LastPommerFan

If we want to make EB5 visas an election issue, I'm all for it. I can even use breitbart to make my point: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/07/eb-5-report-trump-tower-built-with-chinese-visa-scheme/ Democrats, meanwhile, will probably also note this line from Khan's old site: "Mr. Khan is also the founder of two recent pro bono projects, legal services for the families of the men and the women serving in the Armed Forces and legal services for those not represented by the legal counsel especially the elderly, the women and the children in New York."

Unions were, and are, the best way to build employer accountability, especially regarding benefits like healthcare. Unfortunately, they've lost a ton of clout over the last 30 years. Partially through their own mismanagement, partially through a concerted effort by some large employers to defang them from a legal standpoint, and partially from so many members voting against unions (and their own economic self interest) in order to cast votes on culture war issues, Unions just aren'y what they used to be, and all american workers are feeling the results.

Mostly addressing the "minority pay for majority"

Medicare/Caid come out of payroll taxes, right? so 100% of American wage earners pay into our government healthcare systems. It's one of the least progressive taxes we have, and the bill is half split with employers.

The problem with healthcare is that we conflate two separate actuarial issues into a single policy: health maintenance vs health events. It would be like having auto insurance policies cover Gas and Tires. Aging also screws with the risk pools, as if auto insurance were required to pay for alternator and transmission replacements in a 1988 Dodge Omni. Imagine what premiums would be like for Cars in that scenario, then throw in a law that says emergency mechanics have to fix your car, regardless of your ability to pay.

A battle of #1s! I'm stoked for the Rangers, would love to see a Rangers-O's ALCS. One of my roommates from college was from Cedar Hill, I hated him for the Cowboys and Stars, so I encouraged more Mavs and Rangers decor. Claw and Antlers.

Accidentally deleted my first reply. Thanks for the clarification. You are proposing a hybrid public/private model with the gov side focused on service injuries, which should be their specialty, and purchasing other health services on the open market, with no restrictions on veterans' choice. I like it.

Trump was absolutely a foul mouthed bigot before he was a republican presidential nominee. Watch any interview or read any tenant case against him from the 80s or 90s. Trump didn't leave the democrats after 2008, he changed parties 30 years ago, when he first considered running as a republican, and attended the GOP convention, and praised GHWB. He has never been a Democrat since. Trunp could never be a dem candidate, who would the comparative liberal candidate be? The closest I can think of in even a single piece of rhetoric is Presodent Obama's "cling to guns and religion" . Is there a current liberal version of trump? Some sort of BLM/Jezabel super inflammatory social justice warrior? Is there one in any position of import in the Democratic Party? This is different than both her campaigns white sheet and the party platform. Could you share a source?

How can the Democratic Party better acknowledge and act? We want to be the party that cares about the poor. If we don't have people believing in our top leadership on that issue, we are failing.

http://www.beardedboardsstl.com/cuttingboards/ Please let him know that Adam I sent you his way.

What action or event on Secretary Clinton's past leads you to this belief?

I shared this with her. She says, "I can make enough great sauce for everyone. I don't need that from my husband."

25 years ago I was in Mrs. Allen's third grade class. I met a girl, we became friends. By the time we started dating 18 years ago, we were best friends. 13 years ago she said yes, and 11 years ago I stood at an alter with my best friend and swore I'd love her forever no matter what. It was the easiest commitment I've ever made. Happy 11th wedding anniversary to the beautiful Mrs. Emotion. [pictured: junior prom 2000 vs tonight]

Because th Democratic Party moved their platform in his direction. In a democracy, you don't get to implement your ideas by yourself. So he did what good democrats (small d) do and built a coalition to make his plan a reality.

Who are other politicians you would describe using the word "shrill"?

Going to an Irish Pub with one's wife is always the right decision. It is at the very top of the priority matrix for all situations. (I can't figure out how to word the previous two sentences without them sounding sarcastic, they are not, my Irish runs deep.)

Also, We've, rereading my post, definitely to "paint-y" i did not need you to "be" something in order to make my point that there are subsets of the American population greatly affected by the differences between the parties. I apologize. It will be interesting to see what effects the Bernie Sanders democratic platform will have on creating a larger difference in the economics and war realm. Another note: on a national level, one party has had enough control of government to implement their plans without compromise for exactly 72 days in the last 30 years. Outside of that they needed to compromise, it's likely that those compromises would look very similar regardless of who is in power. Blue beat me to it.

Obama being such an exceptional deportee is not accurate, and a result of record keeping changes at ICE/DHS in 1996 and 2006: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/21/lies-damned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/

I will agree that from a corporate economics standpoint, the parties are more similar than I'd like. If you are an American born straight white male, odds are very likely that corporate economic policy is the area that the government has the most direct ability to affect your life. I'm not trying to paint you as anything. I think it's possible that the parties, for you, are irrelevantly different. At the same time, it is possible also for the parties to be critically different for someone else. Not one repubican voted for obamacare, dozens of GOP governors blocked Medicaid expansion. President Obama's epa regulations will decimate the coal industry if they are not reversed by a future GOP president. Dozens of GOP state legislatures have put in place additional restrictions on safe access to abortion, not one democratic state has done so. States have passed defense of religious liberty laws allowing for legal discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, other states have passed laws specifically adding these things to their non discrimination laws. In Austin Texas gay people celebrated one day with the Democratic City Council passing legislation protecting their rights, only to find later that the GOP state government had passed a law preempting the city ordinance and stripping them of these protections. Without executive action by our current president protecting them, hundreds of thousands of children, brought here as babies, who have no nation to call home other than the US would be deported, likely captured by the Republican Maricopa County Sheriff, if the democratic Attorney General hadn't stepped in to strip him of this authority. Red states pass laws that disproportionately disenfranchise the poor and the black, meanwhile the Supreme Court, dominated by GOP appointees rules to strip the federal government of the best tool they had to prevent voting discrimination. Are you suggesting that for these people the difference between Democratic Policy and Republican policy is smoke and mirrors?

I'd like to hypothesize that it's easier for you to not buy it because you are only one of the things I listed, and gun owners are the least affected of those groups, so far, by a wide margin. The demographics of the "they are all the same" party are exceptionally monolithic and disproportionately disillusioned conservives or the off shoots there of.

Yeah. Apples and oranges. If you had switched to the oranges in 2007 it would have been the same. I don't understand how people can look at the United States in 2005 and the United States in 2015 and say the parties are the same. if you were uninsured or gay or a family member of an undocumented immigrant America changed radically for you in those 10 years all because the power shift to a different party. If you are Muslim or a young woman unexpectedly pregnant and terrified or an immigrant of any type or a person who believes citizens United was a terrible decision, or a coal miner or an gun owner or a student, the result of this election will have an incredible impact on your next 10 years depending on which I party is elected. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

I remember those numbers now. What was your plan prior to that, was it an employer plan?

This is super interesting to me. I would like to know more details about the before and after plans.

The biggest initial increase in the cost of plans, especially in "red" states, was the new minimum coverage obligations and the inability to charge women more. Neither of those factors affected New York, as we already had state laws mandating both. In states like Georgia and North Carolina, coverages had to be generally increased, and the premiums for men had to go up, as they had to share in the "burden" of paying for the health needs of women of child bearing age and breast cancer, which is expensive and incredible, tragically common. This is likely why there is such a desparity in the experience of eleven and Claude and BuffinATL. Sadly, this had the effect of reinforcing the hatred of the plans in red states.