Page 169 of 1306 FirstFirst ... 691191591671681691701711792192696691169 ... LastLast
Results 3,361 to 3,380 of 26103
  1. #3361
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    I dunno. To be fair to Bernie, and as several of his fellow candidates have noted, Bernie has been very honest and upfront in saying that taxes would go up on much more than the top 1% under his plan and that he will raise taxes on "the middle class" (not defined).
    I imagine Sanders ideas sound pretty good if you’re 30 years old, or more, and still living with your parents. Some of those parents probably also like the ideas.

    I suspect these parents would have gladly paid more in taxes if Bernie had given their 30 year old son a house...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHJANoSId7k

  2. #3362
    alteran is offline All-American, Honorable Mention
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham-- 2 miles from Cameron, baby!
    Not to be a killjoy, but as someone who was recently sanctioned for making a joke that didn’t pick sides but still wasn’t horserace related, a lot of recent comments seem not only political, but pointed at specific policies.

    It’s irritating to see such comments when I think they are obvious mischaracterizations.

    Grumble.
       

  3. #3363
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    I dunno. To be fair to Bernie, and as several of his fellow candidates have noted, Bernie has been very honest and upfront in saying that taxes would go up on much more than the top 1% under his plan and that he will raise taxes on "the middle class" (not defined). At least for the "Medicare for all" portion of his plan. Not sure everyone else advocating Medicare for all has been that, er, forthcoming.

    From Miami debate:

    Q: "Senator Sanders, I'll give you 10 seconds just to answer the very direct question, will you raise taxes for the middle class in a Sanders administration?"

    A: "People who have health care under Medicare for all will have no premiums, no deductibles, no co-payments, no out-of-pocket expenses. Yes, they will pay more in taxes but less in health care for what they get."

    Would love to see the projections on the break-even level of "middle class."
    Of course taxes would go up. But in turn, so would net income, because you wouldn’t be paying for employer-based health insurance anymore. The question is whether that becomes a wash or not. The arguments for it would be that private health insurance is by far the most expensive per individual (due to a few factors: each private plan has less bargaining power with hospitals/physicians/providers due to a smaller patient pool; private plans are designed to make a profit for stockholders, whereas public plans are designed to minimize cost as the public are the owners/investors; better health profile of the pool because all the healthy folks are in it; intermediate parties skimming profit, like pharmacy benefit managers). The arguments against it are the concern about long-term quality of care if providers lose the financial incentive to practice medicine, the concern about increased demand.

    But the complaints about higher taxes are, in my opinion, shortsighted, because they ignore the savings from paying for health insurance elsewhere. And like 80% of the population is already paying for healthcare. And they are probably already OVERpaying for healthcare, for the reasons noted above. It is quite possible, perhaps even probable that universal healthcare is ultimately cost-neutral: higher taxes but offset by less income lost to private insurance. Basically, the money folks would be paying for employer-based or other private coverage would just shift over to “Medicare for all.”

    In my opinion, the debate over health insurance should focus on quality and not the costs. Because I don’t think the costs are going to be a major driver.

  4. #3364
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Of course taxes would go up. But in turn, so would net income, because you wouldn’t be paying for employer-based health insurance anymore. The question is whether that becomes a wash or not.
    That's assuming employers passed along 100% of the savings, which is optimistic to say the least.

  5. #3365
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by alteran View Post
    Not to be a killjoy, but as someone who was recently sanctioned for making a joke that didn’t pick sides but still wasn’t horserace related, a lot of recent comments seem not only political, but pointed at specific policies.

    It’s irritating to see such comments when I think they are obvious mischaracterizations.

    Grumble.
    When you see a post that you feel is problematic, please hit the report button and briefly explain your problem with it. I assure you, I read every single report on this thread and consider how to deal with it.

    I would also note that much of the policy discussion over the past couple days, particularly around healthcare, falls outside the rules of this thread. I am not issuing infractions at this time, but I would urge posters to back away from this discussion unless it is about how such proposals directly impact the horserace.
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  6. #3366
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    On the Road to Nowhere
    Here's a poll with some meat to it (instead of just Candidate X vs. Candidate Y). A few of my takeaways:

    In the past 6 months, it has become more important to D voters to pick someone who can beat Trump (+5, this question was last asked 6 months ago). And most (by more than 2X) feel Biden is that person.

