let's crash the Market to grab some headlines.........................
[[SIZE=5]***Warren warns of ‘coming economic crash’***[/SIZE]]('https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/warren-warns-coming-economic-crash-120022724.html')
Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Monday predicted an imminent economic crisis unless the Trump administration and Congress quickly pass legislation to regulate the financial sector and significantly reduce middle class household debt.
“Warning lights are flashing. Whether it’s this year or next year, the odds of another economic downturn are high — and growing,” Warren (D-Mass.) wrote [in a Medium post entitled ]('https://medium.com/@teamwarren/355703da148b')"The Coming Economic Crash--And How to Stop It.
"
“I see a manufacturing [sector in recession]('https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-industrial-production-slumps-in-second-quarter-2019-07-16'). I see a precarious economy that is built on debt — both household debt and corporate debt — and that is vulnerable to shocks. And I see a number of serious shocks on the horizon that could cause our economy’s shaky foundation to crumble,” she wrote.
Most of Warren’s proposals to head off the crisis are policies she has called for recently on the campaign trail such as [forgiving over $600 billion]('https://medium.com/@teamwarren/im-calling-for-something-truly-transformational-universal-free-public-college-and-cancellation-of-a246cd0f910f') in student loan debt, enacting her [“Green Manufacturing Plan”]('https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-green-manufacturing-plan-for-america-fc0ad53ab614'), strengthening unions, providing universal child care and raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour.
It is almost certain that President Donald Trump will not sign and the Republican-led Senate will not pass these policies, meaning that Warren’s prediction of a crash will likely be tested over the next two years.
Way to Go Warren
908 views·23 replies·by wader··
If something is going to kill us it's government debt. And here this stupid cow wants to "forgive" $600 billion in student debt? How is that going to be paid for? Let me guess...
Basically she's making the Progressive pander of free college retroactive.
Basically she's making the Progressive pander of free college retroactive.
CaptainOriginal Crew3,414 postsSince 2019
I just love this one. She seems to have 1/2 a brain, so didn't it occur to her that these folks have enough money that they could immediately renounce their American Citizenships and become citizens of more tax friendly countries like Bermuda, The Channel Islands, etc.? I guess this makes good publicity because the folks that like the idea of "Free Stuff" never think about where that money is coming from.
Norway tried such a scheme once when they started to tax capital holdings. The targeted wealthy folks basically said, "Repeal this or we're gone." Guess what happened? The only redistribution of wealth in inane proposals like this is a redistribution of wealth between countries...
[SIZE=7]**Under Warren wealth tax, richest could lose hundreds of billions**[/SIZE]
[**pressherald.com**/2019/09/10/under-warren-wealth-tax-richest-could-lose-hundreds-of-billions/]('https://www.pressherald.com/2019/09/10/under-warren-wealth-tax-richest-could-lose-hundreds-of-billions/')
By Rich Miller and Laura Davison BloombergSeptember 10, 2019
Billionaires such as Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett could have collectively lost hundreds of billions of dollars in net worth over decades if presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax plan had been in effect – and they had done nothing to avoid it.
That’s according to calculations in a new paper by two French economists, who helped her devise the proposed tax on the wealthiest Americans.
The top 15 richest Americans would have seen their net worth decline by more than half to $433.9 billion had Warren’s plan been in place since 1982, according to the paper by University of California, Berkeley professors Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman.
Despite relying on some hypothetical assumptions, the calculations highlight what could be a key question in Thursday’s debate among Democratic Party presidential contenders: What should the U.S. do to address yawning income and wealth inequality?
The authors’ figures don’t take into account any steps billionaires might have taken to reduce their exposure to the tax, including saving less or giving more money away. Instead, the paper assumes that rich Americans effectively do the opposite: they reduce, rather than increase, charitable giving and consumption, in proportion to the wealth lost through the tax.
For Amazon founder Bezos, his estimated fortune of $160 billion in 2018, before his divorce settlement this year, would have been reduced to $86.8 billion. Microsoft founder Gates would have seen his shrink to $36.4 billion from an estimated $97 billion.
The calculations underscore how a wealth tax of just a few percentage points might erode fortunes over time and presumably reduce wealth inequality.
Besides the top five richest Americans, the paper also analyzed how Warren’s proposed tax would impact the fortunes of other wealthy individuals, including Charles Koch; Walmart heirs Jim, Rob and Alice Walton; and Michael Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP.
