Sunday Sermon

Apr 24 2016 Published by under BlogBlather

I just want you to think about that which you do. 

53 responses so far

  • k elliott says:

    Do not intend to give a sermon on "Excitement on the news". Just, that it is exciting to hear that Hillary is thinking on Elizabeth Warren as VP if she wins the WH. I just like EW because she is one who has been working and fighting hard (for some years now) against the excesses that brought the country to the situation it is in now. By far, with much more experience and facts than Bernie. I wish it happened!.

  • drugmonkey says:

    HRC's biggest negative will be likeability rather than defection by the Bernie economic justice folks that EW addresses. I'm thinking O'Malley or Castro.

  • Namnezia says:

    Who's Castro?

  • Comradde PhysioProffe says:

    Dude, Hillary Clinton is extremely likable. The idea that she isn't likable is pure sexist bullshittio.

  • SidVic says:

    Presumptuous to tell us who to like. Sexist?

  • k elliott says:

    @Namnezia

    Julián Castro is a young hispanic politician in San Antonio.

    @Sidvic,

    That's not a nice video to watch. And perhaps many bad things would have not happened if " We came, we saw, he died" had never taken place in Lybia, Irak and some other places.
    I wish we could avoid anything similar happening again.

  • Philapodia says:

    I don't have to personally like the candidate, I just have to think that they will do a good job for all Americans. The whole bullshit idea about people voting Bush junior because he seemed like a good guy to have a beer with (a number of my family are in this camp) always seemed to be idiotic. I want my leader to be the smartest person in the room, or at least be able to identify the smartest people and actually listen to them and use their judgement. For me, HRC seems to fall in this category. She seems likable enough for a politician, but I want competence first and foremost. I agree with CPP, strong women are often viewed in a negative way whereas we wouldn't blink an eye in the same from a man. I hope my daughter grows up to be like HRC (except not a politician!)

  • DJMH says:

    I would love it if she chose Warren but I deeply doubt it. Hillary's a calculator. She'll pick a white or Latino man, since those are the two demos that she needs the most.

    Then again, I predicted there was no way Obama would pick Biden due to his gaffiness, so you shouldn't listen to anything I say.

  • drugmonkey says:

    Castro was mayor of San Antonio but is now Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

  • drugmonkey says:

    CPP- *I* like HRC just fine. But even people in her core demographic (white liberal professional women of a certain age) talk about how they don't really like her. Likeability is an issue.

  • jmz4 says:

    ^ She has a large unfavorable/favorable ratio for a national presidential candidate. Of course, so do all the likely candidates.

    On topic, what percentage of your peers do you think see science as primarily either a job (like any other), a hobby, or a higher calling? I have a theory that the disgruntled doc crowd (which has been flaring on my Facebook) tend to be the hobbyist scientist. By which I mean they think they should be able to study whatever they want and someone should pay then for it.

  • Jonathan Badger says:

    Dude, Hillary Clinton is extremely likable. The idea that she isn't likable is pure sexist bullshittio.

    No. Much like her husband, she's a Republican in Democrat clothing. That's not likable at all in my opinion. I like people who will rein in Wall Street, not try to be buddy-buddy with it in order to get millions in contributions from it. That said, she's basically a Republican from the 1970s. and given a choice of a 1970s Republican and a 2015 Republican I'd take the 1970s one.

  • Zuska says:

    All that fundraising HRC is doing - what's it for? It's to help support down ticket candidates. So Dems can take Senate seats, House seats, governers, state legislature positions. She's fundraising for the Democratic Party, with a strategic vision.

    Electing Bernie without turning out Republicans in other places will yield four more years of Obama + do-nothing Congress. I'm not hatin' on Obama - but we need more than the presidency. HRC knows that.

  • Jonathan Badger says:

    But would these "down ticket" candidates accepting indirect Wall Street bribes really be free to act like real Democrats and re-regulate the financial industry as needed? Dirty money doesn't come without strings.

  • becca says:

    I like women who pick projecting competence over projecting likability. *Somebody* has to like us.

    White liberal professional women, of any age, should not need to be reminded that the tightrope on likeability/competence is much more perilous for women, and that *of course* HRC faces this day in day out.

    That said, now that the "Trump and Bernie both tap into populism" meme is going around, perhaps it is worth noting that Hillary couldn't lead a populist uprising if her career depended on it. Which is too bad, because it might.

