2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumA Question I Really Wish Would Be Asked To Clinton At Next Debate
Secretary Clinton,
You have been touting your experience as a significant reason for people to support you as President over Senator Sanders.
We know you have great admiration for Pres. Obama and what he has done as President. But you criticized him quite a bit in 2008 for not having enough experience to be President.
I also assume that you think your husband, Bill Clinton, was a good President. Yet he was a Governor of a medium sized state in the South. Then he became President.
So why do you think that Sen Sanders, who has more experienced than either Pres. Obama or Bill Clinton when they were running, wouldnt be capable of being as good a President as those you admire?
My guess would be we wouldn't get an answer beyond socialism, can't be done, dangerous times and ----- fill in e blank.
uponit7771
(90,348 posts)... Sanders is offering pixie dust politics and no way to get around a digitally gerrymandered GOP congress like he has not being doing for the last 6 years.
That should be her reply
Nanjeanne
(4,974 posts)Perfectly valid question. She talks about her experience as being so valuable. So let's change it to
If Obama and Bill were such good Presidents with less experience than Sanders has - do you agree that a person with good judgement but less experience than you could be a good president?
Does that make you happier?
madokie
(51,076 posts)first lady for 8 years which hardly qualifies as Presidential material based on that and 4 years of S of S. Hardly evidence of qualifications to our highest office by anyone stretch of the imagination. Wasn't even that good of a S of S at that
How can she even imply she has more experience than Bernie? Seriously how the fuck can she?
Been running for the Presidency since bill walking into the Oval office and that is not qualifications either. Every thing she's done has been done with her eye on the Presidency
I want a real President not a wanta' be
George II
(67,782 posts).....the second or third least populated state in the country - so small that they only have ONE representative in Congress.
I don't think she says she has "more" experience, I think she says she has BETTER experience. I can't see anyone arguing with that.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)qualify her for the presidency?
Hillary had the same. That time really does not count for much especially since Clinton's legacy is in many respects not very good in retrospect.
Sanders has far, far, far more experience than Hillary.
Mayor of Burlington -- more executive experience than Hillary -- for four terms of two years each. He was extremely successful in that position. He proved that he is a good leader.
Then in 1992 he served in he House until he was elected to the Senate. He knows everybody in Congress. He has gotten many amendments passed even in Republican-controlled Congresses.
Bernie has achieved a lot especially with regard to Veteran's Affairs.
Bernie serves on the Budget Committee and knows our budget inside out. He also served on the Energy Committee and when he talks about environmental issues, he also knows what he is talking about.
Bernie has paid his dues. He is the best candidate for the presidency.
A lot of people are ignorant about what Bernie really has done and achieved. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to talk about it.
Feel the Bern!
George II
(67,782 posts)....in a Presidential Cabinet?
Laura Bush was a librarian, Hillary Clinton has a law degree from Yale.
You're bragging about Sanders being Mayor of Burlington Vermont? REALLY? Do you know anything about Burlington, Vermont? That's "executive" experience? When he was Mayor, Burlington had less than 35,000 residents.
PS - thanks for the cheap shot about President Clinton's legacy - his approval rating is higher than Saint Ronald (Reagan) and is among the highest since they started that rating.
jmowreader
(50,562 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)He was mayor of a town that really liked what he did as mayor.
Hillary was four years in the State Department. That is the extent of her executive experience. And her work was not all that great. We now have ISIS. We will probably hear Republicans blame that on her non-stop during this year's campaign.
jmowreader
(50,562 posts)How much mayoring could a town that size need? I live in a town that's a little larger than Burlington, and our mayor is a part-time official.
What I have to go on with Bernie is the undeniable fact he's a one-trick pony, and that trick is economics. Even his votes against the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were on the basis of economics - he would have rather spent the money on domestic issues. (Which is a good argument, but it's not what Bernie's fans think was his casus non-belli.) And guys...Bernie's original healthcare proposal called for pharmaceutical savings that exceeded actual pharmaceutical spending, and his current one may still require pharm makers to sell their wares for less than they spend to make them.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Powrrful. Their seniority and their skill do. Pat Leahy is far more important that many senators from bigger states.
George II
(67,782 posts)...in Congress and the Senate.
So I guess 600,000 people are more important than 20 MILLION people in New York, 38 MILLION people in California, etc.?
karynnj
(59,504 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....but unfortunately he's used his constituency as his excuse for his gun votes as a Senator.
I truly don't believe he understands the significance of being a Senator.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)I assure you he knows exactly what it means to be a Senator and what it meant to be a representative --- in fact, in Vermont he represented the exact same population in both jobs.
You focus on gun control, but ignore the fantastic work he has done on programs that help veterans and provides health care and other needs for people - across the country.
His gun votes are not the sum total of who he is -- any more than Kyl/Lieberman and the vote against the Feinstein amendment on cluster bombs - both of which she voted in a way to look tougher -- even though on the cluster bombs EVERY Democrat who served in the military voted for -- including Akaka, Kennedy, Harkin, Reed, and Kerry.
The fact is his D- is the lowest rating any VT legislator got -- and Howard Dean had an A. Howard Dean, incidentally explained that well back in 2003 on one of the Sunday shows -- and like Bernie it relates to the fact that states are different. VT has one of the lowest murder rates in the country ... and almost the least gun laws. Bernie has listed the various things he supports - and he supports all of the things on Obama's list.
napi21
(45,806 posts)Hillary DOES have more "foreign policy experience" than Bernie, which does give her an advantage of personally knowing most foreign leaders. Even Bernie has responded to the MORE EXPERIENCE comment b saying that SHE DOES HAVE MORE EXPERIENCE IN FOREIGN POLICY BECAUSE SHE WAS Se. of State, but I believe judgment is many times more important than experience.
madokie
(51,076 posts)Knowing someone and getting something done is two different animals altogether. Many questions to be answered when it comes to her getting something done while SoS, the trade offs etc. No Hillary is not a more experienced person on any front, maybe when it comes to getting down and doing dirty politics, maybe.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)What someone did while gaining that experience is far more important.
questionseverything
(9,657 posts)i wonder how you would feel if this was you or someone you cared for
uponit7771
(90,348 posts).... though
Nanjeanne
(4,974 posts)Trying too hard.
uponit7771
(90,348 posts)Nanjeanne
(4,974 posts)uponit7771
(90,348 posts)... SP outline that MAKES the aforementioned groups except half of what they get paid today to get the cost of his whole plan down.
madokie
(51,076 posts)man o man how do you come up with this kind of logic is beyond me
uponit7771
(90,348 posts)... beyond me.
Cause it aint there...
regards
madokie
(51,076 posts)are you saying that Sanders plan is going to cut their pay? I don't think that is even in the cards. Pharmaceutical companies yes but doctors no
My brother just had a pretty simple operation on an aneurysm that required an overnight stay and the use of the operating room and the cost from the hospital alone was 96,000 bucks, He hasn't got the bill for the doctor or the anesthesiologist yet. Lot of money can be trimmed from that.
uponit7771
(90,348 posts)... is supposed to happen that hasn't happened in the last 6 years
madokie
(51,076 posts)I'm going to have to quit bothering clicking on your posts. jebus crist
Can you imagine the frustration I feel if I use the god or jebus words, being as I'm a non Religious person and all.
can you at least try to sensible?
I'm out of here, bye bye
uponit7771
(90,348 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)misinformation all over DU about it. You even kept trying to pawn off what was an annual cost as a monthly cost. You either have no clue what you are saying or you are purposely lying about it.
Get real.
.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)about as nonsensical as the folks claiming sanders' supporters have been brainwashed by 25+ years of rw propaganda
cui bono
(19,926 posts).
cui bono
(19,926 posts)You should see the merry-go-round I was on with that one a couple nights ago. Hooboy!
.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)you have the gall to continue to lie about it?