Billionaires of more recent vintage on the list experience smaller proportional declines in net worth because they would have been subject to the tax for shorter periods of time.
The authors’ assessment of how the wealthy would fare under Warren’s tax plan is just a small part of a wide-ranging paper laying out the rationale for such a proposal and setting out how it might work.
The Massachusetts senator has proposed that the wealthiest 75,000 households pay an annual tax of 2 percent on each dollar of their net worth above $50 million. It would rise to 3 percent on every dollar above $1 billion. She has said this would combat rising inequality.
Critics have charged that the tax would be hard to administer and easy to avoid. They’ve also questioned its constitutionality.
Zucman and Saez used Forbes magazine estimates of individuals’ 2018 wealth as a baseline for comparison in their analysis on the impact of the Warren tax. The magazine has tracked the net worth of the rich since 1982.
Some of the wealthiest Americans, including Buffett and Gates, have said people like themselves should be required to pay more in taxes.
Billionaire investor George Soros, heiress Abigail Disney and 17 other wealthy individuals published an open letter in June in support of Warren’s wealth tax and said lawmakers have a moral responsibility to levy higher taxes on the rich.
Both Saez and Zucman have have conducted research with Thomas Piketty, whose best-selling book put a spotlight on income and wealth disparities.
Norway tried such a scheme once when they started to tax capital holdings. The targeted wealthy folks basically said, "Repeal this or we're gone." Guess what happened? The only redistribution of wealth in inane proposals like this is a redistribution of wealth between countries...
[SIZE=7]**Under Warren wealth tax, richest could lose hundreds of billions**[/SIZE]
[**pressherald.com**/2019/09/10/under-warren-wealth-tax-richest-could-lose-hundreds-of-billions/]('https://www.pressherald.com/2019/09/10/under-warren-wealth-tax-richest-could-lose-hundreds-of-billions/')
By Rich Miller and Laura Davison BloombergSeptember 10, 2019
Billionaires such as Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett could have collectively lost hundreds of billions of dollars in net worth over decades if presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax plan had been in effect – and they had done nothing to avoid it.
That’s according to calculations in a new paper by two French economists, who helped her devise the proposed tax on the wealthiest Americans.
The top 15 richest Americans would have seen their net worth decline by more than half to $433.9 billion had Warren’s plan been in place since 1982, according to the paper by University of California, Berkeley professors Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman.
Despite relying on some hypothetical assumptions, the calculations highlight what could be a key question in Thursday’s debate among Democratic Party presidential contenders: What should the U.S. do to address yawning income and wealth inequality?
The authors’ figures don’t take into account any steps billionaires might have taken to reduce their exposure to the tax, including saving less or giving more money away. Instead, the paper assumes that rich Americans effectively do the opposite: they reduce, rather than increase, charitable giving and consumption, in proportion to the wealth lost through the tax.
For Amazon founder Bezos, his estimated fortune of $160 billion in 2018, before his divorce settlement this year, would have been reduced to $86.8 billion. Microsoft founder Gates would have seen his shrink to $36.4 billion from an estimated $97 billion.
The calculations underscore how a wealth tax of just a few percentage points might erode fortunes over time and presumably reduce wealth inequality.
Besides the top five richest Americans, the paper also analyzed how Warren’s proposed tax would impact the fortunes of other wealthy individuals, including Charles Koch; Walmart heirs Jim, Rob and Alice Walton; and Michael Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP.
Billionaires of more recent vintage on the list experience smaller proportional declines in net worth because they would have been subject to the tax for shorter periods of time.
The authors’ assessment of how the wealthy would fare under Warren’s tax plan is just a small part of a wide-ranging paper laying out the rationale for such a proposal and setting out how it might work.
The Massachusetts senator has proposed that the wealthiest 75,000 households pay an annual tax of 2 percent on each dollar of their net worth above $50 million. It would rise to 3 percent on every dollar above $1 billion. She has said this would combat rising inequality.
Critics have charged that the tax would be hard to administer and easy to avoid. They’ve also questioned its constitutionality.
Zucman and Saez used Forbes magazine estimates of individuals’ 2018 wealth as a baseline for comparison in their analysis on the impact of the Warren tax. The magazine has tracked the net worth of the rich since 1982.
Some of the wealthiest Americans, including Buffett and Gates, have said people like themselves should be required to pay more in taxes.