  • PaleoGould says:

    jmz4
    " I have a theory that the disgruntled doc crowd (which has been flaring on my Facebook) tend to be the hobbyist scientist. By which I mean they think they should be able to study whatever they want and someone should pay then for it."
    This does not match my experience of my cohort mates. Because we all teach anatomy. And almost no one teaches anatomy because they want to.

  • drugmonkey says:

    I wouldn't call it "hobbyist". There is just a spectrum of understanding about whether it is a job you do for a wage or a vocation you do for love. This is complicated by the fact that we have PI types positioned all along this spectrum, doing science. So the postdoc's belief system will depend on what they have been exposed to.

  • jmz4 says:

    "I like people who will rein in Wall Street, not try to be buddy-buddy with it in order to get millions in contributions from it."
    -No, you want someone to punish Wall Street rhetorically and pecuniarily, regardless of whether it makes sense (eg Bernie's break up the banks sloganeering). If you want regulations then you have Clinton's sensible and likely more effective approach of regulating the derivatives market, which is the surest way to tamp down on speculation, as the postwar, pre-Nixon years demonstrated.
    Banks serve a useful purpose in society, and they are not a monolithic entity of pure greed. I find Bernie's unequivocal disparagement of them to be short-sighted and petty. And going after Clinton for being nice to an influential and important constituency is just naivity on how politics works for people not from backwater, homogenized states.

  • jmz4 says:

    @Paleogould
    I think the hobbyists are the second to leave the pipeline, by and large. The ones still hanging in there into their later postdoc years are either true believers or obstinate (I don't know which camp I fall into).

  • drugmonkey says:

    Homogenized? How DARE you! Vermont has maple sugarers AND dairy farmers.

  • Grumble says:

    "you have Clinton's sensible and likely more effective approach of regulating the derivatives market"

    HAHAHAHA! Is that what she was secretly telling Goldman Sachs et al? That she was going to regulate the fuck out of them? If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

    Hill is not going to do jack shit about market manipulation. She is not very pro-consumer, either. Did you miss the part where, as senator, she voted for that horrible bankruptcy bill?

    And what about her invade-everyone belligerence? And her "please can I have another" ass-kissing routine with Netanyahu? Jesus H. Christ. Before I knew much about her, I thought she was likeable. But I've learned over the last few months that she's just another objectionable pseudo-Democrat.

    4 years of Hillary will be like 4 years of W. And because, unlike Bernie, she's detested by so many people, we might just end up with 4 years of Trump or some other noxious Republican slime mold.

  • zb says:

    I like Hillary.

  • jojo says:

    There's a bit of a "Bros for Bernie" vibe around here. :p

    Anyway... I voted HC. Even though I campaigned and voted for Obama & against her 8 yr ago. I like Obama, and I'm grateful for what he did get done but he didn't seem to have the behind the scenes skills needed to push his agenda fully. I think HC has this skill in spades. Bernie, not so much.

  • drugmonkey says:

    Right, Obama's political skill. That explains the entrenched oppose at all costs mentality that the Republicans overtly and unapologetically maintained during his Administration. Sure.

  • Grumble says:

    @jojo - "Bros for Bernie" - that is such a derogatory and baseless slur. First, it's not as if Bernie supporters are exclusively a men's club. Second, if you are intimating that Bernie supporters are anti-Hillary because of her gender, then please read my comment above. Notice the policy specifics and absence of any mention of gender. And then go ask every Bernie supporter they know what they think about a President Elizabeth Warren.

  • banditokat says:

    I like gin. When we get to gin subsidies, I'll vote.

  • jmz4 says:

    "Is that what she was secretly telling Goldman Sachs et al?"
    No, she was probably telling them banal platitudes about how they are a vital industry and they need to be more responsible next time. She certainly didn't explain in detail her plan to enslave the 99% and have them build goldplated moon mansions for the 1%.

    In what world do you think a politically ambitious family worth 150 million dollars is going to be swayed by the honorarium for a set of speeches?
    They capitalized on their fame to make a boatload of money. Good for them. If you want to accuse them of corruption beyond the pale of regular politicians (Sanders included) you need some proof. Not whispered slander or circumstantial conspiracy theory ramblings.

    Sanders is buoyed by the Tea Party of the Left, and would beholden to them if he gets elected. He already has the tendency to value ideology over workability. He even joined Cruz to vote against the budget bill that finally got the government operating at a semblance of functionality. An ideologically pure stance, to be sure, but not a responsible one. Same with the TARP vote.

