Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[y66]

Personally, I have no trouble with people who have conservative values. I disagree a lot but that is OK. What you are doing, though, with this continued rabid support of Trump is to swallow whole a reality created by gaslighting.

I suspect that the alternative reality many Trumplandians have swallowed whole is this one:

 

One of the ironies today is that people are saying it is President Trump who is shredding our institutions. I really see no evidence of that. From my perspective, the idea of ‘resisting’ a Democratically elected president and basically throwing everything at him, and really changing the norms on the grounds that we have to stop this president. That’s where the shredding of our norms and institutions is occurring. -- William Barr

It follows that the people who improperly investigated links between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign are the ones who pose a real danger to democracy and to the integrity of the FBI and DOJ. This is why they must be prosecuted and why it's absurd to suggest that charging them is politically motivated. Ditto for suggesting that Barr's supporters are twits.

[Winstonm]

I suspect that the alternative reality many Trumplandians have swallowed whole is this one:

 

 

It follows that the people who improperly investigated links between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign are the ones who pose a real danger to democracy and to the integrity of the FBI and DOJ. This is why they must be prosecuted and why it's absurd to suggest that charging them is politically motivated. Ditto for suggesting that Barr's supporters are twits.

 

Let me re-examine the Barr quote for factual information that he provides.

 

One of the ironies today is that people are saying it is President Trump who is shredding our institutions. I really see no evidence of that. From my perspective, the idea of ‘resisting’ a Democratically elected president and basically throwing everything at him, and really changing the norms on the grounds that we have to stop this president. That’s where the shredding of our norms and institutions is occurring. -- William Barr

Oops, there are no facts - except this: my emphasis

 

A) From his perspective, the idea of resisting a democratically elected president....yada, yada, yadi....stop this president.

 

B) That's where the shredding of our norms and institutions are occurring.

 

 

Conclusion: His perspective - his idea. This simply means: He made it up.

 

So, by parsing exactly what AG Barr actually said, we find that the only facts he offered was that he dreamed up these supposed attacks on the president. But he expects everyone to believe they are real.

 

Great, subtle gaslighting but still gaslighting.

[Winstonm]

The big question of the day is what does this whistleblower know that this regime doesn't want known?

 

The nation's top intelligence official is illegally withholding a whistleblower complaint, possibly to protect President Donald Trump or senior White House officials, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff alleged Friday.

 

Schiff issued a subpoena for the complaint, accusing acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire of taking extraordinary steps to withhold the complaint from Congress, even after the intel community's inspector general characterized the complaint as credible and of "urgent concern."

[kenberg]

I was listening to an interview and discussion on NPR. I was on a brief drive and I can't name who all was talking, but didn't like what I heard.

 

At the debate Elizabeth Warren was asked directly whether her health plan would lead to an increase in taxes. She explained that overall costs would go down.. The consensus on NPR was that her failure to directly answer a direct question was not a problem

 

 

I hope she is getting better advice elsewhere, but apparently if so, she is not following it.

 

 

No doubt she regularly reads that BBO WC so here it is in two points:

1. If you do not answer this direct question, everyone listening draws the obvious conclusion that the answer is yes, taxes will go up.

2. When a person will not give a clear answer to a clear question, quite a few people lose trust in the person who is ducking the question.

 

 

Very few people have the skills, or for that matter the time and inclination, to go over the plan in detail, work through all of the cost and benefits, figure where all the money will come from, analyze who will break even on cost, who will pay more, who will pay less. I certainly am not up for such a thorough study, It would take weeks or months, I would have to hire some expertise in some aspects, and still I would not be positive. But people have no trouble at all seeing when a question has not been answered.

 

 

So Senator, if you are getting a lot of "Oh. good duck, you did fine, no problem" advice, I suggest that you listen to someone else.

[Winstonm]

I was listening to an interview and discussion on NPR. I was on a brief drive and I can't name who all was talking, but didn't like what I heard.

 

At the debate Elizabeth Warren was asked directly whether her health plan would lead to an increase in taxes. She explained that overall costs would go down.. The consensus on NPR was that her failure to directly answer a direct question was not a problem

 

 

I hope she is getting better advice elsewhere, but apparently if so, she is not following it.

 

 

No doubt she regularly reads that BBO WC so here it is in two points:

1. If you do not answer this direct question, everyone listening draws the obvious conclusion that the answer is yes, taxes will go up.

2. When a person will not give a clear answer to a clear question, quite a few people lose trust in the person who is ducking the question.