Medicare for All: Leaving No One Behind
It has been the goal of Democrats since Franklin D. Roosevelt to create a universal health care system guaranteeing health care to all people. Every other major industrialized nation has done so. It is time for this country to join them and fulfill the legacy of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson and other great Democrats.
The Affordable Care Act was a critically important step towards the goal of universal health care. Thanks to the ACA, more than 17 million Americans have gained health insurance. Millions of low-income Americans have coverage through expanded eligibility for Medicaid that now exists in 31 states. Young adults can stay on their parents health plans until theyre 26. All Americans can benefit from increased protections against lifetime coverage limits and exclusion from coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Bernie was on the U.S. Senate committee that helped write the ACA.
But as we move forward, we must build upon the success of the ACA to achieve the goal of universal health care. Twenty-nine million Americans today still do not have health insurance and millions more are underinsured and cannot afford the high copayments and deductibles charged by private health insurance companies that put profits before people.
The U.S. spends more on health care per person, and as a percentage of gross domestic product, than any other advanced nation in the world, including Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. But all that money has not made Americans healthier than the rest of the world. Quite simply, in our high-priced health care system that leaves millions overlooked, we spend more yet end up with less.
Other industrialized nations are making the morally principled and financially responsible decision to provide universal health care to all of their peopleand they do so while saving money by keeping people healthier. Those who say this goal is unachievable are selling the American people short.
Americans need a health care system that works for patients and providers. We need to focus our federal investments on training the health care providers. We need to ensure a strong health care workforce in all communities now and in the future. We need to build on the strength of the 50 years of success of the Medicare program. We need a health care system that significantly reduces overhead, administrative costs and complexity. We need a system where all people can get the care they need to maintain and improve their health when they need it regardless of income, age or socioeconomic status. We need a system that works not just for millionaires and billionaires, but for all of us.
Under Bernies plan, Americans will benefit from the freedom and security that comes with finally separating health insurance from employment. That freedom would not only help the American people live happier, healthier and more fulfilling lives, but it would also promote innovation and entrepreneurship in every sector of the economy. People would be able to start new businesses, stay home with their children or leave jobs they dont like knowing that they would still have health care coverage for themselves and their families. Employers could be free to focus on running their business rather than spending countless hours figuring out how to provide health insurance to their employees. Working Americans wouldnt have to choose between bargaining for higher wages or better health insurance. Parents wouldnt have to worry about how to provide health insurance to their children. Americans would no longer have to fear losing their health insurance if they lose their job, change employment or go part-time. Seniors and people with serious or chronic illnesses could afford the medications necessary to keep them healthy without worry of financial ruin. Millions of people will no longer have to choose between health care and other necessities like food, heat and shelter, and will have access to services that may have been out of reach, like dental care or long-term care.
Simply put, Bernies plan will provide all Americans with the sense of freedom and peace of mind that comes from knowing you always have access to the health care you need.
The Plan
Better Coverage
Bernies plan would create a federally administered single-payer health care program. Universal single-payer health care means comprehensive coverage for all Americans. Bernies plan will cover the entire continuum of health care, from inpatient to outpatient care; preventive to emergency care; primary care to specialty care, including long-term and palliative care; vision, hearing and oral health care; mental health and substance abuse services; as well as prescription medications, medical equipment, supplies, diagnostics and treatments. Patients will be able to choose a health care provider without worrying about whether that provider is in-network and will be able to get the care they need without having to read any fine print or trying to figure out how they can afford the out-of-pocket costs.
What It Means for Patients
As a patient, all you need to do is go to the doctor and show your insurance card. Bernies plan means no more copays, no more deductibles and no more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges.
Getting Health Care Spending Under Control
We outspend all other countries on the planet and our medical spending continues to grow faster than the rate of inflation. Creating a single, public insurance system will go a long way towards getting health care spending under control. The United States has thousands of different health insurance plans, all of which set different reimbursement rates across different networks for providers and procedures resulting in high administrative costs. Two patients with the same condition may get very different care depending on where they live, the health insurance they have and what their insurance covers. A patient may pay different amounts for the same prescription depending solely on where the prescription is filled. Health care providers and patients must navigate this complex and bewildering system wasting precious time and resources.
