Bernie Sanders is a Centerist

quote:

---

Is this information not correct:

​

quote:
The top 1 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted annual gross income of $480,930 or higher, pay about 39 percent of federal income taxes.
The top 10 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income over $138,031, pay about 70.6 percent of federal income taxes.

​

The bottom 50 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income of $39,275 or less, pay 2.83 percent of federal income taxes.
sauce

---

That has to be incorrect.Tax cuts for lower income people (at both the federal and state level) tend to be very expensive.The federal income tax revenue is somewhere between $1.5 and $2 trillion per year, and that would mean the bottom 50% pay no more than $50 billion a year nationally.The cost for doubling the standard deduction from $6000 to $12000 would be $70 billion a year.Big 6 Tax Framework Could Cost $2.2 Trillion | Committee for a Responsible Federal BudgetI just don't accept the percentages.Also.The top 1% got their Bush Tax Cuts repealed (the cut from 39.6% down to 35%) and it was only about $660 billion taken off from the $4.8 trillion cost over 10 years from 2014-2023.The biggest problem is that INCOME tax increases on just the wealthy don't amount to very much in terms of revenue.EDIT: Even if the total 39.6 is the actual percentage paid by the wealthy (and we know that it is far lower but lets ignore that fact) then (40 divided by 5 would = 8) 8 times $70 billion (the yearly cost of the 4.6%) would be $560 billion. That would be less than 39% right there.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I don't have much of an opinion on it, but a 70% tax rate is ridiculous.

---

The income federal tax rate (which only covers about $1.5 trillion in $3.5 trillion federal budget, and even smaller percentage when state and local tax rates bring total USA budgets to around $5 trillion per year) for the top 1% is 27% roughly.The bottom 50% pay about 3.45% it seems. Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2016 Update | Tax Foundation But it does not count all taxes (especially as state and local tax rates are much flatter, plus lots of regressive taxes like sales tax rates).Payroll taxes take in almost as much as the federal income tax, so that makes the federal rates closer than the income tax alone would indicate.Even in New York, the average rate would be around 40% for the top 1% when all taxes are counted. New York City plus New York state have the highest combined income tax for the top 1%.

quote:

---

Actions have consequences. Maybe the socialists can begin forbidding people to leave their countries due to their policies? A new iron curtain, perhaps?

---

Don't confuse the "race to the bottom" effects with the actual economic climate taxes would have if we all had to pay the same rate depending on whatever state we lived in (for example: a world government with a uniform world tax rate).Right now, the game is rigged.In favor of lower income taxes.Montana, Oregon, Delaware, and New Hampshire have a zero percent sales tax.But businesses can't benefit from setting up shop in those states (which have higher income taxes than your average state - MINUS New Hampshire, which lacks that tax too) because the federal government won't allow the businesses to benefit from the zero percent sales tax rate when online buyers send money to a business in those states. It requires the state a person lives in to dictate the sales tax (which the state gets).There would be a race to the bottom in sales tax rates if the game wasn't rigged in favor of a race to the bottom in income taxes.And California is attracting higher income people way over Texas.Other issue.I wanted to talk more about the (no co-pay!) single payer issue too. Interesting issue as California could very well see just 12% of its Gross State Product go toward healthcare spending, if a measure with price controls was implemented.A cost control type of plan was detailed in the June 21 L.A. Times and the total cost would be about $331 billion a year max.About 12% or 13% of the gross state product.The rate in Texas is more like 17% or 18%.I lost my L A Times issue that detailed it though.

California is moving higher and higher in income.With high taxes.

quote:

---

Per capita income was $38,956 as of 2006, ranking 11th in the nation, but varies widely by geographic region and profession.[35] By 2016, per capita income had increased to $56,374, ranking 6th in the nation
....
California in 2010, when measured as a percentage of GDP, had the 4th highest tax burden of all the fifty states at 13.4% of the state GDP.[45]

​

The maximum 13.3% state personal income tax rate is the highest in the nation, but only applies to incomes over $1 million

​

....
The 8.4 percent "average" sales tax assessed by the state and local governments of California is one of the highest in the nation and varies by city and county from a low of 7.5% to 10.0%

​

....
Economy of California - Wikipedia

---

Look at the Gross state product.GDP
$2.603 trillion (2016)Very high.Health Care spending will be $370 billion in 2017About 14% of California GDP.Not 18% as this article states.CA Bill Proposes Free Health Care for All, but Has No Funding Plan – PJ Media

quote:

---

CA Bill Proposes Free Health Care for All, but Has No Funding Plan

​

By Charlie Martin April 3, 2017

​

chat 151 comments

​

Nearly every human culture has a folk tale -- or more than one -- about an unending source of wealth. Sometimes it's spinning straw into gold; sometimes it's a goose that lays golden eggs or that gives golden feathers; sometimes it's a magic hand-mill that will grind out your heart's desire; sometimes it's a magic purse that's always full no matter how much you spend.

