Anonymous wrote:

we could use a good VAT here. we engage in too much useless consumption.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time to become a Republican

Democrats want to reward people for being irresponsible.

Spoken like a Republican. I wonder why you guys never think billionaires should be responsible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Warren also has the plus of being a political woman on her own merits, not that of a related powerful man (or men) like HRC (and Pelosi).

+1. Mad respect for someone who started out in a community college and worked their way up. Rather than having Daddy buy their way into Yale.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yang surpasses Mayor Pete to take the 5th place!

+1

The support of many fewer, but likely better, billionaires, pays off!

Both of them and their skeezy ties make my skin crawl.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:amy klobuchar would be a conservative in any other oecd country. supporting amy klobuchar means you are a closet republican who happens to like gay people.

...says the funny American who doesn't realize that Warren and Sanders would be communists in any other oecd country, way to the left of the mainstream socialdemocrat parties.

Bernie, sure, he has been an avowed socialist for decades. Warren is a democratic socialist, akin to European states where there is private ownership, but more invested through the government in terms of services. It seems to work well there, certainly better than our systems here are working.

Yes, it works better in some respects, but the real way they fund that amazing safety net is because everyone pays more taxes, through payroll and income and a huge VAT tax on consumption (think of it as a 25% sales tax on all goods and services).

Warren is misleading the public when claiming that everyone but the uberrich will pay the same -- most European countries have STOPPED charging wealth tax because it produced much less than expected and was very expensive to monitor.

f

we could use a good VAT here. we engage in too much useless consumption.

Agreed.

But who's the honest and brave politician willing to explain that to the mob?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:amy klobuchar would be a conservative in any other oecd country. supporting amy klobuchar means you are a closet republican who happens to like gay people.

...says the funny American who doesn't realize that Warren and Sanders would be communists in any other oecd country, way to the left of the mainstream socialdemocrat parties.

Bernie, sure, he has been an avowed socialist for decades. Warren is a democratic socialist, akin to European states where there is private ownership, but more invested through the government in terms of services. It seems to work well there, certainly better than our systems here are working.

Yes, it works better in some respects, but the real way they fund that amazing safety net is because everyone pays more taxes, through payroll and income and a huge VAT tax on consumption (think of it as a 25% sales tax on all goods and services).

Warren is misleading the public when claiming that everyone but the uberrich will pay the same -- most European countries have STOPPED charging wealth tax because it produced much less than expected and was very expensive to monitor.

f

we could use a good VAT here. we engage in too much useless consumption.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:amy klobuchar would be a conservative in any other oecd country. supporting amy klobuchar means you are a closet republican who happens to like gay people.

...says the funny American who doesn't realize that Warren and Sanders would be communists in any other oecd country, way to the left of the mainstream socialdemocrat parties.

Bernie, sure, he has been an avowed socialist for decades. Warren is a democratic socialist, akin to European states where there is private ownership, but more invested through the government in terms of services. It seems to work well there, certainly better than our systems here are working.

Yes, it works better in some respects, but the real way they fund that amazing safety net is because everyone pays more taxes, through payroll and income and a huge VAT tax on consumption (think of it as a 25% sales tax on all goods and services).

Warren is misleading the public when claiming that everyone but the uberrich will pay the same -- most European countries have STOPPED charging wealth tax because it produced much less than expected and was very expensive to monitor.

Anonymous wrote:It's time to become a Republican

Democrats want to reward people for being irresponsible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yang surpasses Mayor Pete to take the 5th place!

+1

The support of many fewer, but likely better, billionaires, pays off!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. I mean I’m Gen X 2 jobs two kids in a high COL area. And by the time college becomes affordable, we will have already sacrificed a lot to put our kids through full pay. After paying full freight for daycare. After our students loans are paid off. After we have paid 20 years or more of high health insurance premiums and huge co-pays and are about to qualify for Medicare. Everything was so much more expensive for me than it was for my parents. For childcare to housing to healthcare to college. I need to be saving for retirement. It would be nice after years of watching every penny to have some discretionary income once my kids are done with college. It’s hard to swallow higher taxes for zero additional services for me. And I am tired of being the donut hole everything in a generation that doesn’t matter because it has small numbers.

I want everyone to have access to college. And healthcare. And quality childcare. But I paid $71,000 in federal taxes last year, contribute $40,000 a year to Kid 1’s education, with Kid 2 soon to follow, and none of it is tax deductible, max out my retirement because we had job loss during the recession, pay $800 a month for health insurance, and have over $10,000 out of pocket already this year, commute 45 minutes each way to live in a house we can afford in a good school district, drive a 7 year old Subaru and am not living in the lap of luxury. I’m contributing what I can. I can’t afford another $30,000 in taxes so someone else gets their student loan debt wiped out, when we gave up so much so our kids wouldn’t have any. Maybe that’s selfish. Or, maybe it’s pragmatic.