By moving to an integrated system, the government will finally have the ability to stand up to drug companies and negotiate fair prices for the American people collectively. It will also ensure the federal government can track access to various providers and make smart investments to avoid provider shortages and ensure communities can access the providers they need.
Major Savings for Families and Businesses
Bernies plan will cost over $6 trillion less than the current health care system over the next ten years.
The United States currently spends $3 trillion on health care each yearnearly $10,000 per person. Reforming our health care system, simplifying our payment structure and incentivizing new ways to make sure patients are actually getting better health care will generate massive savings. This plan has been estimated to save the American people and businesses over $6 trillion over the next decade.
The typical middle class family would save over $5,000 under this plan.
Last year, the average working family paid $4,955 in premiums and $1,318 in deductibles to private health insurance companies. Under this plan, a family of four earning $50,000 would pay just $466 per year to the single-payer program, amounting to a savings of over $5,800 for that family each year.
Businesses would save over $9,400 a year in health care costs for the average employee.
The average annual cost to the employer for a worker with a family who makes $50,000 a year would go from $12,591 to just $3,100.
How Much Will It Cost and How Do We Pay For It?
How Much Will It Cost?
This plan has been estimated to cost $1.38 trillion per year.
The Plan Would Be Fully Paid For By:
A 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers.
Revenue raised: $630 billion per year.
A 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households.
Revenue raised: $210 billion per year. This year, a family of four taking the standard deduction can have income up to $28,800 and not pay this tax under this plan.
A family of four making $50,000 a year taking the standard deduction would only pay $466 this year.
Progressive income tax rates.
Revenue raised: $110 billion a year.Under this plan the marginal income tax rate would be:
37 percent on income between $250,000 and $500,000.
43 percent on income between $500,000 and $2 million.
48 percent on income between $2 million and $10 million. (In 2013, only 113,000 households, the top 0.08 percent of taxpayers, had income between $2 million and $10 million.)
52 percent on income above $10 million. (In 2013, only 13,000 households, just 0.01 percent of taxpayers, had income exceeding $10 million.)
Taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work.
Revenue raised: $92 billion per year.Warren Buffett, the second wealthiest American in the country, has said that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. The reason is that he receives most of his income from capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at a much lower rate than income from work. This plan will end the special tax break for capital gains and dividends on household income above $250,000.
Limit tax deductions for rich.
Revenue raised: $15 billion per year Under Bernies plan, households making over $250,000 would no longer be able to save more than 28 cents in taxes from every dollar in tax deductions. This limit would replace more complicated and less effective limits on tax breaks for the rich including the AMT, the personal exemption phase-out and the limit on itemized deductions.
The Responsible Estate Tax.
Revenue raised: $21 billion per year. This provision would tax the estates of the wealthiest 0.3 percent (three-tenths of 1 percent) of Americans who inherit over $3.5 million at progressive rates and close loopholes in the estate tax.
Savings from health tax expenditures.
Revenue raised: $310 billion per year. Several tax breaks that subsidize health care (health-related tax expenditures) would become obsolete and disappear under a single-payer health care system, saving $310 billion per year.
Most importantly, health care provided by employers is compensation that is not subject to payroll taxes or income taxes under current law. This is a significant tax break that would effectively disappear under this plan because all Americans would receive health care through the new single-payer program instead of employer-based health care.
https://berniesanders.com/medicareforall/
.
ElliotCarver
(74 posts)...not to mention spelling!
uponit7771
(90,348 posts)HubertHeaver
(2,522 posts)The spelling is correct, you used the wrong word. (I think. Maybe you really meant it as written.)
monicaangela
(1,508 posts)effect in a sentence? How do you use affect in a sentence?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)monicaangela
(1,508 posts)questionseverything
(9,657 posts)this one young surgeon could make 50-60 grand before lunch, everyday
surgeons could take a cut easily
general practitioners make about 150 grand a year and that is fine
hospitals and pharm need huge cuts
uponit7771
(90,348 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Docreed2003
(16,869 posts)I'm a general surgeon and I can assure you that I don't make 50k before lunch every day, and I'm a busy surgeon.
questionseverything
(9,657 posts)to be fair just because he grossed that income it was not like he didn't have expenses too
office,insurance, nurses and staff
it is not like i ever figured his net
Docreed2003
(16,869 posts)Due to specialized office equipment. I've been doing this a while and I'm still amazed at what the hospital bills for different procedures though, it's incredible.