Billionaire investor George Soros, heiress Abigail Disney and 17 other wealthy individuals published an open letter in June in support of Warren’s wealth tax and said lawmakers have a moral responsibility to levy higher taxes on the rich.
Both Saez and Zucman have have conducted research with Thomas Piketty, whose best-selling book put a spotlight on income and wealth disparities.
AdmiralOriginal Crew21,694 postsSince 2018
>
If something is going to kill us it's government debt. And here this stupid cow wants to "forgive" $600 billion in student debt?
Obama completely f'ed that up when he took over student loans. There are students that are doing well in their jobs that cannot pay down their student loan principal because the payments are capped.
[**[SIZE=5]*[COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]In 2010, President Obama effectively nationalized student lending by cutting banks — which had been offering government-backed loans to students — out of the equation and having the government make the loans itself.[/COLOR]*[/SIZE]**
[COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]*[SIZE=5]**"By cutting out the middleman, we'll save the American taxpayers $68 billion in the coming years," Obama said when he signed this change into law. "That's real money."**[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]****[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]**As a result, federal student loan debt shot up from $154.9 billion in 2009 to $1.1 trillion by the end of 2017.**[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]****[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]**The problem is that at the same time Obama was getting the government into the lending business in a big way, he was making it easier for students to avoid paying back their loans.**[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]****[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]**One program, called "income-driven repayment," lets borrowers avoid payments if their income falls below a certain threshold, and then caps payments as a percentage of total family income. Any debt left over at the end of 25 years is forgiven.**[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]****[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]**Not surprisingly, students flocked to these and other programs that let them avoid paying back all their loans, even though the interest rates they had to pay were already subsidized.**[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]**Between 2011 and 2015, the portion of loans being repaid through these IDR plans shot up 625%, according to the report.**[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]****[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]**The direct lending program even earned the nickname "Obama Student Loan Forgiveness," and surveys of student borrowers by LendEDU found that half of them don't expect to have to pay back all their debts because the federal government would forgive them.**[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]****[/SIZE]*[/COLOR]
**[SIZE=5]*[COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]The rising expectation that loans wouldn't have to be paid back in full also had the perverse effect of making students increasingly indifferent to college costs, thereby fueling tuition inflation.[/COLOR]*[/SIZE]**]('https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/student-loans-will-cost-taxpayers-36-billion-thanks-obama/')
If something is going to kill us it's government debt. And here this stupid cow wants to "forgive" $600 billion in student debt?
Obama completely f'ed that up when he took over student loans. There are students that are doing well in their jobs that cannot pay down their student loan principal because the payments are capped.
[**[SIZE=5]*[COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]In 2010, President Obama effectively nationalized student lending by cutting banks — which had been offering government-backed loans to students — out of the equation and having the government make the loans itself.[/COLOR]*[/SIZE]**
[COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]*[SIZE=5]**"By cutting out the middleman, we'll save the American taxpayers $68 billion in the coming years," Obama said when he signed this change into law. "That's real money."**[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]****[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]**As a result, federal student loan debt shot up from $154.9 billion in 2009 to $1.1 trillion by the end of 2017.**[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]****[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]**The problem is that at the same time Obama was getting the government into the lending business in a big way, he was making it easier for students to avoid paying back their loans.**[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]****[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]**One program, called "income-driven repayment," lets borrowers avoid payments if their income falls below a certain threshold, and then caps payments as a percentage of total family income. Any debt left over at the end of 25 years is forgiven.**[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]****[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]**Not surprisingly, students flocked to these and other programs that let them avoid paying back all their loans, even though the interest rates they had to pay were already subsidized.**[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]**Between 2011 and 2015, the portion of loans being repaid through these IDR plans shot up 625%, according to the report.**[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]****[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]**The direct lending program even earned the nickname "Obama Student Loan Forgiveness," and surveys of student borrowers by LendEDU found that half of them don't expect to have to pay back all their debts because the federal government would forgive them.**[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]****[/SIZE]*[/COLOR]
**[SIZE=5]*[COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]The rising expectation that loans wouldn't have to be paid back in full also had the perverse effect of making students increasingly indifferent to college costs, thereby fueling tuition inflation.[/COLOR]*[/SIZE]**]('https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/student-loans-will-cost-taxpayers-36-billion-thanks-obama/')
CommodoreOriginal Crew9,821 postsSince 2018
LOLOL..Pocahontas caught lying again !!! Has this person no shame??