 

 

Very few people have the skills, or for that matter the time and inclination, to go over the plan in detail, work through all of the cost and benefits, figure where all the money will come from, analyze who will break even on cost, who will pay more, who will pay less. I certainly am not up for such a thorough study, It would take weeks or months, I would have to hire some expertise in some aspects, and still I would not be positive. But people have no trouble at all seeing when a question has not been answered.

 

 

So Senator, if you are getting a lot of "Oh. good duck, you did fine, no problem" advice, I suggest that you listen to someone else.

 

Perhaps some of your disgust should be pointed to the questioner who seems to only want a "gptcha momemt" rather than a genuine answer. Will taxes go up to cover the costs of universal healthcare is similar to asking are you still beating your wife.

[barmar]

Perhaps some of your disgust should be pointed to the questioner who seems to only want a "gptcha momemt" rather than a genuine answer. Will taxes up to cover the costs of universal healthcare is similar to asking are you still beating your wife.

The problem with answering questions like this is that the general public doesn't understand the math of "net costs" -- yes, your taxes will go up, but your other expenses will go down commensurately. Also, it's not necessarily the case that everyone comes out ahead. Policies to increase benefits for the poor often require the rich to pay more -- it is a transfer of wealth.

 

Look at most of the countries with national health services: they do generally have higher taxes than we do. There's no free lunch.

 

But there's another piece to the puzzle: if there's a 500 lb gorilla (i.e. the government) running health care, they have clout to negotiate prices with providers. Most of the Democrat health care plans include provisions to force drug companies to make prices more fair -- currently the US is subsidizing all the low prices that other countries have negotiated, and Medicare for All would give us real clout.

 

The main people who will see a significant net cost increase are the ones who choose NOT to get health insurance. When it becomes a tax, it's no longer voluntary. And people generally dislike being forced to do things.

 

But they also get used to it. I'll bet there were people decrying being forced to pay Social Security and unemployment insurance when those were first instituted, now no one gives them a second thought, they're just a line item on everyone's paystub. The same with the requirements to get car and homeowner's insurance (the latter isn't a government requirement, it's from the bank issuing the mortgage, but you still can't get around it if you want to buy a home and aren't uber-rich enough to pay cash). There's all sorts of things you're forced to do in life, and as long as everyone else is in the same boat, it's OK -- maybe you gripe a little, but you live with it.

[y66]

I winced when Warren ducked that question in the debate. I suspect she did too and will be better prepared next time.

[hrothgar]

Few thoughts on last night's debate

 

1. I really want some candidate, ANY candidate to go out and say that the differences between Warren/Sanders and Biden/the rest on health care are cosmetic and irrelevant. Health care will be decided in the House of Representatives, not the White House. Whatever comes down the pike will be a compromise worked out between various Democratic constituencies. Its nice that the different candidates have their own preferences. Great. I hope that they fight for them. But in the long run, I don't care much about the distinctions between medicare for all, single payer, what have you.

 

2. Biden was an incoherent mess by the end of the debate. I want someone who is presents a clear difference from Trump. Joe just isn't doing it for me.

 

3. Harris was even more of a mess. She was off last night. Harris was originally one of the candidates that I was most interested in. However, she has not risen to the occasion. Time for her to go.

 

4. I think that Castro's attack on Biden was too ham handed. Came across as desperate and rehearsed (in a bad way). Would have preferred that this not happen. (I wonder whether he is auditioning for a VP slot with Warren)

 

5. I personally thought that Warren had the best performance last night and positioned herself the best. Also was impressed with Booker and Beto. (And I don't much like either of them). Klobuchar also had some good moments, as did Buddageig.

 

6. There was no one that I missed having on stage. I hope to see things contract further in the next debate. Probably time to lose Harris and Yang

[y66]

From To Counter China, Out-Invent It. Trump’s Trade War Ignores the Real Threat From Beijing by Jonathan Gruber and Simon Johnson at Foreign Affairs via Noah Smith:

 

The biggest threat from China is both much more serious and considerably easier to address than any the Trump administration has identified. Through government-led investment in research and development, China is poised to become the global leader in scientific and technological innovation in the near future, displacing the United States from a position it has held for 70 years. China’s rise in this area will not only threaten U.S. national security but deprive the U.S. economy of a great many good jobs. Instead of sparring with China over trade, the United States should dramatically increase its own investment in research and development. Only by spurring domestic innovation can the United States counter China.