    Finally, that bankruptcy bill never became law while she in the Senate, and was significantly different than the one that came up under Bill Clinton. If that's the best Clinton's detractors can come up with to prove she's a sell out to the banks, color me unimpressed.

    Her hawkishness is the only thing I see as especially problematic, both because I dislike the continuance of our interventionist policies, but also because I'd like to see the defense budget take a hit, which it probably won't. but thats an issue beyond Clinton anyway.

  • k elliott says:

    @jmz4

    Well said!.

  • Grumble says:

    "In what world do you think a politically ambitious family worth 150 million dollars is going to be swayed by the honorarium for a set of speeches?"

    Doh, how did they get that 150 million dollars?

    In small contributions from little people who like them a lot?

    Or big checks from very wealthy people who (WHY, do you think?) want access to the very top levels of power?

    Really, add two and two. Failure at this kind of simple math is the reason why we get such poor leadership.

  • k elliott says:

    Grumble,

    I think that we get such poor leadership for many different reasons other than taking high honorariums for speeches. I can tell you that one of the most recent Nobel Laureates in Economics took a 200,000 euros honorarium for his speech in 2009 in my country (when we were all tasting the financial recession savors. He came to talk about economic alternatives to overcoming the financial crisis and did not have any problems or concerns on taking the money and running back home. I am not defending the Clintons. But in that respect, they have been doing what celebrities usually do.

    I think it is scandalous in all cases.

  • jmz4 says:

    "Or big checks from very wealthy people who (WHY, do you think?) want access to the very top levels of power?"
    -Their fortune comes predominately from speaking fees. They cashed in on their celebrity. That's at least better than becoming lobbyists.
    Bill will never hold office again, so why does he command such high speaking fees if, as you argue, they're essentially just bribes for favors only elected officials can pull off.

    It's because people want to meet powerful and influential people. If you're Goldman Sachs, dropping 600k so you can meet the former first lady isn't necessarily a business transaction, it could just be cause you're a fan, or you want to show off. Or maybe you do think it'll get you favor some day. But it certainly doesn't mean she's obligated to do anything beyond take your call when you have legislation you want to push.

    Now, if you want to look at how money corrupts politics, you look at the state legislators, and freshman house and senate reps who have to spend 60% of their time fundraising. Or the congressmen who use the revolving door on K street to line their pockets (e.g. Hastert). That's where the quid-pro-quo and unsavory deals go down.

  • becca says:

    I suspect she was telling Goldman Sachs "These regulations are the ones we'll talk about for the theatre aspect, these are the ones we would actually pass. In exchange for paying me to speak, you now have a 6 month head start on getting things ready for the new regulations compared to other banks in the industry".

    I say this not as a slur on Hillary, but an observation on how the game is actually played.
    If Goldman Sachs also paid Beyonce $600k, I'll easily believe they are just fans of celebrity.

    This is why the banks are bigger now than before the bailout, and why socialized risk and privatized profit are going to continue unless people can find candidates like Bernie to vote for *regularly*.

  • jmz4 says:

    @Becca
    She gave her Goldman Sachs speeches after the Dodd-Frank reform bill had passed, and after she was out of government (as much as she's ever been).

  • Grumble says:

    "It's because people want to meet powerful and influential people."

    You just agreed with me, and apparently didn't even realize it.

    Bill and Hillary Clinton are both powerful. Hillary didn't become a housewife after she was done being first lady; she became Senator and Secretary of State and made it very obvious that she had presidential ambitions. As Becca said, Goldman Sachs didn't hire her just because they were dazzled by her celebrity. It almost doesn't matter what she said to the banks (although I STILL think we have a right to know, since she is asking us to vote for her). What matters is that Goldman Sachs bankers gets to schmooze with her and tell her what they think and what they want, not to mention write her enormous checks, whereas you and I cannot. Democracy is not improved by selective access to power by the wealthy.

    The principle of equal access is an ideal that will never be completely attained, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. It's a principle on which we have compromised far too much, and doing so has hurt us: just look at how bank and market deregulation led directly to the financial crisis. People are still hurting from that, and Hillary has the gall to go schmooze with the very people who inflicted that harm?

    Frankly, Hillary's behavior is more than tone-deaf. It is immoral. Not because I can point to any quid-pro-quo where Goldman gave her $X and she promised to give them Y (although who knows, maybe that's what went down, we don't know because SHE HASN'T RELEASED THE TRANSCRIPTS). That is the standard set by Citizens United, and it's far too rigid. No, it's immoral because money should not buy power, because when it does, the system becomes intolerably rigged against the little guy - and even against society as a whole. If you think I'm being overdramatic, go read about wealth inequality, how it comes about, and how it historically has torn societies apart.

  • becca says:

    Again, one can be "out of government" and still very much in the loop about a changing regulatory landscape. In highly regulated industries, including finance and drug discovery, most regulations go into effect long after the big players have had their opportunity to k'vetch and /or get their desired modifications incorporated into the bill. Quite honestly, that has a healthy side (when industry *outsiders* talk about things like the fiduciary standard rules for retirement advisors being "disruptive" I want to laugh my butt off, because the companies have been retooling for this change for many months by the time it's announced. The "disruption" has already happened by the time the quote goes to press). At the same time, the benefit to the large companies at the expense of small ones (perhaps less in the loop and certainly with less regulatory resources) is real, and has anti capitalistic /rigged market /monopolistic implications.
    You pay for someone's speeches because they have something valuable to say. Information. Not entertainment.

  • jmz4 says:

    @Grumble
    Sure, I definitely agree with most of what you said about money and corruption in politics. I agree largely with this piece:
    http://billmoyers.com/story/clintons-defense-of-big-money-wont-cut-it/
    As you say, the problem is their money buys them disproportionate access. It's a slow cancer, not a knife in the back. But it is one that *all* politicians are susceptible to in our current system, so I don't understand why Hillary is being particularly wracked over the coals for it. And then there are the people that do allege all kinds of quid pro quo (eg. The controversy over weapons sales and Clinton Foundation donors).

    @Becca
    I respectfully disagree. The Clintons have made a fortune on speaking fees to relatively diverse audiences. They can't possibly have been disclosing insider information on every single one of those topics. People pay to have them give talks because they are celebrities, and because they are powerful and influential. After all, even at Goldman Sachs there are Democrats and until recently she was extremely popular (she even had memes!)

    650k is nothing to goldman sachs. Its probably their monthly sushi budget, so I wouldn't examine the motivation too hard, especially if the timing was far too late for it to have influenced policy.

  • becca says:

    jmz4- "insider information" has a specific meaning in the finance industry, and I'm not particularly talking about that.

    I will grant you the list of people they speak to is... extensive. And interestingly diverse. (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-03/every-hillary-and-bill-clinton-speech-2013-fees). And I will readily grant you that the American Camping Association probably isn't standing to make YUGE PROFIT$ from her info.
    Also, I may be the only one, but I like Bill a little better for apparently charging Amway 2x+ the normal going rate for a speech.

    All that said, yes, 650k is a rounding error to GS. That's not the point. Giving away free *pens* influences prescribing habits. People who don't think advertising works on them are often the most vulnerable to it. At the end of the day, I don't think GS needs the Clintons for entertainment. And I don't think they see a need to rub elbows for prestige. So, information-that-is-not-yet-public is in some ways a more charitable interpretation of what Clinton has to offer GS. Otherwise, it's *all* about GS's influence over the actions of the Clintons (in indirect, advertising-like favorable attitude ways, of course, not those unseemly quid-pro-quo illegal ways...).

  • drugmonkey says:

    So.... Kill Hill because the Trumpster will be for the little people, Grumpke?

    Mmkay.

  • Grumble says:

    "But it is one that *all* politicians are susceptible to in our current system"

    That is correct. That means we need to change the current system. Which candidate, of the entire slate of Democratic and Republican primary contestants since last summer, has been the one who has called for systemic reform? I'll give you a hint: it's not the one who has earned $150 million by selling access to billionaires.

    "Kill Hill because the Trumpster will be for the little people"

    Of course Trump is not for the little people. There are other candidates than just Hillary and Donnie. As you like to say, it'll come to you in a minute.

  • drugmonkey says:

    Bernie is done, dude.

  • Grumble says:

    Maybe for now. But I find it exasperating to hear these constant justifications and excuses for Hillary when we had a candidate who actually embodies the ideals that most Democrats claim to endorse, and when her conduct and views are so execrable compared to his.

    But Bernie and his ideas are the future of the Democratic party. Young people overwhelmingly support him. The young always become less idealistic, unfortunately, but hopefully enough will remain.

  • k elliott says:

    The USA is not ready for B Sanders yet. If he won, it would be an Obama-like presidency. He would be allowed to do NOTHING.

  • Grumble says:

    And a Hillary presidency will be different how, exactly?

  • becca says:

    I think Cruz picking Fiorina proves two things
    1) it's always possible to like Cruz less. I don't know how, but it is. Infinite negative numbers?
    2) qualified and competent women scare the bajejes out of the republican base, and we should expect the sexism based gut reflex opposition Hillary will face to dwarf the racism based gut reflex opposition Obama faced. I was willing to write Palin off as a fluke, but they must be doing it on purpose.

  • k elliott says:

    Grumble,

    I don’t mean to antagonize you. I share most of your principles & ideals but as much as I’d have liked Elizabeth Warren to run and win the Presidency, I recognize that she would have not made it. I don’t have a crystal ball to know what Hillary may or may not achieve if she gets to the WH. At a minimum, I hope she is able to keep Obamacare running and, hopefully, increase accessibility for a greater majority of citizens.

    I have no reason to doubt on Bernie’s capabilities but the fact that he is viewed almost as an “extremist” in his social ambitions (which I totally share) makes me feel that he would actually achieve much less (if anything) than Hillary (perceived now as moderate). I agree with you that whoever democrat gets to the WH, the chances for having the party of no, the tea party and the bunch of wishy-washy democrats (pseudo-democrats) behaving differently than during Obama’s tenure are very slim. But there you are, as the say goes: “nations and societies have the government and governance they deserve”. How are we going to turn around such a poor leadership?.

  • Grumble says:

    "he is viewed almost as an “extremist” "

    Is that right? By the *majorities* of people who prefer him over Trump and any other Republican candidate, by much larger margins than they prefer Hillary?

    No, Bernie is NOT an extremist. He is only an extremist relative to the supposedly new normal that the right wing has managed to trick everyone into believing now exists. Bernie's views were middle-of-the road from the mid 1930s through the 1970s. I don't think people's fundamental sense of what's right has changed that much since the 80s. It's more that Republicans have chipped away at the power structures that transformed those beliefs into public policy, slowly and inexorably moving government to the right. They've done that not by convincing people that they're right about small government, low taxes and all that, but by duping huge numbers of people with their social issues dog whistles. (That's all beginning to collapse around the Republican elites' ears, as they never figured a candidate would come along who was all dog whistle and no policy - surprise, surprise, Drumpf wins over the Republican rank-and-file in droves because they realize they've been screwed, and they much prefer the dog whistle to the screwage.)

    Anyway, what all this means is that Americans' views on fiscal policy are very much in line with Bernie's views. Hillary is winning because she has vast institutional support among Democratic politicians at every level. We constantly hear, stated outright or implied by the likes of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, that Hillary is the electable, sane choice and Bernie the far-left whacko. It's repeated so much that even you, dear k elliott, who would love a President Warren, have apparently drunk the Kool-Aid. THAT is why Bernie is losing. Democrats don't vote for what they believe in. I think it's some kind of Stockholm syndrome. It is exasperating beyond belief.

  • drugmonkey says:

    becca- I see Fiorina (and Palin, Carson and Rubio) as proof that the GOP believes its own "card" rhetoric quite literally.

  • drugmonkey says:

    Beenie had the right policies. And he did heroic work to drag the Overton window back to the left. But this takes multiple campaigns and sustained effort. Clintonian politics sits square in the middle of whatever the current Overton space happens to cover. HRC is just like Bill in this. She will not snap hard to the left but she *has* been shifted. That's a win.

  • jmz4 says:

    "Which candidate, of the entire slate of Democratic and Republican primary contestants since last summer, has been the one who has called for systemic reform? "
    -They've both been doing it for the last 12 years: http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm#Government_Reform
    Came out in favor of public financing for elections, as well as voting to ban corporate and union donations.

    "I'll give you a hint: it's not the one who has earned $150 million by selling access to billionaires."
    -Check that list of speeches becca posted. You'll see its mostly to trade groups and the odd bank or company. She was being paid to speak, it's really not some nefarious influence peddling tour.

    "I think it's some kind of Stockholm syndrome. It is exasperating beyond belief."
    -And I find Bernie's supporters' overwhelming cynical, conspiracy-minded thinking and complete immunity to proof and evidence to be equally exasperating.