Desktopgrass
(11 posts)If i understand this, we all gotta eat before we worry about our health care so grocers, farmers, truck drivers, bagggers, and everyone else who takes money in exchange for getting food to people, should take a pay cut too.
And of course shelter is another thing we seek out before health care. I suppose contractors, construction workers, truck drivers, and real estate agents among others should take a cut.
Finallly, your list of people (surgeons, pharmaceutical companies, and hospitals) seems incomplete. Shouldn't nurses, custodial workers, and trial lawyers also take a pay cut?
Cal33
(7,018 posts)the entire nation at the same time.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)got Universal Health Care (with reduced cost) and Single Payer plans (with reduced cost) to pass?
I guess the US is just special in it's stupidity and greed?
clarice
(5,504 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)And watch your kids grow up with no future, especially if you are poor and POC.
I actually like living in a socialist democracy where we have freedom but take responsibility for our village and all it's inhabitants.
clarice
(5,504 posts)Did you actually just equate Socialism with freedom? Oh My !!!
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Bernie is not a socialist. He's a democratic socialist. If you don't know the difference, you might want to check this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism
clarice
(5,504 posts)Duval
(4,280 posts)Bernie is appealing to them and we are listening.
Perogie
(687 posts)show proof. Link?
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)But I will reconsider if you can provide a link substantiating what you say about doctors and hospitals.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)You keep going on and on about things that don't exist except in your mind.
So come on... post a link and a quote to the exact part of the plan that says that.
.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Cause I'm not sacrificing mine.
uponit7771
(90,348 posts)... that gets other peoples kids killed.
That sounds like noise, right wing noise... and does not good to progress these conversations
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Hillary Clinton: If Im President, We Will Attack Iran
By Stephen Lendman
Global Research, August 22, 2015
Region: Middle East & North Africa, USA
Theme: Militarization and WMD, US NATO War Agenda
In-depth Report: IRAN: THE NEXT WAR?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-if-im-president-we-will-attack-iran/5460484
uponit7771
(90,348 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)All citations and references are provided in the article. Note that the cite I used is not from a right wing site.
uponit7771
(90,348 posts)... say we'll attack Iran without condition as your post intimates
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)It's posted very clearly there.
Desktopgrass
(11 posts)What was Senator Clinton's voting record on war?
uponit7771
(90,348 posts)Dretownblues
(253 posts)Trying to make the case that voting for the Iraq war is the same thing as voting to fund it?
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)How do you, Hillary Clinton plan on getting around a digitally gerrymandered GOP congress who detest the Clintons as much if not more than they detest Obama?
uponit7771
(90,348 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)should be easy.
uponit7771
(90,348 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Sanders is capable of issuing executive orders too. Now, what is her plan to work with a gerrymandered congress. She doesn't have one.
uponit7771
(90,348 posts)... America.
Her opponenets don't
Also, I did post "get around" not work with... work with is your words
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)However, I think they will work with Senator Sanders.
