Secure Da Bag
Veteran
we bout to secure the bag Warren Gs
Are you? Because you didn't answer the question. Does Gillum support reparations?
Last edited:
Elizabeth Warren HQ: She's Got A Plan!
- Thread starter King Kreole
- Start date
Are you? Because you didn't answer the question. Does Gillum support reparations?
Has a plan for everyone but ADOS 
Warren speechwriter.
A LOT of Warren's team is black lowkey...she's running away with this shyt... 
intra vires
Glory to Michigan
I'm late on this but it still needs to be said:
What I find amusing about the Warren pregnancy saga is only someone who has never had to deal with discrimination, would look at this story and think it's inconsistent because the School Board didn't write "fired for being pregnant" as their rationale for letting her go. NYT has run several articles about the issue dating back to June of last year. Here’s one from February of this year: Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies
shyt, women have been told not to wear wedding rings to job interviews because the insinuation is if she's married then she'll get pregnant...
What I find amusing about the Warren pregnancy saga is only someone who has never had to deal with discrimination, would look at this story and think it's inconsistent because the School Board didn't write "fired for being pregnant" as their rationale for letting her go. NYT has run several articles about the issue dating back to June of last year. Here’s one from February of this year: Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies
shyt, women have been told not to wear wedding rings to job interviews because the insinuation is if she's married then she'll get pregnant...
Wargames
One Of The Last Real Ones To Do It
Wargames
One Of The Last Real Ones To Do It
Jhoon
Spontaneous Mishaps and Hijinks
I am black, male and I’m with Warren. I am also 33.
I understand why people of an older generation would champion Joe Biden. I was raised to respect my elders and not to question them. I am raising my children to question everything though.
intra vires
Glory to Michigan
This op-ed is from a month ago but I feel so[me] excerpts need to be posted:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-so-important-get-warren-say-ill-raise-taxes/
While I question the efficacy of championing a proposal you know won't pass, I do think the author makes a good point when he brings up M4A's costs vs the status quo. Warren needs to hit back with that because simply playing defense on this issue isn't doing her any favors.
Warren is obviously determined not to give people like Matthews and Stephanopoulos what they’re after. The question that interests me is, why are they so determined to get her to say that taxes would go up?
I suspect that if you asked them why the answer to that question is so important to them, they’d give you a bunch of substance-free hemming and hawing about how it’s a key political question and therefore they have to get an answer to it.
But if you pressed them and said, “But why does it actually matter? Why is it more important than the total cost people pay?”, they wouldn’t be able to come up with even a halfway plausible response.
That’s because from where they sit, there is almost no goal more important than creating moments that are dramatic and controversial, and will be replayed and discussed on their own networks and in other news outlets. Drama and controversy occur when a candidate says something that generates a strong reaction, often in the form of harsh criticism from the other party.
--
It’s almost as if we’re starting from the assumption that what we pay now is zero, so premiums that would disappear are irrelevant and the only question is how much taxes might increase.
This operates not just at the level of what individuals pay but at the level of what we pay as a society. One study from a conservative think tank determined that Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-for-all plan would cost $32 trillion over ten years, a figure that has been repeated approximately 32 trillion times to declare how monumentally costly it would be. But according to the government’s projections, the current system will cost about $50 trillion over the same time period, meaning Sanders’ plan is much cheaper than keeping things how they are, whatever else you might think of it.
Yet I have never once heard a politician asked, “You don’t support major reform to the health system, so under your plan, we’ll have to pay $50 trillion for health care over the next ten years. Where do you intend to get that $50 trillion?”
I’ve also never heard anyone press Sanders or Warren on whether, and by how much, total costs for families really will go down under their plans. Is the median family going to pay $500 less, or $1,500, or $5,000? We ought to know, at least to the greatest extent we can determine it.
I suspect that if you asked them why the answer to that question is so important to them, they’d give you a bunch of substance-free hemming and hawing about how it’s a key political question and therefore they have to get an answer to it.
But if you pressed them and said, “But why does it actually matter? Why is it more important than the total cost people pay?”, they wouldn’t be able to come up with even a halfway plausible response.
That’s because from where they sit, there is almost no goal more important than creating moments that are dramatic and controversial, and will be replayed and discussed on their own networks and in other news outlets. Drama and controversy occur when a candidate says something that generates a strong reaction, often in the form of harsh criticism from the other party.
--
It’s almost as if we’re starting from the assumption that what we pay now is zero, so premiums that would disappear are irrelevant and the only question is how much taxes might increase.
This operates not just at the level of what individuals pay but at the level of what we pay as a society. One study from a conservative think tank determined that Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-for-all plan would cost $32 trillion over ten years, a figure that has been repeated approximately 32 trillion times to declare how monumentally costly it would be. But according to the government’s projections, the current system will cost about $50 trillion over the same time period, meaning Sanders’ plan is much cheaper than keeping things how they are, whatever else you might think of it.
Yet I have never once heard a politician asked, “You don’t support major reform to the health system, so under your plan, we’ll have to pay $50 trillion for health care over the next ten years. Where do you intend to get that $50 trillion?”
I’ve also never heard anyone press Sanders or Warren on whether, and by how much, total costs for families really will go down under their plans. Is the median family going to pay $500 less, or $1,500, or $5,000? We ought to know, at least to the greatest extent we can determine it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-so-important-get-warren-say-ill-raise-taxes/
While I question the efficacy of championing a proposal you know won't pass, I do think the author makes a good point when he brings up M4A's costs vs the status quo. Warren needs to hit back with that because simply playing defense on this issue isn't doing her any favors.
Last edited:
Secure Da Bag
Veteran
Tell us why.