This is right on the money (no pun intended). There are lots of us that likely agree with the progressive dems on lots of issues, but we don’t want to be their ATM.

What you aren't factoring in to your personal equation is the money you wouldn't be spending on a number of services because they would be part of your taxes instead of additional line items on your personal budget.

For Gen X, which ones?

Not college loans. Paid off.
Not childcare. Kids are too old
Not paid family leave. Again— kids too old.
Not college. Kid 1 will be out and Kid 2 will be done or close
Not healthcare. I’m not going to come out better than Fed health insurance. And I will hit Medicare soon anyway.

Boomers are in retirement and paying less in taxes. It’s a wealth shift from Gen X to Millennials.

It's time to become a Republican

Democrats want to reward people for being irresponsible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. I mean I’m Gen X 2 jobs two kids in a high COL area. And by the time college becomes affordable, we will have already sacrificed a lot to put our kids through full pay. After paying full freight for daycare. After our students loans are paid off. After we have paid 20 years or more of high health insurance premiums and huge co-pays and are about to qualify for Medicare. Everything was so much more expensive for me than it was for my parents. For childcare to housing to healthcare to college. I need to be saving for retirement. It would be nice after years of watching every penny to have some discretionary income once my kids are done with college. It’s hard to swallow higher taxes for zero additional services for me. And I am tired of being the donut hole everything in a generation that doesn’t matter because it has small numbers.

I want everyone to have access to college. And healthcare. And quality childcare. But I paid $71,000 in federal taxes last year, contribute $40,000 a year to Kid 1’s education, with Kid 2 soon to follow, and none of it is tax deductible, max out my retirement because we had job loss during the recession, pay $800 a month for health insurance, and have over $10,000 out of pocket already this year, commute 45 minutes each way to live in a house we can afford in a good school district, drive a 7 year old Subaru and am not living in the lap of luxury. I’m contributing what I can. I can’t afford another $30,000 in taxes so someone else gets their student loan debt wiped out, when we gave up so much so our kids wouldn’t have any. Maybe that’s selfish. Or, maybe it’s pragmatic.

This is right on the money (no pun intended). There are lots of us that likely agree with the progressive dems on lots of issues, but we don’t want to be their ATM.

What you aren't factoring in to your personal equation is the money you wouldn't be spending on a number of services because they would be part of your taxes instead of additional line items on your personal budget.

For Gen X, which ones?

Not college loans. Paid off.
Not childcare. Kids are too old
Not paid family leave. Again— kids too old.
Not college. Kid 1 will be out and Kid 2 will be done or close
Not healthcare. I’m not going to come out better than Fed health insurance. And I will hit Medicare soon anyway.

Boomers are in retirement and paying less in taxes. It’s a wealth shift from Gen X to Millennials.

Anonymous wrote:Yang surpasses Mayor Pete to take the 5th place!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s phenomenal. Her politics are too progressive for my taste. But she was interviewed on NPR yesterday. And it reminded me how good she is. She did a great job in the debates. But they were too fragmented between 10 people to realize just how relatable she is.

She was asked on NPR about a time she failed. And she talked about “having it all”— two kids, and a nice house to run and a job as a law school professor. But she felt like she was failing her kids and failing her job, because she couldn’t do it all well. And untimely her aunt moved in and helped. And I was like— this woman gets it. I have had small kids and felt like nothing I did at work or at home was up to par. And she can articulate it in an manner that is relatable.

She talked about her dad having a heart attack, and he Mom entering the workforce in a minimum wage job at 50, and it being enough to keep her family afloat. And I remember my mom getting divorced, and child support being uncertain, but we owned a small house and never went without on her teachers salary.

She was also asked about her wardrobe, with is a black top, and black pants and a jewel covered blazer (I’d never noticed this). And she was like— it takes me 4 minutes to get ready in the morning, it doesn’t stain, and It’s one less thing to think about.

If Biden “gets” middle aged white men in the rust belt, Warren “gets” working moms and women in general. And only 33% of women support Trump. Someone who can speak to women in a relatable way could do an amazing job. She also seems to get economic populism in a way most Ds don’t.

I’m more of a Harris or Klobucher voter on policy. But when I hear Warren talk, she could be one of my friends, and I would love to get a beer with her. And I might not agree with everything she says, but it seems well thought out.

Go Liz!

