Who are the top democratic presidential candidates for 2020?

[Tekate]

@marcy high speed train service to those areas that make sense, it probably doesn't make sense to place trains in places of large amounts of snow. Although I can take a train from Grand Central to Rochester NY and Erie, PA.

Rochester has an average of 77 inches of snow per winter.

Erie has an average of 101 inches of snow per year.

Elk Mountain has an average of 61 inches

Trains in Rochester NY: https://www.wanderu.com/en-us/train-tickets/us-ny/rochester/

Trains in Erie, Pa: https://www.wanderu.com/en-us/train-tickets/us-pa/erie/

So I couldn't find any Amtrak near Elk Mountain, but I would start short, like a train to Laramie, Cheyenne, working to eventually going to Denver. I personally would love to see a train service to all the national parks, Yellowstone becomes overrun with cars, be a good idea to have train service in and out, not eliminate car riding but many people would opt to take a ride to the parks. Then tour buses. None of this is going to happen in my lifetime anyway Marcy but getting people to where there are jobs is a good goal.

I have taken the train to Erie, PA many times in the winter and we would slow down once we started hitting the Albany area till we hit Rochester then Erie, one time we would stopped for 4 hours while the tracks were cleared. Also the trains up north in NY PA are not high speed, good old diesel as far as I know, I've not done it in years, I would take the train from GCS, or Poughkeepsie, NY or Rhinecliff, NY.. it was more enjoyable and less stressful than driving (as once I was caught in a snow squall of hellish proportion when I was driving my cool Prelude out to my sisters, and my gas tank door froze 3X, hellish drive )

We need to change the mindset, it won't be done in a year 10 or 20, but we should start.

my .02cents. xoxoxox

 

[Tekate]

Baloney, it's on topic and Red, aren't pubs the one's who think people need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps.. canards, flow on both sides, such as 'socialist', 'snowflake' etc so I get what you are implying but I think republicans care little about the poor or they would do something about poverty. To each his own.

This is such a BS liberal talking point with the "Republicans don't care about the poor" crap. It isn't even worth discussing when someone uses it or the racist canard.

 

[redwood66]

Baloney, it's on topic and Red, aren't pubs the one's who think people need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps.. canards, flow on both sides, such as 'socialist', 'snowflake' etc so I get what you are implying but I think republicans care little about the poor or they would do something about poverty. To each his own.

Of course they fly on both sides and my opinion is that it's not worth discussing with someone who uses them.

 

[Tekate]

Agreed, not worth my time either.

Of course they fly on both sides and my opinion is that it's not worth discussing with someone who uses them.

 

[Tekate]

@marcy here's a great video on how snow is removed on train tracks, my father was a railroad man, as was his father etc back in time. I remember the snowplows removing snow on the tracks in tons of snow.

 

[voce]

Baloney, it's on topic and Red, aren't pubs the one's who think people need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps.. canards, flow on both sides, such as 'socialist', 'snowflake' etc so I get what you are implying but I think republicans care little about the poor or they would do something about poverty. To each his own.

I think you are making a pretty extreme statement. I don't count myself a Republican, but I think there is a fine distinction between caring about something, and directly giving money.

For me, opposing broad socialist policies is because I believe in teaching a man to fish vs giving a man a fish. You don't solve the problem of poverty by simply giving free money away. There are other underlying causes of poverty, and giving away money is what I see as a band-aid solution.

I have purchased warm meals for many a homeless on the street. Under no circumstances do I feel comfortable giving them money, because I've heard a lot of people on the streets are there because of drug addiction, and that's what they'd spend cash on. Does this mean I do not care for the homeless, then?

FWIW I do support Warren's plan for Medicare for all, because it taxes only the top 0.1%, which I'm certainly not a part of. Bernie would go into this taxing everybody. Right now I pay $0 for premiums, so anything compared to $0 is infinitely expensive. Warren, however, has promised she will not increase the cost of healthcare for the middle class, which is why I support her.