​

I starting thinking about these stories the other day when I read about the single-payer plan being proposed by state Senators Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) and Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) for California. It sounds wonderful:

​

Under the proposal, which was announced in February, the state would cover all medical expenses for every resident regardless of their income or immigration status, including inpatient, outpatient, emergency services, dental, vision, mental health and nursing home care.

​

Insurers would be prohibited from offering benefits that cover the same services as the state.

​

The program would eliminate co-pays and deductibles, and patients would not need to get referrals to see eligible providers. The system would be administered by an unpaid nine-person board appointed by the governor and the Legislature.

​

CA Bill Proposes Free Health Care for All, but Has No Funding Plan

​

By Charlie Martin April 3, 2017

​

chat 151 comments

​

Nearly every human culture has a folk tale -- or more than one -- about an unending source of wealth. Sometimes it's spinning straw into gold; sometimes it's a goose that lays golden eggs or that gives golden feathers; sometimes it's a magic hand-mill that will grind out your heart's desire; sometimes it's a magic purse that's always full no matter how much you spend.

​

I starting thinking about these stories the other day when I read about the single-payer plan being proposed by state Senators Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) and Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) for California. It sounds wonderful:

​

Under the proposal, which was announced in February, the state would cover all medical expenses for every resident regardless of their income or immigration status, including inpatient, outpatient, emergency services, dental, vision, mental health and nursing home care.

​

Insurers would be prohibited from offering benefits that cover the same services as the state.

​

The program would eliminate co-pays and deductibles, and patients would not need to get referrals to see eligible providers. The system would be administered by an unpaid nine-person board appointed by the governor and the Legislature.

​

The authors say they intend to pay for the program through "broad-based revenue," but details of a funding proposal have not been hashed out.

​

I bet.

​

Political conservatives saw problems. California Gov. Jerry Brown immediately objected:

​

"Where do you get the extra money? This is the whole question," Brown said in an interview after wrapping up a day's worth of events and meetings in Washington.

​

Gov. Brown expanded on his comments later:

​

But in the wide-ranging discussion with reporters later, he dismissed any notion that it might soon be time to look for a different way to fund healthcare in California -- including the idea of a single-payer, universal system.

​

"I don't even get it," said the governor. "How do you do that?"

​

He pointed out that the overall cost of medical care in California is equal to 18% of the state's gross domestic product, which would be about $450 billion.

​

"You take a problem and say I'm going to solve it by something that's even a bigger problem, which makes no sense," he said.

​

This, of course, is the usual greedy corporate conservative talking point: that things have to be paid for somehow, and from where will the money come? ... Wait, you say Brown is a liberal Democrat? Why, that's odd.

​

Of course, the answer is "broad-based revenue," which is to say they want to tax something. Anything. As Brown points out, to actually pay for all health care would mean taxing one-fifth of California's GDP for health care alone.

​

Every culture has its Magic Purse, a folk tale of wealth without work, and in every one of those folk tales, when you try to take too much, you end up losing everything. The Magic Purse in our folklore is called "the government," and California is trying hard to prove that Magic Purses really are just fairy tales.

---

14%Not 18%Facts matter.Lots of other bad numbers from critics of single payer are repeated endlessly.But, I will be that this policy (if implemented) proves your economic theories wrong.

quote:

---

If the "rich" leave the taxes they pay will have to be paid by middle and lower income folks. Don't forget that the rich pay a huge percentage of the income taxes.
I'd think that folks would treat them as a resource to be protected and nurtured rather than as enemies.