    Biden basically maintaining his lead (this poll is once per month). They also did just him against Warren, and his lead grew a bit, and he got a majority (53-37). So it appears as the others drop out their voters won't flock to Warren. Sanders will be the last to drop out (if it comes down to Biden vs. Warren) so I think that also bodes well for Biden.

    Of the things that D voters care about, age is the least of them.

    On the whole, all good news for Biden.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox...ber-15-17-2019

  7. #3367
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey View Post
    IMO, it should be "scaring off the capital pouring into the “legal” market".

    https://www.latimes.com/california/s...l-pot-industry

    "Less than 20% of cities in California — 89 of 482 — allow retail shops to sell cannabis for recreational use. "
    Two things:

    1. The first legal dispensaries in SD were in unincorporated parts of the county.

    2. What percentage of the Californians living in cities live in those 89?
       

  8. #3368
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    That's assuming employers passed along 100% of the savings, which is optimistic to say the least.
    Not really. Employees would revolt if employers lowered their salaries. Because that is the only way that individuals wouldn’t see 100% of the savings in their premiums. You are paying a substantial chunk of the premiums out of your salary currently. That payment would go away, so unless your employer lowers your salary you see that savings. Yes, the employers would keep their portion, and I wouldn’t expect to see any of that added to salary. But you would definitely get all of your portion back.

    Between that and the points that I made previously about the better bargaining leverage of a single plan representing all potential patients AND a better risk pool (Medicare’s cost per patient goes down a lot of you add a ton of younger, healthier individuals to the risk pool) AND the elimination of profit maximization of private insurance AND the elimination of the various intermediaries also seeking profit maximization, I would expect universal healthcare to be fairly cost neutral at the individual level. It would just be a reallocation of where those costs are coming from. You would pay way less per patient (but more total due to more patients) for Medicare; you would pay nothing anymore for private insurance; and you would pay nothing anymore for “Obamacare”, Medicaid, and other current gov’t insurance programs.

    Now, again, one can certainly debate whether quality of care would suffer (more demand could possibly mean longer wait times, could possibly eventually lead to less provider incentives). But I don’t think cost changes are going to be a dramatic part of the story.

    Full disclosure: I have spent the past 20 years working in and getting multiple degrees related to this very topic. So I feel I know a fair bit about this issue, and it annoys me that the discussion always gets hung up on cost.

  9. #3369
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    Two things:

    1. The first legal dispensaries in SD were in unincorporated parts of the county.

    2. What percentage of the Californians living in cities live in those 89?
    My original statement, which you questioned, was "I suspect a large percentage of the pot sold in California today will be illegal/black market."

    IMO, the following statement, from the recent article below, is in full agreement with my original statement. "The forecast, from BDS Analytics and Arcview Market Research, estimates that California’s total cannabis market is expected to earn about $12.8 billion this year, with $8.7 billion going to illicit operators and $3.1 billion to the state-authorized market."

    https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics...234150842.html

    You appear not to like the facts. Trust me, I don't either. I'm a relatively early investor in MedMen. I also have rather small ownership interests in five other cannabis companies. I'll be lucky if one or two of them survive and then prosper. Of course, that's all it takes for my aggregate industry investment to pay off. Otherwise, my industry investment will be up in smoke.

  10. #3370
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey View Post
    My original statement, which you questioned, was "I suspect a large percentage of the pot sold in California today will be illegal/black market."

    IMO, the following statement, from the recent article below, is in full agreement with my original statement. "The forecast, from BDS Analytics and Arcview Market Research, estimates that California’s total cannabis market is expected to earn about $12.8 billion this year, with $8.7 billion going to illicit operators and $3.1 billion to the state-authorized market."

    https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics...234150842.html

    You appear not to like the facts. Trust me, I don't either. I'm a relatively early investor in MedMen. I also have rather small ownership interests in five other cannabis companies. I'll be lucky if one or two of them survive and then prosper. Of course, that's all it takes for my aggregate industry investment to pay off. Otherwise, my industry investment will be up in smoke.
    I just asked for the facts. I have no like or dislike of them.
       

  11. #3371
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey View Post
    My original statement, which you questioned, was "I suspect a large percentage of the pot sold in California today will be illegal/black market."

