1) A majority does not mean that they can just do whatever they want whenever they want. Public perception still matters, and that is a major place where Democrats in VT failed to educate folks. 2) Shumlin had said he was going to implement single payer but he was reluctant early, despite his claims. I don't expect you to believe me here, but I am more closely tied to this process than most. 3) General education level is irrelevant to public education campaigns on something like the health care system. There was not enough done here to educate people on the issue early, and once the Dems tried it was so late in the process it was pretty hard. 4) Agreed, though that is purely because of how entrenched this system is right now, regardless of how good it is for the long-term costs of the health care system
So what you want is for a symbolic gesture of a politician to cut their own pay before they close tax loopholes etc? Because let's be realistic about what increases revenues...
btw, Bernie may believe in single payer but he isn't running on it for President afaik.
1) Presidential elections don't solely determine how much freedom the Democratic party has to act within a state. Vermont's governor nearly lost his re-election, because his base was dissatisfied and his opponent galvanized people against single payer. Whether or not Vermont has 1% more liberals or fewer conservatives than other east coast states, or how it voted for Obama, really doesn't matter, Vermont dems still have to worry about their seats. Though I think Shumlin himself isn't going for another term, other Dems have to be concerned with how the election went, given the incredibly low democratic turnout for Shumlin. 2) Politics is a possible reason. It's also very possible it was an unbias estimate that he came up with. 3) Are you seriously arguing that high school is a place where individuals are educated on campaign issues, taxes, and health care costs? lol. Good job. As to the plan 'not being liberal enough,' it has nothing to do with that. One of the biggest advantages of single payer is that it cuts out a lot of redundancy and complexity of multiple competing healthcare systems for different classes of Americans, as we have right now - Vermont's plan failed to do that, and combined with exemptions to some of the larger employers, it also undercut the base of the funding for the plan. Which is why, as I keep saying, single payer makes more sense at a national level.
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/bernie-sanders-asks-if-american-economy-moral-n364541 He was answering a question sarcastically about the tax rate during Eisenhower's time, but he did say he didn't think it was too high. He wouldn't propose it though, and when pushed for details on his tax plans more recently he has said income tax isnt something he has settled on yet edit: darn it, video appears to be gone. A google search turned up this thinkprogress link: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/05/26/3662773/sanders-90-percent-tax/ No idea how valid it is, haven't read through it, so take it with a grain of salt, but you get the jist.
Fwiw I don't think Bernie is going to raise any marginal tax rate to 90 percent. He hasn't said what he'd do with personal income tax yet. He just doesn't think ideologically that is too high a rate, from what I've read.
I concede that people react to the tax climate of a nation. However, I also think that a tax code overhaul, even if it includes higher taxes on the rich, would generate more revenue without hurting economic growth, regardless of if Donald Trump flees the country because of it. You seem confused, RE: Vermont. Your point was because Vermont is so liberal, democrats had no electoral reason not to back it. I highlighted why this is not the case; In Vermont, as in much of the northeast, the conservatives are only a few percentage points behind the liberals and thus there is most certainly strong reason to be mindful of appearances. Liberals do not have free rein to do whatever they want in VT or anywhere else. Shumlin didn't give it a "positive spin government examination." Perhaps his examination was unbias, and given the change in the government funds available I can see why his conclusions differed from previous studies. However, he receives substantial money from insurance companies (they are some of his top donors), so I am skeptical of him on this issue. Vermonters are no smarter, nor any stupider, than the general American public, who abhor taxes and don't trust the government. The point was the public education campaign never got off the ground, not that Vermonters are stupid. If you don't educate people about an issue, they will vote with their gut - and most peoples guts tend to follow their wallet in the short term. Again, nationally - or even in bigger states - single payer might have more success, but the plan wasn't even true single payer since it exempted some of the state's largest employers AND allowed insurance companies to continue to operate in-state.
That isn't what he "just said." But I suppose it is easier to "just say" he said that than to actually look into his comments or his position.
