting whatever price they want, then that's your call.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions