2016 Democratic Thread

[Jerksticks]

Not trying to stir anything up, but you do a simple Google search on Clinton or Sanders and you see story after story that Bernie has a chance. Is this true? I like his policy plans and obviously I prefer him over Ms. Clinton, whom I despise.

Seriously ... look it up. Pollsters say Bernie has a chance when the TV pundits scoff at even a suggestion that anybody but Ms. Clinton is a LOCK for the nomination and the presidency. So does Bernie have a chance??? Or not.

I'm still hopeful that pretty much nobody actually votes for her when the time comes. Kind of like in Goldfinger when everybody at Ft. Knox wakes up. Her being president would be the most insanely idiotic thing our country has ever done (well that's Hawk Hyperbole). But yea it would be pretty messed up IMO as a functioning adult.

[greg775]

I'm still hopeful that pretty much nobody actually votes for her when the time comes. Kind of like in Goldfinger when everybody at Ft. Knox wakes up. Her being president would be the most insanely idiotic thing our country has ever done (well that's Hawk Hyperbole). But yea it would be pretty messed up IMO as a functioning adult.

I see Bernie is doing well with young, women voters who also despise Hillary. As one said, "I want a woman president, but want the right woman president." Older white women are just DYING to get Hillary elected and don't care about the issues. They want the women in there. Case closed.

[Brian]

I think the majority of Demorats would preference Warren over Hillary is they had a first women president. Just a guess.

[StrangeSox]

[pettie4sox]

I think everyone would prefer Warren to Hillary right?

 

Do pigs like s***?

 

I am amazed that the debate was on a Sunday.

 

In fact, I didn't know a debate was even happening.

 

This s*** is going to backfire so hard.

[maggsmaggs]

Do pigs like s***?

 

I am amazed that the debate was on a Sunday.

 

In fact, I didn't know a debate was even happening.

 

This s*** is going to backfire so hard.

 

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 17h17 hours ago

re Dem debate: Sunday is the busiest nite for TV viewership (http://bit.ly/238R77U ) and 9 PM is the busiest hour (http://1.usa.gov/1V03Wva )

 

Now a Sunday on a long weekend probably does not garner the same viewership, but the Sunday night idea is not terrible.

[Brian]

Do pigs like s***?

 

I am amazed that the debate was on a Sunday.

 

In fact, I didn't know a debate was even happening.

 

This s*** is going to backfire so hard.

 

I didn't know it was happening until Sunday morning.

[StrangeSox]

There's been criticism from all of the non-Hillary camps for months regarding the number and timing of the debates.

[cabiness42]

Now a Sunday on a long weekend probably does not garner the same viewership, but the Sunday night idea is not terrible.

 

Yeah when I was managing our call center, we always had our highest staffing levels on Thursday and Sunday between 8 and 10.

[StrangeSox]

Bernie Sanders released his detailed health care plan

 

Bernie’s plan will cost over $6 trillion less than the current health care system over the next ten years.

 

The United States currently spends $3 trillion on health care each year—nearly $10,000 per person. Reforming our health care system, simplifying our payment structure and incentivizing new ways to make sure patients are actually getting better health care will generate massive savings. This plan has been estimated to save the American people and businesses over $6 trillion over the next decade.

 

The typical middle class family would save over $5,000 under this plan.

 

Last year, the average working family paid $4,955 in premiums and $1,318 in deductibles to private health insurance companies. Under this plan, a family of four earning $50,000 would pay just $466 per year to the single-payer program, amounting to a savings of over $5,800 for that family each year.

Businesses would save over $9,400 a year in health care costs for the average employee.

 

The average annual cost to the employer for a worker with a family who makes $50,000 a year would go from $12,591 to just $3,100.

 

THE PLAN WOULD BE FULLY PAID FOR BY:

A 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers.

Revenue raised: $630 billion per year.

 

A 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households.

Revenue raised: $210 billion per year.

 

This year, a family of four taking the standard deduction can have income up to $28,800 and not pay this tax under this plan.

 

A family of four making $50,000 a year taking the standard deduction would only pay $466 this year.

 

Progressive income tax rates.

Revenue raised: $110 billion a year.

Under this plan the marginal income tax rate would be:

 

37 percent on income between $250,000 and $500,000.

43 percent on income between $500,000 and $2 million.

48 percent on income between $2 million and $10 million. (In 2013, only 113,000 households, the top 0.08 percent of taxpayers, had income between $2 million and $10 million.)

52 percent on income above $10 million. (In 2013, only 13,000 households, just 0.01 percent of taxpayers, had income exceeding $10 million.)

 

Taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work.

Revenue raised: $92 billion per year.

 

Warren Buffett, the second wealthiest American in the country, has said that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. The reason is that he receives most of his income from capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at a much lower rate than income from work. This plan will end the special tax break for capital gains and dividends on household income above $250,000.

 

Limit tax deductions for rich.

Revenue raised: $15 billion per year

 

Under Bernie’s plan, households making over $250,000 would no longer be able to save more than 28 cents in taxes from every dollar in tax deductions. This limit would replace more complicated and less effective limits on tax breaks for the rich including the AMT, the personal exemption phase-out and the limit on itemized deductions.

 

The Responsible Estate Tax.

Revenue raised: $21 billion per year.

 

This provision would tax the estates of the wealthiest 0.3 percent (three-tenths of 1 percent) of Americans who inherit over $3.5 million at progressive rates and close loopholes in the estate tax.

 

Savings from health tax expenditures.

Revenue raised: $310 billion per year.

 

Several tax breaks that subsidize health care (health-related “tax expenditures”) would become obsolete and disappear under a single-payer health care system, saving $310 billion per year.

 

Most importantly, health care provided by employers is compensation that is not subject to payroll taxes or income taxes under current law. This is a significant tax break that would effectively disappear under this plan because all Americans would receive health care through the new single-payer program instead of employer-based health care.

 

[cabiness42]

So when employers cut my salary by 6.2 percent to make up for what they have to pay the government for healthcare, I'm not really saving $5,000 per year under this plan.

[StrangeSox]

So when employers cut my salary by 6.2 percent to make up for what they have to pay the government for healthcare, I'm not really saving $5,000 per year under this plan.

 

They also wouldn't be paying the insurance premiums that they're currently paying, though. And if employers could just cut salaries by 6.2% without screwing themselves over, they'd already be doing that, right?

[Balta1701]

So when employers cut my salary by 6.2 percent to make up for what they have to pay the government for healthcare, I'm not really saving $5,000 per year under this plan.

FWIW, this is basically a version of Hillary's argument - that Sanders's setup is so disruptive that it wouldn't have support and would cause things like that - hidden pay cuts during massive reshufflings.

 

It's a surprisingly persuasive argument, IMO.

[StrangeSox]

FWIW, this is basically a version of Hillary's argument - that Sanders's setup is so disruptive that it wouldn't have support and would cause things like that - hidden pay cuts during massive reshufflings.

 

It's a surprisingly persuasive argument, IMO.

Wouldn't this apply to any plan to shift to UHC and away from employer-provided health insurance?

[Balta1701]

The Nobelist makes a point:

But here’s the thing: we now have a clear view of Sanders’ positions on two crucial issues, financial reform and health care. And in both cases his positioning is disturbing — not just because it’s politically unrealistic to imagine that we can get the kind of radical overhaul he’s proposing, but also because he takes his own version of cheap shots. Not at people — he really is a fundamentally decent guy — but by going for easy slogans and punting when the going gets tough.

 

On finance: Sanders has made restoring Glass-Steagal and breaking up the big banks the be-all and end-all of his program. That sounds good, but it’s nowhere near solving the real problems. The core of what went wrong in 2008 was the rise of shadow banking; too big to fail was at best marginal, and as Mike Konczal notes, pushing the big banks out of shadow banking, on its own, could make the problem worse by causing the risky stuff to “migrate elsewhere, often to places where there is less regulatory infrastructure.”

 

On health care: leave on one side the virtual impossibility of achieving single-payer. Beyond the politics, the Sanders “plan” isn’t just lacking in detail; as Ezra Klein notes, it both promises more comprehensive coverage than Medicare or for that matter single-payer systems in other countries, and assumes huge cost savings that are at best unlikely given that kind of generosity. This lets Sanders claim that he could make it work with much lower middle-class taxes than would probably be needed in practice.

 

To be harsh but accurate: the Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan, which relies on fantasies about huge supply-side effects to make the numbers supposedly add up. Only a little bit: after all, this is a plan seeking to provide health care, not lavish windfalls on the rich — and single-payer really does save money, whereas there’s no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth. Still, it’s not the kind of brave truth-telling the Sanders campaign pitch might have led you to expect.

 

And look: if the political theory behind supporting Sanders is that the American people will vote for radical change if you’re honest about what’s involved, the campaign’s evident unwillingness to fully confront the issues, its reliance on magic asterisks, very much weakens that claim.

[NorthSideSox72]

The Nobelist makes a point:

I've read quite a bit on Shadow Banking, and I fundamentally disagree that it was the major reason for the 2008 meltdown. The single biggest killer was the toxic unwind from OTC swaps, though other big players included the mortgage banking debacle and the problems of private and customer banking being intertwined. Shadow banking was much further down the list, in my view.

 

Yes I know this is a nobel guy we're talking about, and no I'm not saying I am smarter than he is. I am saying he is far too narrowly focused to see the broader picture, in my opinion.

 

[bmags]

I've read quite a bit on Shadow Banking, and I fundamentally disagree that it was the major reason for the 2008 meltdown. The single biggest killer was the toxic unwind from OTC swaps, though other big players included the mortgage banking debacle and the problems of private and customer banking being intertwined. Shadow banking was much further down the list, in my view.

 

Yes I know this is a nobel guy we're talking about, and no I'm not saying I am smarter than he is. I am saying he is far too narrowly focused to see the broader picture, in my opinion.

 

Well, shadow banking or not, glass steagall there were many actors that were not just "big banks" that were huge reasons for the billions swallowed up in 2008.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, shadow banking or not, glass steagall there were many actors that were not just "big banks" that were huge reasons for the billions swallowed up in 2008.

Of course, but the biggest shockwaves were IB's of one kind or another. In some cases there was a crossing of the 'Chinese Wall' (i.e. MF Global), in other cases not. And here we are with bigger banks. Glass Steagel is, IMO, a good idea, and I don't see Sanders saying it fixes everything.

 

[StrangeSox]

That was a particularly dumb criticism of Krugman's. It's the same sort of terrible argument used against all sorts of programs that nobody actually believes are magic fix-alls.

[NorthSideSox72]

That was a particularly dumb criticism of Krugman's. It's the same sort of terrible argument used against all sorts of programs that nobody actually believes are magic fix-alls.

I'm not a big consipracy theory guy, but that exerpt reads like some sort of defense of Hillary Clinton's positions on the topic. Not sure which is the chicken and which is the egg though.

 

[bmags]

Well, considering the disruption it cause, you don't think it's fair to ask what it actually accomplishes?

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, considering the disruption it cause, you don't think it's fair to ask what it actually accomplishes?

Of course it is. But Krugman turned it into a straw man argument - no one is saying it fixes everything. And he justifies it by pointing to a factor that's maybe not in the top 3 causes of the meltdown, because it's the highest on the list that wouldn't be at least partially addressed by Glass Steagel.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Of course it is. But Krugman turned it into a straw man argument - no one is saying it fixes everything. And he justifies it by pointing to a factor that's maybe not in the top 3 causes of the meltdown, because it's the highest on the list that wouldn't be at least partially addressed by Glass Steagel.

Actually, his point is that is exactly what Sanders is saying. That when you push Sanders on policy questions, he falls back on that position.

[Balta1701]

I've read quite a bit on Shadow Banking, and I fundamentally disagree that it was the major reason for the 2008 meltdown. The single biggest killer was the toxic unwind from OTC swaps, though other big players included the mortgage banking debacle and the problems of private and customer banking being intertwined. Shadow banking was much further down the list, in my view.

 

Yes I know this is a nobel guy we're talking about, and no I'm not saying I am smarter than he is. I am saying he is far too narrowly focused to see the broader picture, in my opinion.

I read this and was extremely confused because as far as everything I have ever seen "OTC Swaps" you're referring to "ARE" part of the shadow banking system. I can even take this from the Wikipedia entry on "Shadow banking system"

The market in CDS, for example, was insignificant in 2004 but rose to over $60 trillion in a few years.[39] Because credit default swaps were not regulated as insurance contracts, companies selling them were not required to maintain sufficient capital reserves to pay potential claims.

That's basically the given definition of "Shadow banking" - performing the services of a traditional financial institution, like selling insurance, but doing so in a way that is outside the traditional regulatory stream.

 

Every definition of an OTC swap or OTC transaction for that matter that contributed to the 2008 collapse basically fits that definition - it's a transaction conducted outside the traditional regulatory stream by keeping it "over the counter". Here's the Economist using the language interchangeably.

[NorthSideSox72]

I read this and was extremely confused because as far as everything I have ever seen "OTC Swaps" you're referring to "ARE" part of the shadow banking system. I can even take this from the Wikipedia entry on "Shadow banking system"

That's basically the given definition of "Shadow banking" - performing the services of a traditional financial institution, like selling insurance, but doing so in a way that is outside the traditional regulatory stream.

 

Every definition of an OTC swap or OTC transaction for that matter that contributed to the 2008 collapse basically fits that definition - it's a transaction conducted outside the traditional regulatory stream by keeping it "over the counter". Here's the Economist using the language interchangeably.

OTC is not the same as unregulated. It means not cleared. Key difference. Those swaps were lightly regulated, and not cleared.

 

The definition of shadow banking is by nature full of shades of grey, but it seems to me that a business with trillions of dollars in motion via legally binding contracts between registered financial institutions doesn't qualify.

 

By the way, I am not saying there isn't a problem with banking activities in unregulated or marginally regulated spaces. It is an issue. However I don't consider the problem of uncleared OTC swaps as part of that.