But rather than earning the frustration and ire of his peers in the vein of other Senate hard-liners such as Sen. Ted Cruz, Sanders has managed to be respected even liked by much of the chamber, according to members on both sides of the aisle. The Vermont independent actually has much more in common with Sen. Tom Coburn, the now-retired Dr. No, whose hard-line opposition killed many bills in the Senate but also earned him the respect of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
Sanders also has been able to work well with his colleagues. Hes passed bipartisan legislation and forged strong relationships with members of both parties in nearly 25 years on Capitol Hill. But most of all, members say, even when Sanders is ideologically an outlier, he lets others know where he stands. Hes not the type to suddenly stab a colleague in the back. And thats earned him respect both on and off the Hill
A lot of people here talk about what they believe in, but they dont act on it, Sen. Mark Warner said. He always acts on what he believes. ¦ We can agree or disagree, but you know where he stands.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, including Sanders himself, point to last years deal to improve the disastrous, scandal-ridden Veterans Affairs Department as a highlight. After weeks of negotiating with a cadre of Republican colleagues, Sanders helped pass the deal on a 91-3 vote in the Senate. In a pretty dysfunctional Congress I helped pass, in a bipartisan way, the significant veterans bill, which increases health care to veterans and lowers waiting times, and Im proud of that, Sanders said. That was a significant step forward.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/71225/bernie-sanders-is-loud-stubborn-socialist-republicans-like-him-anyway
cali
(114,904 posts)No pixie dust involved.
uponit7771
(90,348 posts)... past a digatilly gerrymandered congress other than coattails which...
wont work
on a digitally gerrymandered congress
pixie dust
bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)And everywhere else in the developed world people can manage a system that we can't? So the more than half the people in the US who poll as supporting single-payer are just stupid?
Honest to goddess, the talking points out of the HRC camp on this are just unbelievable.
A shill for the vampire health insurance industry couldn't do better.
uponit7771
(90,348 posts)... for the sake of anger and fight
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)to repeal multiple times?
Bernie wants to replace the ACA with something else which already is a plus for working with the Republicans and the replacement will save the country and the people a lot of money something Republicans say every day they want to accomplish.
Tell me again who has a better chance of accomplishing their goal?
uponit7771
(90,348 posts)... her opponents did
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)get the problems with the ACA fixed.
uponit7771
(90,348 posts)jmowreader
(50,562 posts)Most of it is managing something similar to Obamacare.
uponit7771
(90,348 posts)... Docs, Corps and Pharma can make... Sanders wants to ask these groups to take half their pay
jmowreader
(50,562 posts)The UK system requires doctors who are in it to be employed by the government - and it also allows a parallel private healthcare system that Sanders' plan forbids. It also has copays.
The Canadian system has deductibles and doesn't pay for pharmaceuticals, vision care or dental care. It also rations the hell out of expensive procedures. Canadians who can afford to, often come to US hospitals for care.
There isn't a health plan, whether in the public or private sector, that pays for everything...but that's what Bernie wants.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)should be a strawman?
uponit7771
(90,348 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)The pixie dust guy. I would be questioning her viablility, if i was a supporter.
uponit7771
(90,348 posts)... in most if not every poll.
Sanders is strong with IA like voters...
Sanders has 3 weeks to gain ground with the Hillary Alliance
George II
(67,782 posts).....is that she has BETTER experience, not more experience. In the last 25 years she's seen it from all aspects of government - from inside the White House, 8 years as a Senator, and then 4 years as SOS.
No one can dispute that.
Sanders' experience, about the same length of time, has been one-dimensional from a tiny (population-wise) state, and he's even admitted that he's looked at his legislative career in the eyes of his constituency, which is all of 600,000.
uponit7771
(90,348 posts)... revolution for.
The poor, blacks, Hispanics, gays and women all lean heavy towards Clinton...
SC could be a wake up for everyone
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)no wonder the Democratic party can't get their voters to the polls.
uponit7771
(90,348 posts)... love yaw like play cousins but Sanders is going to get his ass kicked in SC
Perogie
(687 posts)uponit7771
(90,348 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)What do you think is more important for being
the POTUS experience or good sound judgement?
Duval
(4,280 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)if only we had moderators with questions as good as that!
murielm99
(30,754 posts)would not be overrun with rude Bernie supporters. They would not be alert-stalking and running people off for daring to choose another candidate.
To answer some of the question posed in the OP: Many governors have become Presidents. Even if they lack experience at the Federal level, they have succeeded as administrators. Sometimes even those from small states have handled thorny problems successfully.