To avoid being overtaken by China, the United States should increase federal government support for scientific research as well as efforts to translate that research into products and services that can be brought to market. Government R & D spending has a remarkably high rate of social return, meaning that the benefits are spread widely throughout society. Based on recent studies of government support for civilian- and military-oriented research in the United States, Europe, and New Zealand, we estimate that a federal government commitment of $100 billion per year to R & D would help create roughly four million good new jobs. The most productive use of such funding would be to upgrade the physical infrastructure that supports science, including new laboratories, expanded graduate programs, and incubators for developing capital-intensive technologies that may take a long time to perfect.

 

Wherever possible, the government should look for productive ways to spread this investment around the country. Innovation increasingly takes place in a few highly concentrated hubs where talented people congregate—places such as Seattle, the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, Boston, New York City, and Washington, D.C. But with restrictive zoning and high housing prices, these hubs have become expensive and congested. Investing in places where land is cheap and people have the potential to become much more productive will help redress regional disparities in opportunity and employment, while at the same time building an advantage over international competitors by drawing more Americans into the scientific enterprise.

 

In our book Jump-Starting America, we identify 102 urban communities that are plausible next-generation tech hubs. Spread across 36 states in all regions of the country, these cities and towns have large populations, highly educated workers, and a low cost of living. Examples include Rochester, New York; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and Topeka, Kansas. To turn these cities into tech hubs, the federal government should support collaboration between universities, private businesses, and local governments with the aim of making higher education more affordable, expanding practical and technical training, and creating pipelines from local educational institutions to employers. Together, these public-private consortiums could work to keep housing costs affordable by overhauling zoning law to allow for sufficient construction.

 

The best way to counter China is to out-invent it—and to turn inventions into products and services that people around the world want to buy. The United States was once very good at this. China’s rise should remind the United States that it can and should renew its commitment to technological and scientific advancement.

[kenberg]

Perhaps some of your disgust should be pointed to the questioner who seems to only want a "gptcha momemt" rather than a genuine answer. Will taxes up to cover the costs of universal healthcare is similar to asking are you still beating your wife.

I strongly disagree. She, or someone, has to win the general election and this will certainly come up. And it's more than just ducking the question, the answer she was that the rich will pay more, others will pay less. Let's look at that. A non-rich, ir ordinary person might earn 40L, 60K, 80K, 100K etc a year. the increase in taxes will be different for these people. And their health care needs will be different. One person is young healthy and single. S/he will be carrying the least expensive plan available. Another person has a chronic illness or kids or maybe kids with chronic illnesses. Anther person has a very good health plan through his/her employer, another has no health plan from his/her employer. None of these people will be satisfied with the answer Warren gave. [Oh, and I was not really disgusted, it's more accurate to say I was disappointed. And worried. It was a weak response to an obvious and predictable question.]

 

The question was completely legitimate, her response was a slogan instead of an answer. If she hopes to win in a general election, she must do better.

 

And so I move on to Richard's point 1:

 

1. I really want some candidate, ANY candidate to go out and say that the differences between Warren/Sanders and Biden/the rest on health care are cosmetic and irrelevant. Health care will be decided in the House of Representatives, not the White House. Whatever comes down the pike will be a compromise worked out between various Democratic constituencies. Its nice that the different candidates have their own preferences. Great. I hope that they fight for them. But in the long run, I don't care much about the distinctions between medicare for all, single payer, what have you.

 

You don't care. But surely others do. Imagine that Warren gave your answer in response to the question "Oh, it doesn't really matter what I think about health care, I would jut be the president and of course health care will be for the Congress to decide." This would not go over well, as we can probably all agree. If health care is to be a part, and it seems to be a major part, of her campaign then she has to be able to answer questions about it.

 

I agree about Biden. I could not watch the debate all the way through, some columnist asked if there was in fact anyone, other than those paid to do so, who watched it all the way through. But Biden indeed was incoherent. We should not run an incoherent candidate against an incoherent incumbent. Shall we ram the ramparts before or after we play the TV I mean the the phonograph to help kids learn more words?

 

But back to Warren because I think she has a pretty decent chance of becoming the nominee. It will not be enough to say "My plan is that the rich will pay for it. For everything I want to do. The rich will pay for it". There are many skeptics out there, including me. The health care question was a legitimate question, she refused to answer, except in that her refusal to answer was an answer. An incomplete answer, but an answer.

[kenberg]

I just saw in https://beta.washing...omments-wrapper that my concern about Warren's response is shared by ehough others so that it was singled out in this column. My thoughts were my own, but I am not surprised that others see it the same way.

 

There is another thing in that article, and elsewhere, that is worth looking at. I quote:

 

The polls show a three-person race among Biden, Sanders and Warren. In the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, there was a clear gap between Biden and Warren and Sanders. There was then a similar gap between Warren and Sanders and the rest of the candidates who were onstage.

I would be interested in knowing how people would respond to "Let's rank Sanders, Biden, Warren. Who would you put in third place?" I am trying to get at the following: Suppose that Sanders dropped out. Would his supporters go to Warren or Biden? My guess is that largely they would go to Warren. To put it another way, I think Sanders and Warren are competing for the vote of people who would prefer either of them to Biden. Polls can miss such subtleties.

[Winstonm]

I strongly disagree. She, or someone, has to win the general election and this will certainly come up. And it's more than just ducking the question, the answer she was that the rich will pay more, others will pay less. Let's look at that. A non-rich, ir ordinary person might earn 40L, 60K, 80K, 100K etc a year. the increase in taxes will be different for these people. And their health care needs will be different. One person is young healthy and single. S/he will be carrying the least expensive plan available. Another person has a chronic illness or kids or maybe kids with chronic illnesses. Anther person has a very good health plan through his/her employer, another has no health plan from his/her employer. None of these people will be satisfied with the answer Warren gave. [Oh, and I was not really disgusted, it's more accurate to say I was disappointed. And worried. It was a weak response to an obvious and predictable question.][/size]

 

The question was completely legitimate, her response was a slogan instead of an answer. If she hopes to win in a general election, she must do better.

 

Ken, I agree and disagree all at the same time. :) I think our differences hinge more on the way we view things - you pragmatically, me ideologically. Pragmatism is not a bad thing.

 

IMO, asking for a yes/no answer about a complex subject is lazy journalism - even if the public likes it. To me, it's the kind of question you ask if you are chasing ratings instead of trying to uncover facts - and I think the whole point of journalism is to uncover facts.

 

I watched most of the debates but I confess to not seeing this particular question asked or answered. Still, I argue that the question was wrongheaded; however, Warren would have done better to simply say, "That's the wrong question, Sid (or whoever). The question should be will healthcare costs go up and will everyone have access?" And then go on to explain how insurance premiums are actually taxes that private companies charge to control your healthcare payouts and those same companies keep part of your taxes for themselves as profits. So even if government taxes rise, you're private insurance tax bill will be zero.

 

The question for us (the voters) is whether or not the polls that show healthcare concerns to be the #1 issue are accurate. If they are, then someone like Warren is going to be the best choice IMO.

 

At the same time, if that forceful of ideological change would create an opening for Trump's reelection, then Booker or Buttigieg is probably best.

 

Biden was like milk after the expiration date - real white but with a bad smell.

[awm]

I would be interested in knowing how people would respond to "Let's rank Sanders, Biden, Warren. Who would you put in third place?" I am trying to get at the following: Suppose that Sanders dropped out. Would his supporters go to Warren or Biden? My guess is that largely they would go to Warren. To put it another way, I think Sanders and Warren are competing for the vote of people who would prefer either of them to Biden. Polls can miss such subtleties. [/size][/size]

 

While this seems logical on the surface, it's actually not true. Sanders' supporters tend to be younger, less educated, and more racially diverse than Warren's supporters. For most of them Biden (not Warren) is the second choice. There seem to be a lot of Warren-Harris voters (myself included) and a lot of Biden-Sanders voters. This is counterintuitive if you're basing your vote on the candidate's stated positions, but it makes some sense if you view it as people who want a candidate who "seems smart" versus people who want a candidate who "seems like a regular guy" and it also makes sense if you think name recognition is still a big factor for a lot of voters.

[kenberg]

While this seems logical on the surface, it's actually not true. Sanders' supporters tend to be younger, less educated, and more racially diverse than Warren's supporters. For most of them Biden (not Warren) is the second choice. There seem to be a lot of Warren-Harris voters (myself included) and a lot of Biden-Sanders voters. This is counterintuitive if you're basing your vote on the candidate's stated positions, but it makes some sense if you view it as people who want a candidate who "seems smart" versus people who want a candidate who "seems like a regular guy" and it also makes sense if you think name recognition is still a big factor for a lot of voters.

 

Thank you very much, that is a very interesting presentation. It goes right at what I have been thinking about and I had not realized that it in fact has been looked at. I suppose, with regret, that part of the answer for Harris being the second choice of Warren supporters, Warren the second choice of Harris supporters, Biden the second choice of Sanders supporters, and Sanders the second choice of Biden supporters could be that Biden and Sanders are men, Warren and Harris are women. I would like to think we are past that, but that might be naive.

[kenberg]

Ken, I agree and disagree all at the same time. :) I think our differences hinge more on the way we view things - you pragmatically, me ideologically. Pragmatism is not a bad thing.