---

But, what if everybody were made richer?It would bring in more income tax revenue, right?Can't that be part of the debate instead of simply assuming that everybody is out to rip rich people off?I look at it like this:Imagine if every person had a nurturing environment that rich kids benefit from.
Then imagine what kind of grown ups we would have today.
Then ask ourselves if all kids are natural born parasites.
Then ask ourselves if the debate over government policies misses the point when we assume that individuals are parasites while they struggle to learn, survives, and thrive.But, back to real world policy.Would health care policy count as an investment (which pays returns?) or just a luscious give away for the poor?What (government) costs are justified?Would a massive "free stuff" plan be as bad if the costs were lower than a certain amount?Would every Californian being automatically covered (with no paperwork or difficult signing up requirements) metabolically "free the mind" (so to speak) and souls of Californians to concentrate on their careers and work as opposed to obsessing over getting a cancer or infection taken care of (and going through the endless maze of coverage rules, which often require reducing income and quitting jobs)?What about plain human rights.Look at this.Semi private single rooms at nursing homes cost about $100,000 a year now.Semi private rooms with a roommate at a nursing room cost about $90,000 a year.Assisted living rooms cost $48,000 roughly a year.Medicaid will cover the costs if assets are low enough.The elderly (in the later years) are a major source of burdensome government expenses (especially as Medicaid is concerned), but would we be better off without the expenditure?I think society (as well as the families) is better off, but the cost to benefit ratio to the economy is not going to cause a particularly justifiable expense to taxpayers (unless the argument can be maid that the hurt the loved ones suffer from will drag down economic output).I think we need to see health care as a human right.Medicaid doesn't cover mouth infections in most states (it is "dental" until the infection spreads to - for example - the brain, and a Maryland male on Medicaid couldn't afford to pay out-of-pocket for his gum infection SO HE DIED FROM A BRAIN INFECTION)What about human rights?Here is google links on the California "free stuff" debate.california health care free stuff no co-pays - Google SearchThen health care spending by state.health care spending costs by state - Google SearchCalifornia's budget is in deficit because lower income people aren't paying quite enough it seems.california state budget revenue - Google Searchtwo articles critical of California health care.California’s single-payer plan costs $400 billion twice the state’s entire budget - VoxCalifornia’s single-payer plan costs $400 billion twice the state’s entire budget
The state’s ambitious bid to establish a single-payer health care system has a hefty price tag.thenCalifornia's Single-Payer Health Care Plan Would Cost More Than the State's Whole BudgetCalifornia’s Single-Payer Health Care Plan Would Cost More Than the State’s Whole BudgetLike in Colorado, New York, and Vermont, California is learning that a single-payer plan would be prohibitively expensive.Eric Boehm|May. 23, 2017 2:45 pmI still think we should look at net economic benefits of a policy.And not accuse people of being parasites for just wanting to survive the thousands of things that break down and kill the body.

Coyote said:

quote:

---

I agree that letting everyone become richer would be a good thing-- maybe lowering taxes for everyone and removing some of the disincentives to earning more would help.
But if Calif. enacts free healthcare for everyone, how many of the nation's critically ill would move there?

​

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

---

Medicaid is already 100% free (though New York has a Medicaid program that allows certain people - with higher incomes than beneficiaries typically have - to pay 50% of the cost with the program covering the other 50% PLUS Iowa and others require a 20% co-payment for ObamaCare expansion beneficiaries), but how to qualify?Here is how to qualify for free nursing home funding.

quote:

---

Study: Long-term care costs continue to rise

​

From staff and wire reports
May 10, 2016

​

Long-term care grew more expensive again this year, with the cost of the priciest option, a private nursing home room, edging closer to $100,000 annually, according to a survey from Genworth Financial.

​

Americans also are paying more for other care options like home health aides and assisted living communities, while adult day care costs fell slightly compared to 2015, Genworth reported in a study released Tuesday.

​

Private nursing home rooms now come with a median annual bill of $92,378, an increase of 1.2 percent from last year and up nearly 19 percent since 2011. That breaks down to a monthly bill of $7,698.

​

Genworth Financial Inc. sells long-term care coverage and didn't address that cost in its study, which was based on information from 15,000 long-term care providers.

​

Coverage costs also are rising, and many people don't understand these expenses until they face them, said Joe Caldwell of the National Council on Aging, which is not connected with the study.

​

"It's really becoming more and more difficult for the average family ... to even purchase long-term care insurance," said Caldwell, the nonprofit's director of long-term services and support policy.

​

Medicare doesn't cover long-term stays, so a large swath of people who need that coverage wind up spending down their assets until they qualify for the government's health insurance program for the poor, Medicaid.

​

There are no cheap options for those without long-term coverage. Semi-private nursing home rooms cost $82,125 annually, a bill that has climbed nearly 17 percent over the past five years, according to Genworth.