    IMO, the following statement, from the recent article below, is in full agreement with my original statement. "The forecast, from BDS Analytics and Arcview Market Research, estimates that California’s total cannabis market is expected to earn about $12.8 billion this year, with $8.7 billion going to illicit operators and $3.1 billion to the state-authorized market."

    https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics...234150842.html

    You appear not to like the facts. Trust me, I don't either. I'm a relatively early investor in MedMen. I also have rather small ownership interests in five other cannabis companies. I'll be lucky if one or two of them survive and then prosper. Of course, that's all it takes for my aggregate industry investment to pay off. Otherwise, my industry investment will be up in smoke.
    Somewhat as an aside, but I'm interested in the comment in bold...and have to note that I hate sources (BDS Analytics, not you) that can't discern the difference between earnings and revenue... (OK, I am picking nits, but that's what financial types do)...
    Having said that, I guess I'm not surprised...a lot of big illicit operations run smoothly and have been around for years...they aren't in a hurry to suddenly adhere to state regulations, taxes, etc...as long as legal dispensary prices are relatively high, I suspect there will be lots of room for the illicits (like the deplorables!)...As some of the legal companies get really really big, they should have economies of scale to drive down costs, and prices as well...we'll see. But it is fascinating.

  12. #3372
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    On the Road to Nowhere
    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the Ds need to nominate Joe Biden if they want to win.

    New polling from Texas. Biden is the only legitimate candidate that beats Trump. It's early, and I'm not saying Biden can or will win Texas, but if the Ds can make Trump defend Texas that's a big deal.

    Fun question from the poll: Did post-debate coverage change your support for a candidate? 0.0%. Talking heads have the best gig in the world, lol.

    https://www.uttyler.edu/politicalsci...V-in-Texas.pdf

  13. #3373
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    I would also note that much of the policy discussion over the past couple days, particularly around healthcare, falls outside the rules of this thread. I am not issuing infractions at this time, but I would urge posters to back away from this discussion unless it is about how such proposals directly impact the horserace.
    Perhaps I should have been more clear but the legalization of marijuana is also a topic that would seem to fall well outside the bounds of this thread and the horserace.

    People, please try to reign in the policy discussions. This is getting to be problematic.
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  14. #3374
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the Ds need to nominate Joe Biden if they want to win.

    New polling from Texas. Biden is the only legitimate candidate that beats Trump. It's early, and I'm not saying Biden can or will win Texas, but if the Ds can make Trump defend Texas that's a big deal.

    Fun question from the poll: Did post-debate coverage change your support for a candidate? 0.0%. Talking heads have the best gig in the world, lol.

    https://www.uttyler.edu/politicalsci...V-in-Texas.pdf
    I disagree. I am far from sure that this is saying Biden is the best candidate to beat Trump in Texas. I think we are seeing a lot of name recognition in these numbers. Don't look at the Democrat numbers, look at Trump. He ranges all the way from a 39.7 against Beto down to a 38.0 against Biden. His numbers are in a really tight range. When you see Harris (31.8) and Buttigieg (30.4) getting beat by Trump I'm not sure it means those are weaker general election candidates. I think it probably means most voters just don't know enough about them to make up their mind. I think it is no coincidence that the two highest polling Democrats -- Biden (39.6) and Beto (42.0) -- are the two Democrats who are far-and-away the best known in Texas.

    One on one polls are sorta silly at this point because the vast majority of the voting public still knows so little about the Democrats (aside from Biden and maybe Sanders). By the time the nation starts really paying attention and votes actually start being cast in primaries, then the head-to-head numbers will have a little more meaning.

    To me, the biggest takeaway here is that Trump cannot crack 40% no matter who you put him up against in Texas. And while I get that 8-10% of those surveyed say they are undecided and they could break for Trump on election day, it is hard to see Trump winning Texas unless he can at least get to about 48% or more (there may be a significant Libertarian or 3rd party vote if the Dems nominate someone unpalatable to many voters, like last time).

    -Jason "other than consoling the El Paso victims, I suspect none of the candidates have spent much time at all in Texas" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  15. #3375
    Quote Originally Posted by Indoor66 View Post
    That top 1% must have one hell of an income. They are going to pay for health care and housing for all as well as paying for all environmental concerns of the Dems. Amazing. Who knew there was so much there.
    I was kind of curious, so I looked it up:

    If we're talking about income? Debatable. Top 1% represents about 13% of total annual wages. Bottom 90% receives 61% of income. Not that far out of proportion, IMO. Taxing wages of the top 1% seems to have only modest returns over taxing everyone's wages equally.

