HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » factfinder_77 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 44 Next »

factfinder_77

Profile Information

Member since: Tue Apr 5, 2016, 04:54 PM
Number of posts: 841

Journal Archives

Fact: Sanders has been in the Senate nine years and has sponsored only one bill that pass.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/11/two-gop-senators-have-new-plan-to-repeal-obamacare-as-clock-ticks.html

https://twitter.com/zatchry/status/909087004536840193

Here’s what the numbers say: During her eight years in the Senate, Hillary Clinton sponsored 10 bills that passed the chamber. The mean senator passes 1.4 bills a year, so Clinton’s 1.25 bills per year is approximately in line with the chamber average. By contrast, Bernie Sanders has been in the Senate nine years and has sponsored only one bill that pass

Of course, Sanders is not formally a member of the Democratic Party even though he caucuses with the Democrats in Congress. This may have created some tension with the Democratic leadership and cost him opportunities to pass bills.

Another way members of Congress can influence legislative outcomes is to amend a bill someone else has sponsored, particularly in the Senate. The rules in the Senate allow for much more and freer amending activity than in the House, so senators introduce (and pass) many more amendments than House members do.

Clinton successfully amended bills 67 times in her eight years in the Senate. Sanders did so 57 times in nine years. On a year-by-year basis, that comes to 8.4 per year for Clinton and 6.3 per year for Sanders. Moreover, the mean senator passed 7.4 amendments. Clinton’s is significantly higher than the mean, and Sanders’s is significantly below the mean. Put differently, Clinton passed 33 percent more amendments per year than did Sanders.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/07/hillary-clinton-was-a-more-effective-lawmaker-than-bernie-sanders/?utm_term=.790f92bd5453

Edit my post to point out the following:

why is this op important...because Sanders singel payer bill has no specifics on how to pay for it. whose taxes go up? by how much?

And now GOP sees fresh opening with Dems' single payer embrace...

Just as I wrote in my op

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029590993

To quote:

"the GOP can frame the funding structure however they want, they can fill the void with their narratives. Already we’re seeing reports on how it would raise taxes by trillions each year. And now all of our presidential candidates are tied to that framework, on a bill that hasn’t even been properly written yet. All for what? Even if somehow this all succeeds and we get to the stage where the bill must be finalized (with actual specifics), it’ll just fall apart. It’s the same problem the right had by getting commitments to vague notions of repeal with no specifics, you’ll never know that you have the votes on anything specific when it comes down to actually legislating.

At worst this severely harms our chances in 2020.

At best we win in 2020 but then spend all our capitol trying to get this done only to fall apart when we realize no one actually agreed on how to fund universal health care.

We had a policy wonk and the left flipped their shit. Now we've become the Bernie party, the party of vague ideas but no idea on how to legislate. We now have two stupid parties in american politics.

According to Bernie (in the WaPo) Americans dont mind paying more taxes....
All the repubs hsve to do in 2018 and 2020 to win= connect the Dem party to Bernie and then show people how much their taxes would go up.
Bernie just handed trump his victory in 2020. "


http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/350935-gop-sees-fresh-opening-with-dems-single-payer-embrace

"We’re absolutely ecstatic that the Democratic party is embracing single payer, and I think there’s a stark contrast developing at a time when the Republican party is focusing on cutting taxes, the Democratic party is focused on adding trillions of dollars of spending and advocating for socialized medicine,” said Corry Bliss, executive director of the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), the House GOP-approved super PAC.

The CLF, which plans on spending $100 million during the 2018 election cycle to protect Republican seats in the House, plans to spend a portion of that on ads tying Democrats to single payer. That’s twice as much as they spent in 2016. “We have $50 million dedicated to attacking Nancy Pelosi. We’re just working through what portion of that can we use to explaining how harmful single payer will be to the American people,” Bliss said.

With special guest @HillaryClinton, @maddow was the most-watched non-sports program on cable

https://twitter.com/TVMoJoe/status/908788692122087425
Posted by factfinder_77 | Sat Sep 16, 2017, 04:17 AM (7 replies)

Single-payer health care failed miserably in Colorado. 79 % voted NO. Heres why. Mandatory reading

On the day the state of Colorado voted for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump by about 5 points, voters there also rejected a ballot measure to enact a state-based single-payer system by an astounding margin of 79 percent to 21 percent.