 

[Garnetgirl]

@marcy here's a great video on how snow is removed on train tracks, my father was a railroad man, as was his father etc back in time. I remember the snowplows removing snow on the tracks in tons of snow.

This brought back memories for me, @Tekate.

My Dad and my uncle both worked for the railroad. I can remember many snowstorms where my father would phone home, saying he was doing an additional shift on the ‘extra snowplow’.

Personally, in winter, I always felt safer travelling to work by train than by car.

 

[Dancing Fire]

FWIW I do support Warren's plan for Medicare for all, because it taxes only the top 0.1%, which I'm certainly not a part of. Bernie would go into this taxing everybody. Right now I pay $0 for premiums, so anything compared to $0 is infinitely expensive. Warren, however, has promised she will not increase the cost of healthcare for the middle class, which is why I support her.

Don't believe her BS, b/c there aren't enough billionaires for her to tax to cover everyone else in the US., And guess who will be next in line to be taxed? Yes, THE MIDDLE CLASS!

 

[Dancing Fire]

I'm surprised republicans don't want poor people to work. shame.

Trump created millions of new jobs unlike Obama who created millions of new welfare recipients under his Presidency.

 

[voce]

Don't believe her BS, b/c there aren't enough billionaires for her to tax to cover everyone else in the US., And guess who will be next in line to be taxed? Yes, THE MIDDLE CLASS!

How do you know it's BS? She has promised not to pass legislation that raises costs for the middle class, so if her plan is a no-go then it'll be the status quo, and I'm totally fine with the status quo for healthcare. My employer is paying 100% of my healthcare premiums.

 

[Dancing Fire]

How do you know it's BS? She has promised not to pass legislation that raises costs for the middle class, so if her plan is a no-go then it'll be the status quo, and I'm totally fine with the status quo for healthcare. My employer is paying 100% of my healthcare premiums.

Simple, b/c Sanders had acknowledge that taxes will go up on the middle class. At least Sanders is being honest about it.

 

[voce]

Simple, b/c Sanders had acknowledge that taxes will go up on the middle class. At least Sanders is being honest about it.

Different plans. What Sanders says does not equate to what Warren will implement. Sanders is honest, but I don't want Sander's plan, I prefer Warren's plan. And TBH healthcare is not an issue I care lots about so long as they don't suck more taxes from me.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Different plans. What Sanders says does not equate to what Warren will implement. Sanders is honest, but I don't want Sander's plan, I prefer Warren's plan. And TBH healthcare is not an issue I care lots about so long as they don't suck more taxes from me.

Don't worry Warren and Sanders will be knocking at your door soon. No such thing as FREEBIES in life. The money will have to come from somewhere.

 

[marcy]

@Garnetgirl and @Tekate - my dad worked for the railroad too. (UPRR) The problem keeping roads and rails open here isn't just snow; it's the wind that blows it right back.

 

[voce]

Wow, DF is really not good at taking a politician's word. All this reinterpretation! I see a big difference between Warren and Sanders. Warren is somebody who gets things done and does understand numbers. It should either be what she promised or nada, no change. (Sanders' attitude: I wanna have this no matter what it costs, and I don't care if the middle class has to pay more. Entitlement.)

Let's not waste any more words @DF; we have different assumptions. My assumption is that Warren sticks to her promise of delivering her plan or signing no new healthcare legislation. Your assumption is that she's a liar. When the assumptions differ, no amount of logic can bridge that gap.

 

[rocks]

As I said certain routes will work like from DC to NYC to Boston? but not replacing I 80 across the country with high speed train.

High speed for the NY to Boston route doesn’t work....too many curves in the tracks....thou I do prefer the train to flying.

 

[the_mother_thing]

It should either be what she promised or nada, no change.
...
My assumption is that Warren sticks to her promise of delivering her plan or signing no new healthcare legislation. Your assumption is that she's a liar.