[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.zerohedge.com/political/elizabeth-warrens-story-about-getting-fired-being-visibly-pregnant-unravels-after[/URL]
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has been using a fabricated tale of injustice a cornerstone of her 2020 campaign pitch - telling people that she was told not to return to teaching after a single year because she was "visibly pregnant," and the principal "did what principals did in those days ... **wish me luck and hire someone else for the job.**"
[]('https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/warren%20what_1.jpg?itok=sHYT3Dto')
> Warren’s claim about her dismissal from the Riverdale Elementary School came under scrutiny last week when the journalist Meagan Day of *Jacobin* magazine noted that Warren’s story appeared to have changed over the years. Day pointed to a 2007 [interview]('http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people7/Warren/warren-con1.html') Warren gave at the University of California-Berkeley **in which she suggested that she left her teaching job after realizing the graduate school classes required for her to obtain a teaching certificate weren’t going to "work out for [her]."** -[*Free Beacon*]('https://freebeacon.com/politics/county-records-contradict-warrens-claim-she-was-fired-over-pregnancy/')
Warren then claimed:
"I was married at nineteen and then graduated from college [at the University of Houston] after I’d married," adding "My first year post-graduation, I worked -- it was in a public school system but I worked with the children with disabilities. I did that for a year, and then that summer I actually didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an 'emergency certificate,' it was called."
"I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, 'I don’t think this is going to work out for me,'" Warren continued. "**I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, 'What am I going to do?**'"
Warren had been working as a speech pathologist at New Jersey's Riverdale Elementary School during the 1970 - 1971 school year, according to the *Beacon*.
On Monday, the [Washington Free Beacon]('https://freebeacon.com/politics/county-records-contradict-warrens-claim-she-was-fired-over-pregnancy/') dealt another blow to Warren's story*** - ***publishing **minutes from a Riverdale Board of Education meeting** from April 21, 1971 which reveal [U]**the board voted unanimously**[/U]** on a motion to extend Warren's contract for a "2nd year" of teaching. **
> [Minutes]('https://www.scribd.com/document/429152169/Riverdale-Board-of-Education-Meeting-Minutes-1970-1971?secret_password=nTS2VmCgg4oeOIw7xlcn') of an April 21, 1971, Riverdale Board of Education meeting obtained by the *Washington Free Beacon* show that the board voted unanimously on a motion to extend Warren a "2nd year" contract for a two-days-per-week teaching job. That job is similar to the one she held the previous year, her first year of teaching. [Minutes]('https://www.scribd.com/document/429152169/Riverdale-Board-of-Education-Meeting-Minutes-1970-1971?secret_password=nTS2VmCgg4oeOIw7xlcn') from a board meeting held two months later, on June 16, 1971, indicate that Warren’s resignation was "accepted with regret." -[*Free Beacon*]('https://freebeacon.com/politics/county-records-contradict-warrens-claim-she-was-fired-over-pregnancy/')
What's more, the minutes from a June 16, 1971 meeting include:** **"**The resignation of Mrs. Elizabeth Warren, speech correctionist effective June 30, 1971 was accepted with regret.**"
Sounds like they really liked her - and now she's going around throwing (likely deceased) Principal Peter J. Polo under the bus for a callous act he didn't commit.
[Riverdale Board of Educatio...]('https://www.scribd.com/document/429152169/Riverdale-Board-of-Education-Meeting-Minutes-Involving-Elizabeth-Warren-1970-1971#from_embed') by [Washington Free Beacon]('https://www.scribd.com/publisher/247263517/Washington-Free-Beacon#from_embed') on Scribd
[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.zerohedge.com/political/elizabeth-warrens-story-about-getting-fired-being-visibly-pregnant-unravels-after[/URL]
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has been using a fabricated tale of injustice a cornerstone of her 2020 campaign pitch - telling people that she was told not to return to teaching after a single year because she was "visibly pregnant," and the principal "did what principals did in those days ... **wish me luck and hire someone else for the job.**"
[]('https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/warren%20what_1.jpg?itok=sHYT3Dto')
> Warren’s claim about her dismissal from the Riverdale Elementary School came under scrutiny last week when the journalist Meagan Day of *Jacobin* magazine noted that Warren’s story appeared to have changed over the years. Day pointed to a 2007 [interview]('http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people7/Warren/warren-con1.html') Warren gave at the University of California-Berkeley **in which she suggested that she left her teaching job after realizing the graduate school classes required for her to obtain a teaching certificate weren’t going to "work out for [her]."** -[*Free Beacon*]('https://freebeacon.com/politics/county-records-contradict-warrens-claim-she-was-fired-over-pregnancy/')
Warren then claimed:
"I was married at nineteen and then graduated from college [at the University of Houston] after I’d married," adding "My first year post-graduation, I worked -- it was in a public school system but I worked with the children with disabilities. I did that for a year, and then that summer I actually didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an 'emergency certificate,' it was called."