​

Genworth found that the median annual cost for assisted living communities adds up to $43,539 this year. In-home health aides, who help patients with non-medical tasks like bathing or dressing, cost $46,332 annually, or $3,861 a month.

​

http://journalstar.com/...5-fb4b-5bc2-9ce1-5b548d92c115.html

---

RAZD talked about how Wallmart actually slows the economic growth of the nation by holding down wages so Medicaid can be avaliable for its employees.Remember that this company has 1.5 million plus employees - about 1% of the workforce.Here is RAZD in his own words:

quote:

---

The solution to the WalMart problem is to stop spending your money at WalMart, not using the federal government to force your will upon them.

​

Curiously I haven't shopped at Walmart in decades, but they are still using my tax dollars to subsidize their profits by getting/teaching/encouraging their workers to file for medicaid, food stamps and housing assistance, so no, your plan does not work.

​

RI passed a minimum wage bill that is in the process of raising it to $15/hr over the next couple years. Walmart left the state. Good riddance. Where they were we now have a new company paying better wages. Imagine that, my plan works.

​

Nobody is stopping you. Go start your company and get to work.
Again, having my own company has had negligible effect on large corporations getting handouts from the government and paying next to no taxes due to loop holes and off-shore accounts.

​

Again, your plan is not working.

​

Got anything that actually works?

---

Back to Coyote again.The critically ill don't need to move to California.The issue in California isn't about helping the "freeloaders".It is about freeing the economy for growth.No need to SPEND DOWN assets to qualify for Medicaid.No need to HOLD DOWN wages (growth!) to qualify for ObamaCare subsidies and/or Medicaid.The government of California (and with the Federal government which pays a lot of this 65%) already spends about 65% of its 13.5%-14% GDP percentage for healthcare.NOW.About 9% of the California GDP is already paid for by the government for healthcare.The single payer plan (if it involves certain cost control measures) will run from 12.3% to 12.7% of the California GDP to operate.The other 3.5% or so will need to be covered by taxes.But that is the static analysis.The situation will be dynamic.Understanding the dynamics of the economic situation, imagine the economic growth that will come when WORKING PEOPLE come to the state (to contribute!) for the healthcare system (among other reasons).That is just the in migration issue.Don't forget the further "dynamic scoring" factors to consider, and I'm referring to the benefits of cheaper healthcare leaving lots of additional money in Californian's overall pockets.Look at all the leftover money the citizens of California will have to spend on all sorts of economically boosting products, services, events, traveling, etc.This is pro growth all around.Economic dynamite.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

This was the problem with the ACA markets. They were burdened with a disproportionate number of sick people. The same could happen to California if they don't use rules for acquiring residency, or something of the sort.

---

The ACA wanted younger people to pay insurance companies premiums, and many choose not to.I don't think it was an issue of very sick people buying insurance. (there was a preexisting condition coverage issue, but that does not seem like the same thing you are saying)California could have a 9.1% payroll tax (or 4.5% by an employee and 4.5% ,matched by the employer) and the remaining 4% of GDP(not 3.5% as I said earlier) to pay for the (amount presently unfunded by existing federal and state money used for California health care) collective pooling would be funded.I don't want the income tax to be the main funding driver however. Whatever is settled on should be flat and across the board (not just on the rich because the upper 1% or 2% won't be able to be taxed alone without hurtful economic consequences). Everybody should pay the same income tax rate that is settled on. I would try to keep the income tax increase no higher than 4%, and spread out the other $53 billion across all the other taxes (property, sales, snack, gas, tobacco alcohol, hotel, etc.).

quote:

---

The very sick are usually not employed or retired, and they make up a large percentage of overall healthcare costs in any system. Something like 85% of your lifetime healthcare costs occur in your last 5 years of life.

---

California won't need to have rules much different than current Medicaid programs have. Or any different at all.Why would those types of people get any benefit moving to California?Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Before the ACA, the uninsured were made up of a lot of people who were denied insurance and couldn't get it through their job. Once those markets were opened they were catering to a demographic that was disproportionately old and sick. It was very much about very sick people entering the insurance market, as well as people in rural markets where there was no competition between hospitals and therefore higher prices.

​

Regardless, if you have a single payer system then you are going to attract people who are too sick to work and kids with chronic conditions. People are going to be faced with tens of thousands in medical bills in Iowa or moving to California and paying a tiny, tiny percentage of what they are currently paying. It's a no brainer. You could even have situations where the mother moves with a sick child to California while the father stays in Iowa and keeps working.