Amendment 69, the Colorado Creation of ColoradoCare System Initiative, would have created a system in which all Coloradans would gain insurance through a tax-funded government insurance program. Private health insurers would have been rendered obsolete.

The Colorado initiative bears a resemblance to the Medicare-for-all legislation released by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) this week and endorsed by leading Democrats like Sens. Kamala Harris (D-CA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and to HR 676, Rep. John Conyers’s (D-MI) single-payer proposal which has the support of a large majority of House Democrats.

Colorado’s initiative, in other words, matched the 2017 health care platform of the Democratic Party. And it failed — really, really, really badly.

“The proposal came too soon and too fast for where voters were,” Joel Dyar, who worked as state field director for the ColoradoCare Yes campaign, says.

Some of that failure is attributable to the unique challenges of adopting single-payer through a ballot initiative, and at the state level. Because Colorado’s constitution bans public funding for abortions, ColoradoCare would’ve taken away access to abortion from the hundreds of thousands of women currently in private health plans that cover the procedure. That earned the amendment the opposition of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado and Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, two leading progressive groups in the state. “They didn’t check in advance to see if this was a problem,” Karen Middleton, the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, recalls. “By the time anyone had seen the language, it was already locked in.”

And because the proposal had to be set in stone in order to appear on the ballot, advocates didn’t have time to negotiate with key stakeholders on details of the plan, meaning few stakeholders bought in. Many progressive think tanks like the Colorado Fiscal Institute and the Bell Policy Center, unions like the United Food and Commercial Workers, and advocacy groups like ProgressNow Colorado wound up opposing the plan. “A poorly thought-through initiative like Amendment 69 does violence to the future of single-payer in Colorado,” Ian Silverii, ProgressNow Colorado’s executive director, says.

But other obstacles will be just as present in a federal fight. Entrenched interest groups, particularly insurers, spent millions opposing the measure. Moderate Democrats like Gov. John Hickenlooper, Sen. Michael Bennet, and former Gov. Bill Ritter came out against it. And ultimately, Colorado voters were just not persuaded

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/14/16296132/colorado-single-payer-ballot-initiative-failure
Posted by factfinder_77 | Fri Sep 15, 2017, 05:31 PM (24 replies)

Special election in Florida - September 26, Democratic nominee for State Senate Annett needs help

The district in play leans slightly Democratic but her Republican opponent has much more money.

https://www.annettetaddeo.com/
Posted by factfinder_77 | Thu Sep 14, 2017, 09:33 PM (0 replies)

Trump vows to veto Sanders' single-payer healthcare plan: 'A curse on the U.S. and its people'

Source: yahoo

President Trump to Republican senators: I told you so.

The commander in chief lamented on Thursday afternoon that the Republicans have been unable to follow through on their campaign promises of repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. In a series of tweets, he suggested this failure gave Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders an opening to advance his plan for a single-payer health care system, also known as Medicare for All, which Trump denounced as “a curse” on the United States and the American people.

But Trump assured fellow Republicans that he would save the country from this fate by vetoing any single-payer health care legislation that comes across his desk.

This is far from the first time Trump has chided Republicans in Congress for coming up short in their efforts toward health care reform or attacked Sanders for his Democratic Socialist ideals and proposals.

Earlier Thursday, aboard Air Force One from Fort Myers, Fla., to Washington, D.C., Trump criticized Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., for the healthcare defeat. In late July, McCain effectively killed the GOP replacement plan, known as the Health Care Freedom Act, by joining two other Republicans (Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska) who opposed the plan — ending in a 49-51 vote.

“It was a very unpleasant surprise,” Trump told reporters. “Now we have people talking about single-payer. So Republicans have to stick together better. We had the votes. John McCain changed his mind, pure and simple. If the Republicans don’t stick together then I’m going to have to do more and more.

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-vows-veto-sanders-single-payer-healthcare-plan-curse-u-s-people-201114469.html
Posted by factfinder_77 | Thu Sep 14, 2017, 04:25 PM (3 replies)

Clinton Says McConnell Suppressed Russian Hacking

New Yorker: “When the C.I.A. first told Obama, in August, that the Russians had been meddling in the Presidential race, the agency shared the information with the Gang of Eight—the congressional leadership and the chairs and the ranking members of the intelligence committees. The Administration asked for a bipartisan statement of warning. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, adamantly refused, muffling for weeks any sense of national alarm.”