I wouldn’t trust "Harvard’s first woman of color" as far as I could throw her or her ‘promises’; she IS a liar ... aside from her at-least-three-times falsely-claimed ‘ethnic heritage’, here is yet the latest example in a looooooong line of her ’policy-waffling’ (more of which are beyond-easily google-able): https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/20/politics/warren-super-pac/index.html

But by all means, trust her healthcare pledge ... it would only impact your health/life and your wallet.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Let's not waste any more words @DF; we have different assumptions. My assumption is that Warren sticks to her promise of delivering her plan or signing no new healthcare legislation. Your assumption is that she's a liar. When the assumptions differ, no amount of logic can bridge that gap.

Where is she gonna find the $$$ to bridge that big gap w/o reaching into the middle class's pockets?. 2+2 doesn't = 5

 

[voce]

Where is she gonna find the $$$ to bridge that big gap w/o reaching into the middle class's pockets?. 2+2 doesn't = 5

There is enough money in the billionaires' pocket books. That's why the wealth tax is genius imo. They can manipulate income aka earnings every year, which is why increasing income tax probably won't work on them, but it's harder to manipulate the assets they hold.

 

[redwood66]

It probably won't get far since it is likely unconstitutional. And what happens when it isn't actually enough for all the grand plans?

 

[Dancing Fire]

There is enough money in the billionaires' pocket books. That's why the wealth tax is genius imo.

Really?. She can go empty every billionaire's pocket in the US and still wouldn't come close of covering all them "freebies" that she had promised.

FYI, 1 trillion = 1,000 billion. Jeff Bezos who is the richest man in the world is worth $124 billion. AFAIK there ain't 100 Jeff Bezos on earth for Warren and Sanders to robb.

 

[voce]

Really?. She can go empty every billionaire's pocket in the US and still wouldn't come close of covering all them "freebies" that she had promised.

FYI, 1 trillion = 1,000 billion. Jeff Bezos who is the richest man in the world is worth $124 billion. AFAIK there ain't 100 Jeff Bezos on earth for Warren and Sanders to robb.

You're overlooking the fact that her plan also diverts money corporations pay private health insurance to the Medicare program. The top 1% (3 million people) hold $25 trillion in assets*. Asking for 100 Jeff Bezos is a false equivalency. The thing with Warren's plan is that it's a combination of wealth tax, using funds corporations are already paying for private insurance, and cutting defense spending. I think the MIC is too huge and won't cry if that gets cut.

*Brookings institute

By the way... If you oversimplify anything too much, you'll end up with a lie.

It's your opinion that Warren's plan is not plausible, and mine that it is. I don't think she's going to push it through no matter the cost even if there are developments that change the picture, and that's why she is much preferable to Sanders. This is my opinion and I recognize it as an opinion, not truth. I'd appreciate it if you would leave it at that and stop spouting your skepticism and opinion as though it were an objective fact.

 

[redwood66]

But you're fine with the removal of private insurance of tens of millions who are happy with it because she says she can make it work? No thank you. And that's not spouting skepticism. It is a hard no for me.

Edit - 159 million people with employer based coverage as of 2017.

 

[voce]

I am happy with mine but not so averse to change. That's why I can't call myself a conservative. I admire progressive Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt more so than FDR. I think a single payer system as the UK and Canada have is better for more people. For the good of others, I am willing to put up with a little change, but it would be unfair for the middle class to pay for all of it, as it would be under Bernie. Taxing the middle class to achieve better benefits for the poor is easy to do but will result in more poor, and imo is being unfair to the middle class and wrong in my book. Taxing the wealthy and adjusting the state budget is the harder but the right (more correct) thing to do.

I'm really not in a stage of my life where I care about healthcare much; I care most about climate change, and I want to elect somebody who will do something about that, though preferably not the brusque and heavy-handed way Bernie would surely go about it. A more gradual plan that won't screw people over is in order.

 

[redwood66]

You might be fine with change but I don't trust the government to run such a behemoth program fiscally, securely, or without inevitable fraud that exists in all other programs.

 

[voce]

You have a valid point. The fact that there are successful precedents in Canada and the UK makes me less skeptical that it can work after ironing out issues with management. If only there weren't big problems like climate change, I wouldn't feel the need to change the status quo.