I absolutely loved when she talked about getting dressed in four minutes

it helps that she is lithe. if she was zaftig, it would be much longer than 4 minutes

She said she just has a uniform - black pants, black top, colorful cardigan or jacket - and chose it because it makes getting dressed so easy. I think that uniform would work for anyone?

if she was lumpy, she wouldn't be as efficient even with a standarized uniform. i love that liz is a great model for aging in a healthy fashion - something HRC was most definitely NOT

Warren also has the plus of being a political woman on her own merits, not that of a related powerful man (or men) like HRC (and Pelosi).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s phenomenal. Her politics are too progressive for my taste. But she was interviewed on NPR yesterday. And it reminded me how good she is. She did a great job in the debates. But they were too fragmented between 10 people to realize just how relatable she is.

She was asked on NPR about a time she failed. And she talked about “having it all”— two kids, and a nice house to run and a job as a law school professor. But she felt like she was failing her kids and failing her job, because she couldn’t do it all well. And untimely her aunt moved in and helped. And I was like— this woman gets it. I have had small kids and felt like nothing I did at work or at home was up to par. And she can articulate it in an manner that is relatable.

She talked about her dad having a heart attack, and he Mom entering the workforce in a minimum wage job at 50, and it being enough to keep her family afloat. And I remember my mom getting divorced, and child support being uncertain, but we owned a small house and never went without on her teachers salary.

She was also asked about her wardrobe, with is a black top, and black pants and a jewel covered blazer (I’d never noticed this). And she was like— it takes me 4 minutes to get ready in the morning, it doesn’t stain, and It’s one less thing to think about.

If Biden “gets” middle aged white men in the rust belt, Warren “gets” working moms and women in general. And only 33% of women support Trump. Someone who can speak to women in a relatable way could do an amazing job. She also seems to get economic populism in a way most Ds don’t.

I’m more of a Harris or Klobucher voter on policy. But when I hear Warren talk, she could be one of my friends, and I would love to get a beer with her. And I might not agree with everything she says, but it seems well thought out.

Go Liz!

When you say she's too progressive for your taste, what you mean is you are too selfish for her vision.

No. I mean I’m Gen X 2 jobs two kids in a high COL area. And by the time college becomes affordable, we will have already sacrificed a lot to put our kids through full pay. After paying full freight for daycare. After our students loans are paid off. After we have paid 20 years or more of high health insurance premiums and huge co-pays and are about to qualify for Medicare. Everything was so much more expensive for me than it was for my parents. For childcare to housing to healthcare to college. I need to be saving for retirement. It would be nice after years of watching every penny to have some discretionary income once my kids are done with college. It’s hard to swallow higher taxes for zero additional services for me. And I am tired of being the donut hole everything in a generation that doesn’t matter because it has small numbers.

I want everyone to have access to college. And healthcare. And quality childcare. But I paid $71,000 in federal taxes last year, contribute $40,000 a year to Kid 1’s education, with Kid 2 soon to follow, and none of it is tax deductible, max out my retirement because we had job loss during the recession, pay $800 a month for health insurance, and have over $10,000 out of pocket already this year, commute 45 minutes each way to live in a house we can afford in a good school district, drive a 7 year old Subaru and am not living in the lap of luxury. I’m contributing what I can. I can’t afford another $30,000 in taxes so someone else gets their student loan debt wiped out, when we gave up so much so our kids wouldn’t have any. Maybe that’s selfish. Or, maybe it’s pragmatic.

She understands that is wants to make it so your children and grandchildren don't go through that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. I mean I’m Gen X 2 jobs two kids in a high COL area. And by the time college becomes affordable, we will have already sacrificed a lot to put our kids through full pay. After paying full freight for daycare. After our students loans are paid off. After we have paid 20 years or more of high health insurance premiums and huge co-pays and are about to qualify for Medicare. Everything was so much more expensive for me than it was for my parents. For childcare to housing to healthcare to college. I need to be saving for retirement. It would be nice after years of watching every penny to have some discretionary income once my kids are done with college. It’s hard to swallow higher taxes for zero additional services for me. And I am tired of being the donut hole everything in a generation that doesn’t matter because it has small numbers.

I want everyone to have access to college. And healthcare. And quality childcare. But I paid $71,000 in federal taxes last year, contribute $40,000 a year to Kid 1’s education, with Kid 2 soon to follow, and none of it is tax deductible, max out my retirement because we had job loss during the recession, pay $800 a month for health insurance, and have over $10,000 out of pocket already this year, commute 45 minutes each way to live in a house we can afford in a good school district, drive a 7 year old Subaru and am not living in the lap of luxury. I’m contributing what I can. I can’t afford another $30,000 in taxes so someone else gets their student loan debt wiped out, when we gave up so much so our kids wouldn’t have any. Maybe that’s selfish. Or, maybe it’s pragmatic.

This is right on the money (no pun intended). There are lots of us that likely agree with the progressive dems on lots of issues, but we don’t want to be their ATM.

What you aren't factoring in to your personal equation is the money you wouldn't be spending on a number of services because they would be part of your taxes instead of additional line items on your personal budget.