Said Clinton: “McConnell, in what I think of as a not only unpatriotic but despicable act of partisan politics, made it clear that if the Obama Administration spoke publicly about what they knew, he would accuse them of partisan politics, of trying to tip the balance toward me… McConnell basically threatened the White House.”

https://politicalwire.com/2017/09/14/clinton-says-mcconnell-suppressed-russian-hacking/
Posted by factfinder_77 | Thu Sep 14, 2017, 03:40 PM (43 replies)

Just a reminder: 13 Democratic senators voted no on prescription drug price legislation

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/01/a-senate-vote-on-prescription-drug-price/


the divide within the Democratic party is even more striking: Yes-voting Democrats received an average of $68,855, while those who voted no received an average of more than $186,000 each. Results were much the same for Republicans: Yes-voters received an average of about $66,000 while no-voters more than doubled that sum with average receipts of nearly $133,000.

The 13 Democratic senators who voted no — of the 47 Democrats and Independents who voted on the amendment — collectively received 50.8 percent of the money that the industry gave to current Democratic senators since 2009.

Booker netted $276,165, but there were three Democratic naysayers who received even more: fellow New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez (about $284,000), Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey (about $291,000) and Washington Sen. Patty Murray (about $363,000). From 2011-2016, between PACs and individual donors, Murray received more than $40,500 from Amgen Inc., a pharmaceutical company that contributed over $2 million to candidates and parties in the 2016 cycle.

On the other hand, Washington’s other senator, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D) received a total of only $31,050 from PACs and individuals in the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry from 2009-2016, but she voted against the amendment. For her, at least, it appears there was more at play in the vote than money.

Meredith McGehee, chief of policy, programs and strategy at Issue One, warned about the dangers of assuming that a dollar given is a vote bought. “What we know for sure is that it is a dollar given and access bought,” she said. “It gets you in the door, and it gets your argument heard. Any lobbyist worth their salt believes that if they can get their foot in the door, they can make a persuasive argument for their issue.”
Posted by factfinder_77 | Wed Sep 13, 2017, 08:01 PM (4 replies)

Im all for single payer if you can write a bill that makes sense, but this bill is an embarrassment

Oh jesus fucking christ bernie. I take back my praise of Booker, Warren, Harris et al who endorsed this new medicare for all "bill". Bernie just released the specifics and it's incredibly disappointing.

I’m all for single payer if you can write a bill that makes sense, but this bill is an embarrassment. It doesn't list a funding mechanism.

No specifics on how to pay for it. Whose taxes go up? By how much? This is the same fatal flaw that killed California’s bill. The same problem that killed Vermont’s system. Not even going to address it? After we spent months criticizing republicans for supporting phantom bills with no specifics in their repeal efforts? I thought we were better than this.

It’s legislative malpractice, and it’s political malpractice. Now the GOP can frame the funding structure however they want, they can fill the void with their narratives. Already we’re seeing reports on how it would raise taxes by trillions each year. And now all of our presidential candidates are tied to that framework, on a bill that hasn’t even been properly written yet. All for what? Even if somehow this all succeeds and we get to the stage where the bill must be finalized (with actual specifics), it’ll just fall apart. It’s the same problem the right had by getting commitments to vague notions of repeal with no specifics, you’ll never know that you have the votes on anything specific when it comes down to actually legislating.

At worst this severely harms our chances in 2020.

At best we win in 2020 but then spend all our capitol trying to get this done only to fall apart when we realize no one actually agreed on how to fund universal health care.

We had a policy wonk and the left flipped their shit. Now we've become the Bernie party, the party of vague ideas but no idea on how to legislate. We now have two stupid parties in american politics.

According to Bernie (in the WaPo) Americans dont mind paying more taxes....
All the repubs hsve to do in 2018 and 2020 to win= connect the Dem party to Bernie and then show people how much their taxes would go up.
Bernie just handed trump his victory in 2020.

Hillary Clinton's first full interview since the Election on CBS Sunday Morning

Posted by factfinder_77 | Tue Sep 12, 2017, 06:03 PM (0 replies)

The line to buy Hillary Clinton's book this morning stretched around an entire New York City block,

https://twitter.com/loisbeckett/status/907569794106499073

https://twitter.com/peterhaskell880/status/907642326314602501
Posted by factfinder_77 | Tue Sep 12, 2017, 05:35 PM (43 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 44 Next »