---

California has a bit more than 12.0% of the nations population.Outside of California, fully 20% are on Medicaid already.My numbers and logic are about to get very rough, but bear with me.That leaves 68% who might possibly have something to gain by moving to California. (I suppose it depends on what kind of benefits the Medicaid program has in the home state the beneficiaries live in)But, can't they get the most generous Medicaid benefits in New York? (Is California not matched in benefits in other places too?)Do they really have to go to California?But away from single payer programs, and lets get to the ACA.A lot of people already had insurance before the ACA. The majority of the (net) 10-12 million or so of people covered nationwide by the ACA changes are Medicaid enrollees. Not too much has changed in the insurance marketplace (net) enrollee numbers.On a net level, insurance companies are making profits. The fact that profits are spread over many different companies nationwide means that no individual company is reaping the entire reward of all the net profits. Too many hands in the cookie jar, but it is the insurance profiteers that are the ones that we need to catch red handed (not the consumers).Speaking of the net situation, I doubt that the overall "cost" to California will be very negative when you consider all the forces that draw outsiders into the state. Heck Medicaid keeps adding enrollees, but the federal cost isn't projected to reach 3.0% of GDP by even so distant a date as 2050 (it will go from 1.8% today to 2.7% by 2047). 75 million today. Over 85 million around 2025.I just don't consider the macro-economics harmful. Medicaid only is "harmful" because it strongly encourages a "spend down" of assets (the ACA might have changed that, but I'm not sure) and a move away from working most full time jobs(or from working at all). Families get punished for marriage too.Universal Single Payer (especially "free stuff" for ALL - rich or poor) solves that problem.Health consumers benefit and just have a lot to offer an economy hungry for growth.

NoNukes said:

quote:

---

"Indeed, only 28% of exchange members in 2014 were in the coveted 18-34 age range, and that percentage stayed level for 2016. It's below the 40% level many actuaries say is needed to create a more stable rate environment. The insurance industry has a name for that condition, which Obamacare was designed to fight. It's called adverse selection. And so far, the ACA's medicine isn't working."
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/...160514/MAGAZINE/305149980

​

So it appears that young healthy people are not entering the markets while the older and sick are. That is a problem, one not faced by employer based insurance where all employees are enrolled.

---

Here is text from your article.

quote:

---

Before 2014, health insurers could charge enrollees more based on their medical history. They could even deny coverage if someone had a pre-existing health condition. Preventing discrimination based on health status has been one of the law's most popular provisions and is favored by most Americans.

​

However, taking all enrollees requires younger, healthier and wealthier people to pay the healthcare costs of older and sicker patients. It's a core requirement if the country's fragmented health insurance marketplacewhere every employer forms a group no matter what the demographics of its workers, and every individual or family without coverage is thrown into the same poolis going to work.

​

Adverse selection reared its ugly head from the start. The colossal technological failures of the federal HealthCare.gov site and some state ACA exchanges during the initial open enrollment resulted in only 106,000 people selecting a plan in the first month.

​

Who do you think was willing to wait three to five hours or try three or four days to get on? They were probably the people who needed medical care the most, Roy Goldman, a former chief actuary at Humana, said of the botched rollout. Approximately 6.3 million Americans had signed up and fully paid their ACA premiums by the end of 2014.

​

What, me buy insurance? | Modern Healthcare

---

Here is something to consider.(article is titled, Democrats Have Given Up on Private Health Care Markets and for Good Reason by Jon Walker, October 8 2017, 9:50 a.m.)

quote:

---

This is critical because the only way to create a universal health care system without automatically enrolling people in public insurance is to aggressively force individuals to buy or maintain private insurance. This requires a society that sees maintaining coverage as a true social duty and a country willing to heavily enforce an individual mandate with big fines. The Swiss system earned its broad public legitimacy when voters approved it in a national referendum. In Switzerland, lying about having coverage can result in prison time.

​

The Republicans’ years of attacking the individual mandate makes turning it into a broadly accepted social duty difficult. And, with 66 percent of the public opposed to our weak individual mandate, it would likely take a bruising political fight for Democrats to push for a dramatically stronger individual mandate that could result in prison time. Even if Democrats did, it would be easy for a Republican president to undermine it administratively like Trump is doing now to the current mandate.