It depends entirely on how much I was making as to whether or not I'd care if 90% was taken in taxes, and, more crucially, what it was being spent on. No, I wouldn't give today's government 90% of my income (though lol not like that would allow them to do much). The funny thing is, France's elite continue to leave despite the change in marginal income level because of other tax issues - e.g. the way rent is taxed, the way property is taxed. Vermont's status as the most liberal state in the nation is up for debate depending on how it is measured, but either way, there are nearly as many self-reporting conservatives as liberals there, and the popular perception of Vermont as some liberal paradise fades quickly in many pats of the state. Having lived in both, I do feel Massachusetts is more liberal, but it may just be a comparison of the regions of the two states I've lived. I spent several years in Vermont, and though I left before his last election, Shumlin's team did an awful job at public education on the benefits or even what the hell single payer was. I would encourage you to read the article I highlighted. Shumlin's numbers, at least by my reckoning, still suggested an overall savings in health expenditures. So what gives? Quite simply, the appearance of raising taxes was something Shumlin didn't want on his resume for when he runs for national office in a couple years... if he can even hold onto Vermont. That was my feeling, anyway. I don't think single payer would work as effectively at the state level as the national level, because of multi-state businesses, as I previously mentioned. Some of Vermonts biggest employers would have had exemptions, which in many ways seems to defeat the point of it all.
France isn't America (and France's probably likely has to do with the comprehensive tax system and not just marginal rate), but I doubt Sanders would enact a 90% tax on *all* rich people. I don't think 90% is necessarily too high, it depends a lot on the various systems involved. As to Single Payer, the issue in Vermont is far more complex and it likely would have saved the state, and individuals, money in the long run, but Shumlin was much more worried about elections in the near future and politics, imo. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1501050 has a decent review of it that matches with my experiences. Personal note: I have a very strong, personal bias in this issue, as I have familial relations with one of the key proponents and writers related to Green Mountain Care. But my opinion is very much that Shumlin killed it for political reasons and not because of his claims relating to the economy. edit: And the benefit of a national plan of implementation over a state plan is that you don't have to issue so many exemptions to multi-state corporations, as Vermont was planning to do. Because a national, centralized single payer system crosses state borders that just wouldn't be needed
Any bakery can refuse to bake a cake for the KKK because the KKK is not a protected group; any business can likely refuse to make a confederate flag cake as well for any old dude, but can't outright refuse that dude any service.
Bernie would undoubtedly effectively raise taxes on just about everyone - but those same people would no longer need to pay for health care, and subsidies would b e built into the program by default given the nature of single payer. He would also likely cut some spending programs. His 12 step program says 100 billion in tax dollars lost due to corporate tax evasion (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/agenda/), so that's a hefty amount, but obviously he'd need more from other places as well.
Though I think some of these actions are getting a bit out of hand, it is within the right of the company to undertake them. However, I would never support legislation to ban the personal use of the flag. Banning it flying over government/public buildings, though? No problem from me there.
I do think they will play up the anti-Communism. Someone will point out he wanted Vermont to take over its utilities in the 70s during the energy crisis (though from what I am told this was actually a real debate back then, so it isn't as "crazy" as it sounds today). If Clinton attacks him as sexist or anti African American, I'm ... well, you know what, I'm not voting for her anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter. I just can't get behind her, and my vote has almost no meaning outside of primaries, so...
Sanders vs Clinton, in a nut shell: Great read, Tee. Thanks. He has no chance of getting close to Clinton's money, but if he keeps drawing crowds of thousands while she attends fundraisers, it may not matter.
It isn't like Lebron doesn't take clutch shots. He takes plenty. Percentages exist for a reason. early in his career he didn't seem nearly as clutch or as ruthless, but that has changed. Especially this year... While your one-shot thing might be right, if I had to take one player to get me points on a possession, it would be LBJ over Kobe every day of the week.