 

IMO, asking for a yes/no answer about a complex subject is lazy journalism - even if the public likes it. To me, it's the kind of question you ask if you are chasing ratings instead of trying to uncover facts - and I think the whole point of journalism is to uncover facts.

 

I watched most of the debates but I confess to not seeing this particular question asked or answered. Still, I argue that the question was wrongheaded; however, Warren would have done better to simply say, "That's the wrong question, Sid (or whoever). The question should be will healthcare costs go up and will everyone have access?" And then go on to explain how insurance premiums are actually taxes that private companies charge to control your healthcare payouts and those same companies keep part of your taxes for themselves as profits. So even if government taxes rise, you're private insurance tax bill will be zero.

 

The question for us (the voters) is whether or not the polls that show healthcare concerns to be the #1 issue are accurate. If they are, then someone like Warren is going to be the best choice IMO.

 

At the same time, if that forceful of ideological change would create an opening for Trump's reelection, then Booker or Buttigieg is probably best.

 

Biden was like milk after the expiration date - real white but with a bad smell.

 

Ideological or idealistic do you mean? Usually I don't quibble, but here the distinction might matter. As to Idealism versus practicality I doubt that "the rich will pay for it" satisfies either criterion. Ideologically, maybe it does suffice. Some blend of idealism and practicality is what I hope for, the ideological not so much. I guess I do not know what it mean to be the right answer ideologically.

 

Added: Well. I thought a bit. But the distinction I came to is that in an ideological position it doesn't matter whether it is actually workable. But I don't think Warren, or you for that matter, is claiming it doesn't matter, she is claiming that it is workable. And for that, she needs to answer questions.

[johnu]

6. There was no one that I missed having on stage. I hope to see things contract further in the next debate. Probably time to lose Harris and Yang

:) While I agree 100% with you that there are too many candidates in the debate, the ridiculous DNC rules do not make it harder to get into the next debates, but easier (ie basically the same eligibility rules as the last debate, but another month to try to become eligible). Tom Steyer and Tulsi Gabbard are apparently close to qualifying, so that would make 12 in the debate, so the 4th debate would have to be split into 2 nights, just like the 1st and 2nd debates. If just one additional person qualifies, that would also require 2 nights of debate.

[Winstonm]

 

Ideological or idealistic do you mean? Usually I don't quibble, but here the distinction might matter. As to Idealism versus practicality I doubt that "the rich will pay for it" satisfies either criterion. Ideologically, maybe it does suffice. Some blend of idealism and practicality is what I hope for, the ideological not so much. I guess I do not know what it mean to be the right answer ideologically.

 

Added: Well. I thought a bit. But the distinction I came to is that in an ideological position it doesn't matter whether it is actually workable. But I don't think Warren, or you for that matter, is claiming it doesn't matter, she is claiming that it is workable. And for that, she needs to answer questions.

 

Just for clarification, I mean abstract rather than practical application.

 

As to Warren, she supports Bernie Sanders plan for Medicare for all. Once again, there is not a simple yes/no answer to the question that was asked about raising taxes. The only answer is: it depends.

[y66]

Here's Jon Greenberg's analysis of the cost of Medicare for All at PolitiFact:

 

A study of Medicare for All from the libertarian-oriented Mercatus Center at George Mason University put the cost at more than $32 trillion over 10 years.

 

The Urban Institute, a more liberal-leaning academic center in Washington, looked at Sanders’ plan in 2016 and predicted it would add $32 trillion over the decade.

 

But what about the offsets, the money paid now that Washington would pick up?

 

The Urban Institute estimated that state and local governments would save $4.1 trillion over 10 years, and that households and businesses would see about $21.9 trillion in savings.

 

The modeling is a challenge — how much would hospitals, doctors and drug makers be paid? Without insurance company profits, what are the net savings? What would be the cost when more affordable care leads to more use?

 

But if the Urban Institute numbers are reasonably correct, the total offsets of $26 trillion — state and local government plus private savings — leave a gap of $6 trillion relative to new federal spending. Overall, the Urban Institute said total health care expenditures would rise $6.6 trillion over the period.

 

Urban Institute fellow John Holahan pointed out that Medicare for All doesn’t cover some large areas of health care spending, such as institutional long-term care and veterans health care. The amount would be in the trillions of dollars. Sanders’ left that out when he compared the Medicare for All price tag to total health expenditures.

 

The RAND Corporation said that for 2019 by itself, Medicare for All would come with a 1.8% rise in total health care spending.

 

Medicare for All backers counter with a report out of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Economists there said the program could reduce the cost of care by about 10%. The bulk of those dollars would come from lower administrative and drug costs.