I did not support him, but O'Malley was one of those. Ask his supporters, and the people from his state.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Was sent or rcvd by you. You always specify "marked classified". Was there any material which was classified at the time it was emailed, but was NOT marked as classified?
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)Sanders has more experience than Bill as a legislator, but he's running for the position of an administrator, not a legislator.
Sanders has never had to put a budget together, which is obvious from his health care plan -- which said there would be more annual savings in drug costs than the all the actual costs from 2014. Someone who knew anything about budgets would have known that couldn't be true.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)pnwmom
(108,990 posts)Being a Governor gives you experience running a state, and handling a large budget.
And if you haven't heard about the widely reported goof-up with drug costs, here it is again:
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10858644/bernie-sanders-kenneth-thorpe-single-payer
Sanders assumes $324 billion more per year in prescription drug savings than Thorpe does. Thorpe argues that this is wildly implausible. "In 2014 private health plans paid a TOTAL of $132 billion on prescription drugs and nationally we spent $305 billion," he writes in an email. "With their savings drug spending nationally would be negative." (Emphasis mine.) The Sanders camp revised the number down to $241 billion when I pointed this out.
Nanjeanne
(4,974 posts)There are also many other analyses that disagree with Thorpe. I have written about Thorpe and why I don't value his opinion.
No I'm not going to link them all again. Perhaps you can search for them if you want.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)pnwmom
(108,990 posts)Bernie's campaign's response, which was to withdraw their incorrect number.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Now I understand why you do what you do- or should I say what you don't do? Now where is the article stating that Sander's has never had to deal with budgets?
Nanjeanne
(4,974 posts)8 years as Mayor of Burlington where he had many accomplishments. http://www.thenation.com/article/bernies-burlington-city-sustainable-future/
I'm sorry he wasn't a Governor of Arkasas. But mayor, congressman and senator is pretty good in my book.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)But I guess it's more administrative experience than Sarah Palin had.
So there's that.
Nanjeanne
(4,974 posts)Thanks for clearing that up.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)Sanders is not more experienced than Bill Clinton. He has different experience but not MORE.
And he has nothing equivalent by any stretch of the imagination to Hillary's as Secretary of State.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)pnwmom
(108,990 posts)But I know Burlington had a population of about 40K, and Arkansas in the millions.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)elleng
(131,056 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,389 posts)Thanks for the thread, Nanjeanne.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)the Clinton foundation?
840high
(17,196 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)PWPippin
(213 posts)that make her a good candidate for President. As noted in an Atlantic article in September 2015, she instead touts her track record - the mileage she's covered, not her achievements.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)In that vein i also would like her publicly to repudiate Debbie Wasserman Schultz's doubling down on putting cannabis users in prison.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It is an excellent question.
Hillary is more experienced than Obama was, but does not have Bernie's many years of experience both as a mayor in an executive role and has a member of first the House and then the Senate.
It takes some nerve for Hillary to claim to have so much experience when Bernie has so, so, so much more than she does.
Obama did not have anywhere near enough experience. That has been a problem for him. We probably don't know the half of the things that he would have accomplished had he been more savvy about how D.C. works and had he had more executive experience.
Bernie is the one who will know how to get things done.
No other candidate can match Bernie in this respect.
onecaliberal
(32,882 posts)but will approve it if you are actually elected? Why are you afraid of telling the truth to the American people?
AzDar
(14,023 posts)positions...( TPP, Keystone etc.)
Dying Eagle
(1,785 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)You claim to be in favor of reversing the Citizen's United ruling, and cleaning up campaign financing. This is one of your opponent's main issues, an opponent who has himself refused to accept corporate money in his presidential campaign.
Why have you, in the Democratic primary, against an opponent who has sworn off corporate money, accept corporate money and use it against your clean-money opponent? And how can you simultaneuosly say you'll work to get corporate money out of our elections?
There's probably a better way to phrase it, but there's a serious and important question in there somewhere, one that anyone giving her their vote deserves an answer to.
jillan
(39,451 posts)Not okay for Bernie, but totally ok for Bill?
Got it.