 

[msop04]

I'm really not in a stage of my life where I care about healthcare much; I care most about climate change, and I want to elect somebody who will do something about that, though preferably not the brusque and heavy-handed way Bernie would surely go about it. A more gradual plan that won't screw people over is in order.

Right now I pay $0 for premiums, so anything compared to $0 is infinitely expensive.

That's amazing that your employer pays for your premiums... but the vast majority have employers who do not pay that much - not even close.

I work for a HEALTHCARE CORPORATION that is pretty dang large (Forbes featured our president in a lengthy article). My company offers healthcare benefits, and they pay $0 of it... my premiums were over $14K last year -- that's only what I paid in premiums, not what I had to pay out of pocket for copays, deductibles, etc. We now have basically catastrophic coverage for my family, because it is more affordable pay out of pocket for our medical care than it would be to pay for the premiums + deductible + copays of another "better" plan. In the event something terrible happens, we're covered. Hopefully, that will not happen. I'm willing to take that chance.

You may not hold the same job for the rest of your life, and even if you do, they may not always pay for 100% of your premiums forever (or at all, for that matter). Since you say that anything over $0 for you would be "infinitely expensive", I would think healthcare would be a major concern for you.

Just something to think about.

 

[voce]

You may not hold the same job for the rest of your life, and even if you do, they may not always pay for 100% of your premiums forever (or at all, for that matter). Since you say that anything over $0 for you would be "infinitely expensive", I would think healthcare would be a major concern for you.

Just something to think about.

"Infinitely expensive" came about because I was thinking about % increases and I realized that dividing anything by 0 gives you infinity. Honestly, if I weren't working for my current employer, I'd be moving to Canada to let my fiance be close to his family. There I'd still be premium free. You make me realize I have little "skin in the game" on this issue. However, based on my understanding of market economics, I expect the cost of healthcare to go down if we do away with the insurance system. In my opinion, one of the reasons the ACA didn't work in terms of cost-effectiveness is that it allowed a 15% profit margin to be built in for insurance companies. Now, I don't know if that is more compared to what they were earning before, but a guaranteed profit of 15% on all healthcare expenses, nets you a lot of $$$ in the end.

 

[Tekate]

I'm sure, my Dad was a conductor my my grandfather was an engineer and my uncle a fireman, I know about blowback, my grandfather complained all the time we lived upstate NY but not as far as even Albany but when I was a kid that area got so much snow too, one time my Dad tunneled us out! of course that was when I was little, and one time there was so much snow our cellar flooded and my mom was screaming at me Dad he was going to be electrocuted, ha! good old days, but rarely did the trains ever stop dead because of snow.. As electric trains become more common in the 60s and 70s more and more people moved up to my little town, it became an easy commute to the city and White Plains, the train encouraged more growth which was a good thing in my mind, but my parents hated it, hated the NYC peeps, I loved the whole thing.

@Garnetgirl and @Tekate - my dad worked for the railroad too. (UPRR) The problem keeping roads and rails open here isn't just snow; it's the wind that blows it right back.

 

[msop04]

"Infinitely expensive" came about because I was thinking about % increases and I realized that dividing anything by 0 gives you infinity. Honestly, if I weren't working for my current employer, I'd be moving to Canada to let my fiance be close to his family. There I'd still be premium free. You make me realize I have little "skin in the game" on this issue. However, based on my understanding of market economics, I expect the cost of healthcare to go down if we do away with the insurance system. In my opinion, one of the reasons the ACA didn't work in terms of cost-effectiveness is that it allowed a 15% profit margin to be built in for insurance companies. Now, I don't know if that is more compared to what they were earning before, but a guaranteed profit of 15% on all healthcare expenses, nets you a lot of $$$ in the end.

You are so very lucky that your employer pays your premiums. That's certainly a rarity these days.

That said, I don't agree with getting rid of private insurance - competition is good if you ever hope for prices to come down. No system is perfect, but when the government is involved in anything, you can bet that it will be less efficient and more expensive than necessary.