"I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, 'I don’t think this is going to work out for me,'" Warren continued. "**I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, 'What am I going to do?**'"
Warren had been working as a speech pathologist at New Jersey's Riverdale Elementary School during the 1970 - 1971 school year, according to the *Beacon*.
On Monday, the [Washington Free Beacon]('https://freebeacon.com/politics/county-records-contradict-warrens-claim-she-was-fired-over-pregnancy/') dealt another blow to Warren's story*** - ***publishing **minutes from a Riverdale Board of Education meeting** from April 21, 1971 which reveal [U]**the board voted unanimously**[/U]** on a motion to extend Warren's contract for a "2nd year" of teaching. **
> [Minutes]('https://www.scribd.com/document/429152169/Riverdale-Board-of-Education-Meeting-Minutes-1970-1971?secret_password=nTS2VmCgg4oeOIw7xlcn') of an April 21, 1971, Riverdale Board of Education meeting obtained by the *Washington Free Beacon* show that the board voted unanimously on a motion to extend Warren a "2nd year" contract for a two-days-per-week teaching job. That job is similar to the one she held the previous year, her first year of teaching. [Minutes]('https://www.scribd.com/document/429152169/Riverdale-Board-of-Education-Meeting-Minutes-1970-1971?secret_password=nTS2VmCgg4oeOIw7xlcn') from a board meeting held two months later, on June 16, 1971, indicate that Warren’s resignation was "accepted with regret." -[*Free Beacon*]('https://freebeacon.com/politics/county-records-contradict-warrens-claim-she-was-fired-over-pregnancy/')
What's more, the minutes from a June 16, 1971 meeting include:** **"**The resignation of Mrs. Elizabeth Warren, speech correctionist effective June 30, 1971 was accepted with regret.**"
Sounds like they really liked her - and now she's going around throwing (likely deceased) Principal Peter J. Polo under the bus for a callous act he didn't commit.
[Riverdale Board of Educatio...]('https://www.scribd.com/document/429152169/Riverdale-Board-of-Education-Meeting-Minutes-Involving-Elizabeth-Warren-1970-1971#from_embed') by [Washington Free Beacon]('https://www.scribd.com/publisher/247263517/Washington-Free-Beacon#from_embed') on Scribd
CommodoreOriginal Crew5,088 postsSince 2019
Who votes someone like this into office?
While most went on to make a better place for themselves in life through hard work and determination, all the weirdos and whackos went into Politics and succeeded since no once else wanted to do it. This broad, Pelosi and Shifty are the main brainless leaders.
While most went on to make a better place for themselves in life through hard work and determination, all the weirdos and whackos went into Politics and succeeded since no once else wanted to do it. This broad, Pelosi and Shifty are the main brainless leaders.
CommodoreOriginal Crew16,165 postsSince 2018
>
I want some of whatever she is smoking in her peace pipe.
Oh yeah.
[**[COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)][SIZE=4][FONT=georgia]Elizabeth Warren promised Friday to spend more than $20 trillion over the next decade to provide government-funded health care to every American without raising middle class taxes [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]**]('https://nypost.com/2019/11/01/elizabeth-warren-releases-plan-to-spend-20-trillion-on-medicare-for-all-program/')
I want some of whatever she is smoking in her peace pipe.
Oh yeah.
[**[COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)][SIZE=4][FONT=georgia]Elizabeth Warren promised Friday to spend more than $20 trillion over the next decade to provide government-funded health care to every American without raising middle class taxes [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]**]('https://nypost.com/2019/11/01/elizabeth-warren-releases-plan-to-spend-20-trillion-on-medicare-for-all-program/')
CommodoreOriginal Crew9,821 postsSince 2018
>
Oh yeah.