    There are real reasons to not like Bernie (and to like Hillary). His economic plan is completely unworkable, he doesn't know (or can't articulate) how he would break up the banks, how to reinstate Glass-Steagal (or why, exactly it would help, since you know Lehman was a wholly an investment bank), and how to finance single-payer healthcare.

    Clinton's been very hands off with Sanders. Partly because if she avoids engaging she can deny he's real competition, but partly because she needs to bring his people into the fold, and she can't do that if she tears into him. Republicans won't be so kind. They'd bring up his glaring hypocrisy on the F-35 project, his plan to raise taxes on 70% of Americans, his age, the fact that he honeymooned in the Soviet Union. Maybe none of these will hurt him the in the general (the honeymoon one is disingenuous, but when has that made a difference), but I bet a couple of them will land.

    So no, it's not Kool-aid (which is just an infuriating line of attack, by the way). Just as some of you look at Clinton and see a corrupt shill, some of us look at Bernie and see an angry old socialist with an overly axiomatic and reductionist view of the world: e.g. all companies are bad, banks are a scam, rich people are to blame for everything, GMOs are probably killing everyone. In many ways he espouses the same magical narrative the right wing has been selling to their base.
    If we can only find and punish those "evil-doers" (companies, banks or immigrants and terrorists) everything will be put back to order. The world and the government is way more complicated than that, and that would be fine if it was just his schtick. But during his time in government, he's largely recused himself from threading dicey, compromise ridden solutions through Congress in favor of remaining ideologically pure.

    What we all need to realize is there is no order, no stability, only our own chaotic, primal howls and the answering echo that is the wild, shrieking mockery of the void. Embrace despair, Clinton 2016!

  • Philapodia says:

    "What we all need to realize is there is no order, no stability, only our own chaotic, primal howls and the answering echo that is the wild, shrieking mockery of the void. Embrace despair, Clinton 2016!"

    Well you're a ray of sunshine, aintcha?

  • jmz4 says:

    ^Genotyping primers stopped working for no reason. Life is meaningless.

  • Grumble says:

    "Came out in favor of public financing for elections"

    Very nice, I agree with that. Yet strangely I prefer the candidate who does not have a super PAC.

    "it's really not some nefarious influence peddling tour."

    Yet those trade groups, banks and companies got to talk to her because they paid good money to have access to her. You might not think it's nefarious. I do.

    "Bernie's supporters' overwhelming cynical, conspiracy-minded thinking"

    Yeah, decades of being screwed by the wealthy, and watching middle class incomes disappear, does that to you. I'm sorry if you find our anger distasteful.

    "he doesn't know (or can't articulate) how he would break up the banks"

    Yes, he does. He has introduced legislation to do so, and he addresses it on his website.
    https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/
    I admit that he didn't explain this very well in his Daily News interview, but the idea that he has no idea how to do what he proposed is ludicrous.

    "and how to finance single-payer healthcare."

    By raising taxes. Which you claim people would not accept, yet if you pay less in health insurance premiums, it's all a wash in the end.

    "but I bet a couple of them will land"

    You may be right, but at the moment, Bernie wins with independents, whereas it will be an uphill battle for Hillary to gain their vote.

    "some of us look at Bernie and see an angry old socialist with an overly axiomatic and reductionist view of the world: e.g. all companies are bad, banks are a scam, rich people are to blame for everything, GMOs are probably killing everyone. "

    These don't actually reflect Bernie's views. His website is quite informative.

  • jmz4 says:

    "These don't actually reflect Bernie's views. His website is quite informative"As is HrC's, if you give her a shot. After going through his campaign site again, I suppose it isn't fair for me go lump Bernie in with the most vocal of his supporters (online), who seem to me to be channeling the Occupy Wallstreet zeigeist in all its privileged, nebulous outrage. Bernie was Bernie before all that, after all.

    "By raising taxes. Which you claim people would not accept, yet if you pay less in health insurance premiums, it's all a wash in the end."
    -My employer pays my insurance. Do you think they're going to give me the money they save as wages? That seems unlikely. Does he have a plan to mandate that they do? He's going to mandate they pay 8.5% of my income (6.2 employer/2.2% employee) into a fund and raise the rest of the estimated 1.9 trillion via increasing estate and income tax. That still leaves about a trillion dollar shortfall between his estimates (900b current medicare/Medicaid/CHip/VA +1.9t in new taxes) and the current US health care expenditures of 3.8 trillion. Is this all elective procedures and medication the Medicare for all won't pay for?

Leave a Reply