 

Who pays for it?

 

There’s no argument that Washington would need to collect more money to pay for Medicare for All. Sanders has put forth several suggestions. They include a 7.5% payroll tax from employers and a 4% one from workers. Households making over $250,000 a year would see a tax hike, and there would be a variety of tax changes that would fall primarily on the well-to-do, such as higher rates on capital gains and a wealth tax on the top 0.1% of households.

 

And with employers no longer making tax-free contributions to their workers’ premiums, Sanders’ predicts the government would see a net gain of $4.2 trillion over 10 years. The Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban and Brookings Institutions, said that in 2018, that tax break cost the government $280 billion.

 

Still, Sanders’ proposals would raise about $16 trillion over the decade. That’s half of what the program would cost and he hasn’t said how he would close the gap.

 

Warren has offered fewer details than Sanders.

 

"Those at the very top, the richest individuals, and the biggest corporations, are going to pay more," Warren said in the debate. "And middle class families are going to pay less."

 

In the absence of a comprehensive proposal, no independent study has parsed how households at different income levels would fare.

 

Both Sanders and Warren argue that at the end of the day, "middle class families" will be better off. Whatever they pay in taxes, they say, will be more than offset by not paying premiums and not paying for the part of care that insurance doesn’t cover.

 

But the truth is, the data are lacking.

 

"Taxes are going to vary tremendously across workers," University of Chicago economist Katherine Baicker told us in July. "On net, some people are going to be much better off, and some people are going to be much worse off — and overall taxes will have to rise substantially."

[kenberg]

Just for clarification, I mean abstract rather than practical application.

 

As to Warren, she supports Bernie Sanders plan for Medicare for all. Once again, there is not a simple yes/no answer to the question that was asked about raising taxes. The only answer is: it depends.

 

Some things are complicated. The difference between abstract and practical application sounds complicated. And taxes are complicated, or can be. But I think the question, as asked, was clear enough. Let's take a single person (joint filing might introduce a complication) with a job making 70K a year. No bonuses, no anything, just a job making 70K a year. Will his/her taxes go up? I am pretty confident that, after the question was asked and not answered, just about everyone watching drew the very reasonable conclusion that the answer is yes, his/her taxes will go up if the Warren plan is put through.

 

If by any chance this conclusion is incorrect, it would have been a very good idea for her to say so because certainly it is the conclusion I came to and I suspect almost everyone else drew the same conclusion.

 

Will this be balanced, or more than balanced, by a reduction in health care costs for this person? That is where I would have to know ore. What is his/her health plan now? Does it cover his/her needs? Does s/he pay all the costs or does an employer pay some of the costs?

 

As to myself, my guess is that my own costs would go up. I am covered by Medicare, I have a very good supplemental plan, and that supplemental plan is partially covered by my retirement benefits. So my present health care situation os pretty good, eliminating the remaining costs probably would not compensate for a tax increase.

 

 

I'm ok with that, or potentially ok with that, if I decide that her plan is good for the country as a whole. I am willing to listen. But her response was non-informative, except that from her refusal to answer I did draw the conclusion, pretty confidently, that her plan would result in a tax increase for me.

 

 

"What is truth" can lead to difficult issues. "Would your plan lead to an increase in taxes for middle class Americans" is not really an example of this. There might be some exceptional cases, but when she didn't answer this, I and I am sure most everyone concluded that this simple question had a simple answer: Yes.

[y66]

From How Kamala Harris Can Make a Comeback by David Leonhardt at NYT:

 

The most effective presidential candidates are able both to energize their base and persuade the political middle. Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan and F.D.R. all did so. They managed to seem exciting to their party and yet also comfortable for swing voters.

 

Senator Kamala Harris has the potential to pull off this trick. Her confrontational criticism of President Trump appeals to progressives, as does her relative freshness. Instead of being yet another aging white Baby Boomer, she’s a multiracial woman who’s younger than Obama.

 

At the same time, her résumé defies some of the caricatures that Republicans use to make swing voters suspicious of Democrats. She is a tough former prosecutor. She was an executive who oversaw thousands of employees.

 

For these reasons, Harris entered the campaign as a front-runner. Her kickoff rally, in Oakland, drew a larger crowd than any other 2020 event. Sure enough, her odds to win the nomination at one point in early summer, according to the Predictwise betting market, were almost as good as Joe Biden’s and Elizabeth’s Warren’s combined.

 

Then came Harris’s “summer slump.”

 

That’s the term her campaign used, in an internal memo that an aide apparently left in a New Hampshire restaurant and Politico published. Since July, Harris has dropped in the polls, and her fund-raising has lagged. This weekend, Predictwise gave her an 8 percent chance of being the nominee, less than Bernie Sanders had.

 

But I come to praise Harris today, not dismiss her. As the savvy political analyst Sean Trende wrote last week, she is the most natural politician in the field, and people are now underrating her chances. Last week, she had a good debate, from her opening statement directed at Trump to her stirring words about the dire peril of climate change — and our ability to overcome it.

 

The first primaries, remember, are still months away, and many people are only now starting to follow the race. Notably, a recent national poll found that fewer Democratic voters have formed an opinion about Harris than about her main rivals. The history of presidential campaigns offers the same lesson: When The New York Times ran a front-page story about the “mounting alarm” among Obama’s supporters over his underdog campaign against Hillary Clinton, it was late October 2007.

 

Harris remains an important candidate because the Democratic field remains flawed. And if you see Trump as a threat to America’s interests — which he is — you should at this point be rooting for as many strong potential nominees as possible. (That’s why I’d also welcome a surge from one or two of the candidates way down in the polls.)

 

Why do I think the field is flawed? Because Biden — who really does have swing-voter appeal — doesn’t look sharp right now. Sanders looks sharper, but his democratic socialism is a bigger general-election risk than the Bernie faithful acknowledge.

 

Warren is running by far the best campaign, with a clear message that echoes the most consistently successful Democratic strategy of the last century: populism. Yet she still hasn’t shown enough instinct for appealing to the voters who swung from Obama to Trump and back to the Democrats in the 2018 midterms. Those voters don’t want their private health insurance taken from them.

 

In the weeks ahead, I think Harris has two main jobs. First, she and her top advisers should be honest with themselves about her surprising penchant for mistakes. On Medicare policy, she has twice had to explain that she didn’t mean what she sure seemed to mean. On a radio show, she made a flippant remark about marijuana and Jamaica that her own father, who’s a Jamaican immigrant, criticized. At a town hall, she laughed when a voter used a slur for the mentally disabled (to describe Trump’s agenda), and she later claimed that she hadn’t heard the words.

 

There is a pattern here. Harris can be too quick to speak or react without thinking. It’s an understandable problem, because running for president is devilishly hard. But the way to get better at it — as past winners have done — is to avoid excuses and be ruthlessly (albeit privately) self-critical.

 

Her second task is to develop a clearer theory of her campaign’s case. Obama’s was about hope and change. Warren wants to fight for the middle class. Harris stands for … what, exactly? It’s not always evident, not from her vaguely titled book, “The Truths We Hold,” and not from her stump speech.

 

When asked about this problem in a recent interview, Harris rejected the poetry of campaigns and said, “I come at issues through the lens of how it actually impacts people.” That’s not good enough. It doesn’t help voters understands her values and priorities.

 

Defeating Trump can be part of the answer. Her strong debate performance was based on rising above wonky internal party fights and focusing on him. But a negative case is not sufficient. If she is going to make a comeback, she needs a pithy positive case too.

 

Over the last several months, I’ve had several Democratic voters tell me a version of the same story. They had just listened to Harris appear on television or a podcast, and they really wanted to like her. Yet she didn’t quite meet their expectations. They weren’t sure exactly who she was.

 

In that apprehension is both the problem and the promise of the Harris campaign. She hasn’t won over Democratic voters. But many of them sure are open to her.

[johnu]

The Psychopath in Chief has no problem lying like he has no idea what the truth is:

 

Trump denies reports he's willing to meet with Iran with 'no conditions'

 

President Trump on Sunday said it's incorrect to report that he's willing to meet with Iran with "no conditions," contradicting what multiple top administration officials have said in recent days.

 

"The Fake News is saying that I am willing to meet with Iran, 'No Conditions.' That is an incorrect statement (as usual!)," Trump tweeted without elaborating further.

Earlier this week, Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin both reiterated to reporters that Trump was willing to sit down with Rouhani with no conditions.

 

"The president has made very clear he is prepared to meet with no preconditions," Pompeo told reporters during a press conference alongside Mnuchin when asked about a possible meeting in New York.

 

And Mnuchin on Thursday said that Trump "has said he would sit down with Rouhani with no conditions," with the caveat that there were no plans to do so yet.

Hmmm, the Con Man in Chief brings up the "Fake News" once again :rolleyes: Pompeo and Mnuchin must be compulsive liars to say that the Liar in Chief would meet with no conditions. Actually, I wouldn't trust either of them to bag my groceries, but on something like this they wouldn't be making high profile foreign policy statements on their own.

[rmnka447]

Don't be a twit. Barr has the final authority in the Justice Department. Justice is part of the executive branch. Trump is the head of the executive branch, hence he is Barr's boss. Barr believes the executive has virtually unlimited powers to start and stop investigation and the only restraint there is against the executive is impeachment.

 

There is no way that McCabe is being prosecuted without Barr's ( and thus Trump's) approval. He is actually not being prosecuted but persecuted.

 

Certainly, the AG has the final say about a prosecution. He is supposed to be independent. When President Trump took office you complained about the DOJ becoming a tool of his and predicted the end of democracy because of it. Yet, I've yet to see that DOJ has become that. Jeff Sessions was off in his own little world doing God knows what. AG Barr has a long reputation as straight shooter dating back to his previous stint as AG under W. What evidence do you have that AG Barr is under the direct orders or influence of President Trump? So far as I can see, it's just a projection that you've made due to your living in the progressive bubble. Not fact, just fantasy.

 

Compare that with the Holder DOJ where AG Holder famously said "I'm President Obama's wingman." I guess it's OK for an AG to be the protector and lackey for the President if he's a Democrat, because you were as silent as church mice about that. Be consistent, if you'll call out one side you have to call out the other side for the same behavior. Or, maybe it's just because you believe progressives are just so privileged.

 

Let's see what the IG's report says. Purportedly, the IG will document more than times when McCabe lied to the FBI. Should that be acceptable in the 2nd highest law enforcement official in the FBI? Or, do you believe that high government officials should be given a pass while ordinary people get the book thrown at them for being inconsistent once?

 

Justice in this country has to parsed out in a fair and equal manner. It seems to me that AG Barr is on a mission to see the DOJ returns to that standard

 

Claiming McCabe is being persecuted is an OPINION not a fact. Nice try to present it as the opposite.

 

 

 

Personally, I have no trouble with people who have conservative values. I disagree a lot but that is OK. What you are doing, though, with this continued rabid support of Trump is to swallow whole a reality created by gaslighting.

 

I strongly, strongly recommend a book titled: How Democracies Die to see how democratic republics have been taken down a little at a time from the inside out. An important weapon for the autocrat is to take over the departments - Justice being a critical one.

 

If I'm swallowing "a reality created by gaslighting", at least I'm swallowing a reality. The insane animus of the left makes me wonder if all progressives are psychotic. They certainly act like it sometimes.

[barmar]

What evidence do you have that AG Barr is under the direct orders or influence of President Trump? So far as I can see, it's just a projection that you've made due to your living in the progressive bubble. Not fact, just fantasy.

The most obvious example was his blatantly misleading summary of the Mueller Report. He might as well have followed Trump's lead and published the report with all the examples of obstruction crossed out with a Sharpie.

[y66]

Certainly, the AG has the final say about a prosecution. He is supposed to be independent. When President Trump took office you complained about the DOJ becoming a tool of his and predicted the end of democracy because of it. Yet, I've yet to see that DOJ has become that. Jeff Sessions was off in his own little world doing God knows what. AG Barr has a long reputation as straight shooter dating back to his previous stint as AG under W. What evidence do you have that AG Barr is under the direct orders or influence of President Trump? So far as I can see, it's just a projection that you've made due to your living in the progressive bubble. Not fact, just fantasy.

Nice try Mr. Troll. Barr answered your question in his June 2018 audition for AG:

 

[the President] is the sole repository of all Executive powers conferred by the Constitution. The full measure of law enforcement authority is placed in the President’s hands, and no limit is placed on the kinds of cases subject to his control and supervision. While the President has subordinates --the Attorney General and DOJ lawyers -- who exercise prosecutorial discretion on his behalf, they are merely "his hand," Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 262 (1922) - the discretion they exercise is the President's discretion, and their decisions are legitimate precisely because they remain under his supervision, and he is still responsible and politically accountable for them.

[rmnka447]

About those McCabe charges

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/mystery-mccabe-grand-jury

 

Normally, you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich

 

The article is pure conjecture by a notoriously liberal law review site, so no conclusions can me drawn. I could probably find a similar strongly conservative law review site that would find information pointing to just the opposite conclusion.

 

In the meantime, the NYT and WaPo articles about the declining to indict McCabe have proved to be the MSM repeating rumors. Maybe, they were started as a ploy to try to discredit any possible prosecution of McCabe. Who knows?

 

Let's wait for the full IG report to come out before drawing any conclusions about McCabe's culpability. But I can understand how you want to come to a conclusion that's more in line with your view of the world from the progressive fantasy bubble.

 

Let's wait for all the facts to come out

 

Let the chips fall where they may.