[**[COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)][SIZE=4][FONT=georgia]Elizabeth Warren promised Friday to spend more than $20 trillion over the next decade to provide government-funded health care to every American without raising middle class taxes [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]**]('https://nypost.com/2019/11/01/elizabeth-warren-releases-plan-to-spend-20-trillion-on-medicare-for-all-program/')
Nothing like trying to out-left the lefters
Oh yeah.
[**[COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)][SIZE=4][FONT=georgia]Elizabeth Warren promised Friday to spend more than $20 trillion over the next decade to provide government-funded health care to every American without raising middle class taxes [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]**]('https://nypost.com/2019/11/01/elizabeth-warren-releases-plan-to-spend-20-trillion-on-medicare-for-all-program/')
Nothing like trying to out-left the lefters
CommodoreOriginal Crew5,665 postsSince 2018
[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/france-tried-soaking-rich-didn-103027148.html[/URL]
AdmiralOriginal Crew20,900 postsSince 2018
>
Heard onda news today a good point, if Obamacare is so good why would they wanna consider Medicare for all... cellie...
Very few have ever argued that the ACA is perfect. Some think medicare for all is better. Some don't.
Recall that ACA was a compromise that included GOP input in an attempt to obtain GOP support before it was voted into law*.
Dems have been pushing to fix ACA glitches for years but the Republican response has been: "We're about to replace it with something much better, so why bother fixing something that's about to be replaced." [If you couldn't tell, that was not an actual quote, but a reference to a general position; repeat, not a quote].
It's been 10 years. Where is the Republican plan with better benefits and lower cost? There isn't any. Never has been.
* "While it is true that [no Republican]('https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00396') voted for the [final bill]('http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/21/AR2010032100943.html'), it is blatantly untrue that it contains no GOP DNA.... Republican senators [were] deeply involved in the process up until its conclusion...." ([Set the health care record straight: Republicans helped craft Obamacare]("https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/01/set-health-record-straight-republicans-helped-craft-obamacare-ross-baker-column/523952001/"))
Heard onda news today a good point, if Obamacare is so good why would they wanna consider Medicare for all... cellie...
Very few have ever argued that the ACA is perfect. Some think medicare for all is better. Some don't.
Recall that ACA was a compromise that included GOP input in an attempt to obtain GOP support before it was voted into law*.
Dems have been pushing to fix ACA glitches for years but the Republican response has been: "We're about to replace it with something much better, so why bother fixing something that's about to be replaced." [If you couldn't tell, that was not an actual quote, but a reference to a general position; repeat, not a quote].
It's been 10 years. Where is the Republican plan with better benefits and lower cost? There isn't any. Never has been.
* "While it is true that [no Republican]('https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00396') voted for the [final bill]('http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/21/AR2010032100943.html'), it is blatantly untrue that it contains no GOP DNA.... Republican senators [were] deeply involved in the process up until its conclusion...." ([Set the health care record straight: Republicans helped craft Obamacare]("https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/01/set-health-record-straight-republicans-helped-craft-obamacare-ross-baker-column/523952001/"))
First MateOriginal Crew693 postsSince 2019
>
Is it my imagination, or wasn't the Obamacare repeal shot down by the RINO McCain?
While I agree the Republicans haven't done a good job stepping up to the plate it's incorrect to say they never did anything.
they should have had something ready to go.................
All they talked about for the previous 8 years was how bad OB Care was & when they could they were going to repeal & replace it. 8 years.
And they came up empty.
This is why I'm an Independent. Both Parties suck.
Is it my imagination, or wasn't the Obamacare repeal shot down by the RINO McCain?
While I agree the Republicans haven't done a good job stepping up to the plate it's incorrect to say they never did anything.
they should have had something ready to go.................
All they talked about for the previous 8 years was how bad OB Care was & when they could they were going to repeal & replace it. 8 years.
And they came up empty.
This is why I'm an Independent. Both Parties suck.
AdmiralOriginal Crew20,900 postsSince 2018
You'll get no argument from me there. They could pass a repeal every day when it didn't matter, but when they had a president who would sign it all of a sudden they were looking at each other like they'd never met before.
I have no illusion's that either party really gives a cr@p about the people they supposedly represent.
I have no illusion's that either party really gives a cr@p about the people they supposedly represent.
CaptainOriginal Crew3,414 postsSince 2019
Page 1 of 2
24 postsSign in to reply to this thread.