​

On the other hand, the expansions of public programs like Medicaid have gone very well, at least in states where Republicans haven’t prevented it. These programs are significantly cheaper, easier to implement, and more popular. The public strongly supports the ACA’s Medicaid expansion: 84 percent believe it is important to continue to fund it. Surveys show that on average people who received Medicaid through the expansion are more satisfied with their coverage and more likely to rank their coverage as excellent than those who bought private coverage on the new exchanges. People who have exchange coverage actually envy those with Medicaid.

​

Why Democrats Have Given Up on Private Health Care Markets

---

The fact of the matter is that Bernie Sanders was right to push for single payer.Who wants to pay 6% of their income for a high deductible ($6000 high) Bronze plan which will eventually (after individuals pay the entire $6000) only pay 60% of covered benefits?Or 12% for a Silver plan which also has a lot of out of pocket co-pays?California single payer bottom line.I still wish we could see definitively if existing California government programs and the Federal government programs spent on California are going to be $225 billion in 2017 (like the University Study I linked to) as opposed to the $200 billion number shown by the California state legislature.The 15% payroll tax brought in $200 billion, so that means that the $106 billion additional cost (for a total of $331 billion) would be require just a bit less than an 8% flat income tax. But it only holds if the state will already have a $225 billion pot read (as opposed to $200 billion).It could very well be just a 7.95% payroll tax (or call it a flat income tax), which is not only less than all those ACA plans, but cheaper than the 15.3% payroll tax most pay for Medicare and Social Security (and Medicare has premiums deductibles if one actually gets the benefits, not to mention big copays).The plan could cost just $106 billion out of a state with a nearly $2.7 trillion GDP in 2017.A 4% income tax would bring in a bit more than $53 billion, then another $53 billion would need to come elsewhere.I hate sales taxes but perhaps a very small VAT (if only 1%) could bring in a good bit of revenue if there are no exemptions. 100% free healthcare is a big enough deal that perhaps a radical VAT can be considered(with the 1% tax being applied to food, car, and even house purchases) which perhaps can bring in over $20 billion a year (perhaps even more)?The California state budget is presently $182 billion a year, but local taxes in the various towns and cities would bring the total up much higher. Perhaps as high as $400 billion, so a $106 billion additional cost (with additional property taxes collected at the state level) could only be 25% more in total taxes.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

If there is a potential flood that might have an impact on the economics out there - higher demand of course, will drive house prices and rent up - there remains finite places to take up residency.

---

We are also overlooking the forest for the trees.California will actually have cheaper healthcare than the other 49 states, so it should be seen as a NATIONAL benefit for people to migrate to California for healthcare.The race-to-the-bottom situation of 50 separate states competing with lower and lower income (not to mention capital gains and such) taxes could hurt California in certain ways. I said "could".But this whole idea that some people are unworthy and harmful (like our entire immigration debate) is more economically destructive and ignorant than accurate.Texas has politicians who like to brag about all the jobs (supposedly) created, but they are "poached" jobs. Texas spends literally 50% of its entire state budget on tax giveaways to lure existing businesses to the state (Oklahoma is number 2 at that tactic and only spends about 20% of its entire state budget). Amazon is looking for a free lunch and this nationwide trend (think Foxconn in Wisconsin) is causing tax bases to be seriously eroded for state budgets (which require lots of infrastructure spending for businesses).California is a productive state (like New York) and the freeloader states (like Tennessee and Texas) are not the economic contributors they are often made out to be.Texas still has 16% of its population uninsured (though it was 25% before the ACA), so let poor Texans find a way to productive states (like California) so they can add to the nations GDP (and lower the total healthcare costs of the nation).California leads and produces.Texas sucks (not saying it can't eventually change).Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

He has promised to push New Jersey in a progressive direction, vowing to legalize and tax marijuana, institute a $15 minimum wage, tighten the state's already strict gun-control laws, and ramp up funding for education, public-worker pensions, and transportation, while protecting undocumented immigrants and fighting the agenda of President Donald Trump, a Republican.

---

Phil Murphy beats Kim Guadagno to succeed Christie as N.J. governor - nj.comThis is evidence that New Jersey isn't simply a moderate Democratic state that only votes for certain (non liberal) Democrats because of the abortion issue.A 13% win for a very liberal Democrat is actually groundbreaking in this state.The Corey Booker win didn't seem to settle the issue, but this has.

quote:

---

When did I say that?

---

You are so busy mumbling about how the Hillary Clinton couldn't possibly be (GASP - secretly!)manipulating the primary schedule with a corrupt DNC that you forgot all about this one.You said it.