    If we're talking about wealth? Absolutely. The top 1% controls over 1/3 of wealth in this country, 38.6% as of 2017. The bottom 90% control 49.7% of wealth. Taxing investments of the top 1-2% seems to have a much greater return for the government than their income.

    I know there are lots of factors at play here (e.g. money spent on taxed is not invested in growing the business). Just noting that if you want to raise $ through taxation, you should go to where the $ is. I think that's Bernie's main idea anyway.

    Of course the majority of voters are not in the top 1%, and convincing someone to raise someone else's taxes is easier than convincing them to raise their own.
    "There can BE only one."

  16. #3376
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Perhaps I should have been more clear but the legalization of marijuana is also a topic that would seem to fall well outside the bounds of this thread and the horserace.

    People, please try to reign in the policy discussions. This is getting to be problematic.
    Sorry, given this post... https://forums.dukebasketballreport...04#post1185104 I assumed it was copacetic.

  17. #3377
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Not really. Employees would revolt if employers lowered their salaries. Because that is the only way that individuals wouldn’t see 100% of the savings in their premiums. You are paying a substantial chunk of the premiums out of your salary currently. That payment would go away, so unless your employer lowers your salary you see that savings. Yes, the employers would keep their portion, and I wouldn’t expect to see any of that added to salary. But you would definitely get all of your portion back.

    Between that and the points that I made previously about the better bargaining leverage of a single plan representing all potential patients AND a better risk pool (Medicare’s cost per patient goes down a lot of you add a ton of younger, healthier individuals to the risk pool) AND the elimination of profit maximization of private insurance AND the elimination of the various intermediaries also seeking profit maximization, I would expect universal healthcare to be fairly cost neutral at the individual level. It would just be a reallocation of where those costs are coming from. You would pay way less per patient (but more total due to more patients) for Medicare; you would pay nothing anymore for private insurance; and you would pay nothing anymore for “Obamacare”, Medicaid, and other current gov’t insurance programs.

    Now, again, one can certainly debate whether quality of care would suffer (more demand could possibly mean longer wait times, could possibly eventually lead to less provider incentives). But I don’t think cost changes are going to be a dramatic part of the story.

    Full disclosure: I have spent the past 20 years working in and getting multiple degrees related to this very topic. So I feel I know a fair bit about this issue, and it annoys me that the discussion always gets hung up on cost.
    I come at it from a bit different angle, having spent most of my career financing companies in the Healthcare industry. I can't claim to be paying ultra close attention to the Healthcare policy/Medicare for All arguments in the Dem primary process, but based on what I have seen and heard, I find it quite baffling that the role of Medicare Advantage Plans - under which enrollees can choose to have the Federal government pay premiums to private insurers to administer their Medicare benefits - is usually glossed over if not completely ignored. Especially since roughly 1/3 of current Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans, and in most years, a majority of new Medicare enrollees opt for MA plans over the Government's traditional fee for service program. Also worth noting that the Medicare Advantage program has tended to enjoy bipartisan support through much of existence.

  18. #3378
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    healthcare policy stuff
    I would love to discuss more, perhaps over PM and not make so much work for Jason. Let's get back to the campaigns!

  19. #3379
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    On the Road to Nowhere
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    I entered Mr. Yang's contest. Why not?
    Hey PackMan, did you win? I saw your post and did also. I haven't heard, but I also haven't heard the winners announced. So there's still hope.

    On the ominous side:

    https://www.fastcompany.com/90405809...eepstakes-data

    Ok, not so ominous. But interesting what it supposedly got him for relatively minor campaign cost. Don't know what he hopes to gain from my email and zip code though.

  20. #3380
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Perhaps I should have been more clear but the legalization of marijuana is also a topic that would seem to fall well outside the bounds of this thread and the horserace.

    People, please try to reign in the policy discussions. This is getting to be problematic.
    Acknowledged....having said that, I think the discussion (which won't resume) was not pro or anti legalization per se, but rather about the financial mechanics involved...

Similar Threads

  1. MLB 2020 HOF Election
    By Blue in the Face in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-24-2020, 12:28 PM
  2. Presidential Inauguration
    By such in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-26-2008, 11:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •