Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 30567 times)

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1690
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #500 on: July 02, 2019, 05:02:33 AM »
My question about Beto is that if he couldn't take down Ted Cruz, what makes anyone think he can take down Trump?

This is kind of a silly question. Texas is far more Republican than the nation as a whole. In fact it's primarily because he came so close to defeating Cruz in Texas that people think he would win against Trump in a nationwide election.

But we can already call Beto a loser and it's accurate.
Obama lost a 2000 election for the US House of Representatives.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Illinois%27s_1st_congressional_district_election

Yes, but he didn't run for President immediately after that loss.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2006
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #501 on: July 02, 2019, 09:56:04 AM »
most of them are bad ideas. 

free pre-K


Bernie and Warren have much more realistic outlooks?  You wouldn't know it from the policies they are pushing.

Free pre-K is a great idea. It partly pays for itself as more mothers will be able to reenter the workforce, and pay more income taxes, which in turn pay for free pre-K.
This increased labor participation grows the economy, as well as provides for healthy children that will have a greater chance of earning more as adults than without pre-K.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4183
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #502 on: July 02, 2019, 10:06:25 AM »
most of them are bad ideas. 

free pre-K


Bernie and Warren have much more realistic outlooks?  You wouldn't know it from the policies they are pushing.

Free pre-K is a great idea. It partly pays for itself as more mothers will be able to reenter the workforce, and pay more income taxes, which in turn pay for free pre-K.
This increased labor participation grows the economy, as well as provides for healthy children that will have a greater chance of earning more as adults than without pre-K.

And it has lasting positive effects for all kids, especially those who grow up in poverty.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/06/10/apm_documentary_early_lessons?fbclid=IwAR24-husPRFkLUUN18MISyZ2OQVDW-tIJi7QdwGGxoFTmzqG8m_6xaR6DRY

Psychstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 821
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #503 on: July 02, 2019, 10:38:26 AM »
most of them are bad ideas. 

free pre-K


Bernie and Warren have much more realistic outlooks?  You wouldn't know it from the policies they are pushing.

Free pre-K is a great idea. It partly pays for itself as more mothers will be able to reenter the workforce, and pay more income taxes, which in turn pay for free pre-K.
This increased labor participation grows the economy, as well as provides for healthy children that will have a greater chance of earning more as adults than without pre-K.

And it has lasting positive effects for all kids, especially those who grow up in poverty.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/06/10/apm_documentary_early_lessons?fbclid=IwAR24-husPRFkLUUN18MISyZ2OQVDW-tIJi7QdwGGxoFTmzqG8m_6xaR6DRY

Yeah, it always seems weird when people are like "paying taxes for 5 year olds is fine, but 4 year olds is a bridge too far." Then again some people against universal pre k are also against public education overall, which is a more consistent stance, but one I can't possibly agree with.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #504 on: July 02, 2019, 05:20:30 PM »
- SNIP- SNIP-SNIP-

I support health care laws like the ACA, Medicare, and maybe Medicare for All, for American citizens but not anything else in that list above.  It's the health care issue which turns me off from Trump, despite him being strong on immigration and the economy.  I just can't see taking health care away from 20 million people.  There's never a candidate I really like - it's a matter of picking the least worst.



I don't agree with much of what you write, but you are absolutely right on with the health care.  You have a good heart in wanting to help those 20 million people.

As for Warren, I don't care if she claims she is part Australian Aborigine.  Compared to some of the wild ass things the Donald has said, her statement was nothing.

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #505 on: July 03, 2019, 05:17:59 AM »
Then again some people against universal pre k are also against public education overall, which is a more consistent stance, but one I can't possibly agree with.

That's a straw man argument.  I never said anything about being against public education, only that I'm against additional tax dollars of mine being used to provide "free" pre-K for all kids.  I have no problem with pre-K for people that choose to pay for that luxury for their children, and possibly even a tax credit to help low income households pay for it, but I don't think I should be paying for rich families' kids to have free pre-K.

I think there are more important uses for tax dollars, including health care for American citizens and assistance to low income seniors with ever-increasing medical bills, who shouldn't have to go back to work at 80 years old just so that they don't have to make a choice between buying food to put on the table or paying for their medication.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2019, 05:27:56 AM by FIREstache »

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #506 on: July 03, 2019, 05:31:02 AM »
No, it's not her argument. You see the part I bolded up there? You're adding that in.

It's not my argument.  It was Elizabeth Warren's.  I'm merely posting about it, but I'm not the one that went on TV showing the results of a DNA test that didn't prove anything.  This was well publicized at the time.  It wasn't all that long ago - no time to provide you the links now.  Google is your friend.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4183
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #507 on: July 03, 2019, 06:58:06 AM »
Then again some people against universal pre k are also against public education overall, which is a more consistent stance, but one I can't possibly agree with.

That's a straw man argument.  I never said anything about being against public education, only that I'm against additional tax dollars of mine being used to provide "free" pre-K for all kids.  I have no problem with pre-K for people that choose to pay for that luxury for their children, and possibly even a tax credit to help low income households pay for it, but I don't think I should be paying for rich families' kids to have free pre-K.

I think there are more important uses for tax dollars, including health care for American citizens and assistance to low income seniors with ever-increasing medical bills, who shouldn't have to go back to work at 80 years old just so that they don't have to make a choice between buying food to put on the table or paying for their medication.

Well, you’re paying a lot of extra tax money for prisons to house a lot of people who, research suggests, would be more likely to graduate high school and be productive members of society if they had had access to pre-k, so... maybe think of it as just moving your tax dollars from one to the other?

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 992
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #508 on: July 03, 2019, 07:10:21 AM »
I've worked in both education and law (including time as a prosecutor) and long ago I reached the inescapable conclusion that educating funding (from pre-K all the way through college) saves us a HUGE amount of money down the line.

More education $ = lower criminal justice costs (think of costs for cops, prosecutors, public defenders, judges, courtrooms, court staff, probation officers, jail/prison buildings/maintenance/staff, parole officers, etc etc it doesn't end.

More education $ = more tax revenue for government because the people above (points up) are working instead of rotting away in jail or on HIP

More education $ = a more educated workforce overall, which gives employees more leverage in dealing with employers, and also helps companies compete and thrive in the world economy

More education $ = reduces (certainly does NOT eliminate) issues of teen pregnancy, alcohol/drug addiction, hate crimes, and should create a more responsible populace re: issues like climate change.

So it makes me wonder why even the most right-wing Republican wouldn't want to make education funding the #1 priority??? Education addresses a SLEW of issues, all of which cost our society a ridiculous amount of $ each year. It's math! And it could transform our country. We have the resources to do this; we just don't have the political will.

« Last Edit: July 03, 2019, 07:13:42 AM by Nick_Miller »

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1737
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #509 on: July 03, 2019, 07:12:02 AM »
Then again some people against universal pre k are also against public education overall, which is a more consistent stance, but one I can't possibly agree with.

That's a straw man argument.  I never said anything about being against public education, only that I'm against additional tax dollars of mine being used to provide "free" pre-K for all kids.  I have no problem with pre-K for people that choose to pay for that luxury for their children, and possibly even a tax credit to help low income households pay for it, but I don't think I should be paying for rich families' kids to have free pre-K.

I think there are more important uses for tax dollars, including health care for American citizens and assistance to low income seniors with ever-increasing medical bills, who shouldn't have to go back to work at 80 years old just so that they don't have to make a choice between buying food to put on the table or paying for their medication.

I'm trying to think of a way to explain that you're misinterpreting what was said, but honestly the comment from Psychstache was so clear, I don't know how else to say it. Maybe just read it again?

Maybe it would help to say that you are not in the "some people" group they are referring to. You are in the "paying taxes for 5 year olds is fine, but 4 year olds is a bridge too far" group.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2019, 07:29:32 AM by Dabnasty »

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1737
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #510 on: July 03, 2019, 07:28:28 AM »
No, it's not her argument. You see the part I bolded up there? You're adding that in.

It's not my argument.  It was Elizabeth Warren's.  I'm merely posting about it, but I'm not the one that went on TV showing the results of a DNA test that didn't prove anything.  This was well publicized at the time.  It wasn't all that long ago - no time to provide you the links now.  Google is your friend.

I'm going to go out a limb here and say you probably didn't read the articles linked by Poundwise or myself. I'm aware that it was wellincorrectly publicized by many news sources at the time, in fact the article I linked from the Independent contains an apology for their own misrepresentation of the results:

Quote
We are not trying to defend Ms Warren's decision to release the test, just to set the record straight about what the test shows. The media bungled the interpretation of the results - and then Ms Warren's opponents used the uninformed reporting to undermine the test results even further. We fell into this trap as well and were too quick to send out a tweet (now deleted) that made an inaccurate comparison. We should have not relied on media reporting before tweeting.

Fireball

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 230
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #511 on: July 03, 2019, 10:50:07 AM »
We have the resources to do this; we just don't have the political will.

I feel like this should be our national motto. Put it on our money or something. I don't know if anything describes the electorate any better.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #512 on: July 03, 2019, 12:11:42 PM »
We have the resources to do this; we just don't have the political will.

I feel like this should be our national motto. Put it on our money or something. I don't know if anything describes the electorate any better.

Seconded - All in favor?

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2144
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #513 on: July 03, 2019, 12:15:13 PM »
We have the resources to do this; we just don't have the political will.

I feel like this should be our national motto. Put it on our money or something. I don't know if anything describes the electorate any better.

Seconded - All in favor?
Thirded. But it needs to be in latin, and probably italics. "Habemus ad opibus hoc facere; non modo non ad arbitrium rei publicae"

FIPurpose

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 985
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #514 on: July 03, 2019, 12:39:23 PM »
We have the resources to do this; we just don't have the political will.

I feel like this should be our national motto. Put it on our money or something. I don't know if anything describes the electorate any better.

Seconded - All in favor?
Thirded. But it needs to be in latin, and probably italics. "Habemus ad opibus hoc facere; non modo non ad arbitrium rei publicae"

Opes tenemus; voluntatis publicae cessat

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #515 on: July 03, 2019, 05:09:48 PM »
Then again some people against universal pre k are also against public education overall, which is a more consistent stance, but one I can't possibly agree with.

That's a straw man argument.  I never said anything about being against public education, only that I'm against additional tax dollars of mine being used to provide "free" pre-K for all kids.  I have no problem with pre-K for people that choose to pay for that luxury for their children, and possibly even a tax credit to help low income households pay for it, but I don't think I should be paying for rich families' kids to have free pre-K.

I think there are more important uses for tax dollars, including health care for American citizens and assistance to low income seniors with ever-increasing medical bills, who shouldn't have to go back to work at 80 years old just so that they don't have to make a choice between buying food to put on the table or paying for their medication.

I'm trying to think of a way to explain that you're misinterpreting what was said, but honestly the comment from Psychstache was so clear, I don't know how else to say it. Maybe just read it again?

I read it again.  Nothing changed.  I actually quoted him/her in my previous reply - assume you overlooked that.  I was never talking about current public education nor specifically of just pre-K.  I gave a list of "free" stuff that various candidates are offering to win votes.  Most of them are a bad ideas, but they'll promote anything and everything for support, fundraising, and votes, no matter how unlikely their ideas are to come to fruition.  I'm not against pre-K, but I believe it's a luxury that wealthy people can pay for themselves.  For struggling families that are able to return to work by sending their kids to pre-K, offering a tax credit to cover part of the costs seems like a fair compromise.

I'm more concerned about keeping taxes reasonable for the middle class and about health care and seniors who are struggling to get by who are left out some of the plans mentioned and are actually hurt by some of those plans.  It appears the democrats don't care about that voting block.  I would have thought Biden would have, but he supported cuts to SS as mentioned earlier in the thread.  I'm not saying republicans are any better, but this thread is mostly dealing with the large group of democrat candidates, which is flawed at best.

Psychstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 821
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #516 on: July 03, 2019, 06:02:19 PM »
Then again some people against universal pre k are also against public education overall, which is a more consistent stance, but one I can't possibly agree with.

That's a straw man argument.  I never said anything about being against public education, only that I'm against additional tax dollars of mine being used to provide "free" pre-K for all kids.  I have no problem with pre-K for people that choose to pay for that luxury for their children, and possibly even a tax credit to help low income households pay for it, but I don't think I should be paying for rich families' kids to have free pre-K.

I think there are more important uses for tax dollars, including health care for American citizens and assistance to low income seniors with ever-increasing medical bills, who shouldn't have to go back to work at 80 years old just so that they don't have to make a choice between buying food to put on the table or paying for their medication.

I'm trying to think of a way to explain that you're misinterpreting what was said, but honestly the comment from Psychstache was so clear, I don't know how else to say it. Maybe just read it again?

I read it again.  Nothing changed.  I actually quoted him/her in my previous reply - assume you overlooked that.  I was never talking about current public education nor specifically of just pre-K.  I gave a list of "free" stuff that various candidates are offering to win votes.  Most of them are a bad ideas, but they'll promote anything and everything for support, fundraising, and votes, no matter how unlikely their ideas are to come to fruition.  I'm not against pre-K, but I believe it's a luxury that wealthy people can pay for themselves.  For struggling families that are able to return to work by sending their kids to pre-K, offering a tax credit to cover part of the costs seems like a fair compromise.

I'm more concerned about keeping taxes reasonable for the middle class and about health care and seniors who are struggling to get by who are left out some of the plans mentioned and are actually hurt by some of those plans.  It appears the democrats don't care about that voting block.  I would have thought Biden would have, but he supported cuts to SS as mentioned earlier in the thread.  I'm not saying republicans are any better, but this thread is mostly dealing with the large group of democrat candidates, which is flawed at best.

You quoted half of me. Here's the full post for reference:

"Yeah, it always seems weird when people are like "paying taxes for 5 year olds is fine, but 4 year olds is a bridge too far." Then again some people against universal pre k are also against public education overall, which is a more consistent stance, but one I can't possibly agree with."

Clearly there are two groups referenced: those opposed to adding universal PreK, but are fine with public education for 5-18 year olds, and those opposed to universal PreK who are also opposed to public education in general. Clearly you fall into the 1st group. That's fine, I just find it somewhat inconsistent (For example, you keep calling PreK a luxury for rich families that can afford private PreK, but have no problem subsidizing the rich families can afford private Kindergarten. Why is teaching 4 year olds a luxury but teaching 5 year olds is a right? If there are better priorities for tax dollars than teaching 4 year olds, why not abolish universal kindergarten and save the tax dollars we spend teaching 5 year olds?)

FIPurpose

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 985
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #517 on: July 03, 2019, 08:41:30 PM »
Then again some people against universal pre k are also against public education overall, which is a more consistent stance, but one I can't possibly agree with.

That's a straw man argument.  I never said anything about being against public education, only that I'm against additional tax dollars of mine being used to provide "free" pre-K for all kids.  I have no problem with pre-K for people that choose to pay for that luxury for their children, and possibly even a tax credit to help low income households pay for it, but I don't think I should be paying for rich families' kids to have free pre-K.

I think there are more important uses for tax dollars, including health care for American citizens and assistance to low income seniors with ever-increasing medical bills, who shouldn't have to go back to work at 80 years old just so that they don't have to make a choice between buying food to put on the table or paying for their medication.

I'm trying to think of a way to explain that you're misinterpreting what was said, but honestly the comment from Psychstache was so clear, I don't know how else to say it. Maybe just read it again?

I read it again.  Nothing changed.  I actually quoted him/her in my previous reply - assume you overlooked that.  I was never talking about current public education nor specifically of just pre-K.  I gave a list of "free" stuff that various candidates are offering to win votes.  Most of them are a bad ideas, but they'll promote anything and everything for support, fundraising, and votes, no matter how unlikely their ideas are to come to fruition.  I'm not against pre-K, but I believe it's a luxury that wealthy people can pay for themselves.  For struggling families that are able to return to work by sending their kids to pre-K, offering a tax credit to cover part of the costs seems like a fair compromise.

I'm more concerned about keeping taxes reasonable for the middle class and about health care and seniors who are struggling to get by who are left out some of the plans mentioned and are actually hurt by some of those plans.  It appears the democrats don't care about that voting block.  I would have thought Biden would have, but he supported cuts to SS as mentioned earlier in the thread.  I'm not saying republicans are any better, but this thread is mostly dealing with the large group of democrat candidates, which is flawed at best.

You quoted half of me. Here's the full post for reference:

"Yeah, it always seems weird when people are like "paying taxes for 5 year olds is fine, but 4 year olds is a bridge too far." Then again some people against universal pre k are also against public education overall, which is a more consistent stance, but one I can't possibly agree with."

Clearly there are two groups referenced: those opposed to adding universal PreK, but are fine with public education for 5-18 year olds, and those opposed to universal PreK who are also opposed to public education in general. Clearly you fall into the 1st group. That's fine, I just find it somewhat inconsistent (For example, you keep calling PreK a luxury for rich families that can afford private PreK, but have no problem subsidizing the rich families can afford private Kindergarten. Why is teaching 4 year olds a luxury but teaching 5 year olds is a right? If there are better priorities for tax dollars than teaching 4 year olds, why not abolish universal kindergarten and save the tax dollars we spend teaching 5 year olds?)

Which is truly why it is silly to talk about "free" stuff. Everything the government does is technically "free". We all get "free" electricity, oil, food, roads, police, firemen, military, politicians, libraries, primary and secondary education, weather data, justice, etc. . So when the GOP talks about tax cuts they are saying that you can have all the same government for less money. ie "free" benefits. When the GOP add to military spending without raising taxes, they are creating a "free" military.

Using the word "free" so ubiquitously makes it lose all meaning and is nothing more than a calling card for declaring your political affiliation. Honestly, democrats should start framing everything the GOP does as 'handouts' just to point out how ridiculous this whole line of thinking is.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2006
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #518 on: July 03, 2019, 09:11:20 PM »
Thank you FIPurpose for deconstructing these terms.

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #519 on: July 04, 2019, 09:00:32 AM »
Then again some people against universal pre k are also against public education overall, which is a more consistent stance, but one I can't possibly agree with.

That's a straw man argument.  I never said anything about being against public education, only that I'm against additional tax dollars of mine being used to provide "free" pre-K for all kids.  I have no problem with pre-K for people that choose to pay for that luxury for their children, and possibly even a tax credit to help low income households pay for it, but I don't think I should be paying for rich families' kids to have free pre-K.

I think there are more important uses for tax dollars, including health care for American citizens and assistance to low income seniors with ever-increasing medical bills, who shouldn't have to go back to work at 80 years old just so that they don't have to make a choice between buying food to put on the table or paying for their medication.

I'm trying to think of a way to explain that you're misinterpreting what was said, but honestly the comment from Psychstache was so clear, I don't know how else to say it. Maybe just read it again?

I read it again.  Nothing changed.  I actually quoted him/her in my previous reply - assume you overlooked that.  I was never talking about current public education nor specifically of just pre-K.  I gave a list of "free" stuff that various candidates are offering to win votes.  Most of them are a bad ideas, but they'll promote anything and everything for support, fundraising, and votes, no matter how unlikely their ideas are to come to fruition.  I'm not against pre-K, but I believe it's a luxury that wealthy people can pay for themselves.  For struggling families that are able to return to work by sending their kids to pre-K, offering a tax credit to cover part of the costs seems like a fair compromise.

I'm more concerned about keeping taxes reasonable for the middle class and about health care and seniors who are struggling to get by who are left out some of the plans mentioned and are actually hurt by some of those plans.  It appears the democrats don't care about that voting block.  I would have thought Biden would have, but he supported cuts to SS as mentioned earlier in the thread.  I'm not saying republicans are any better, but this thread is mostly dealing with the large group of democrat candidates, which is flawed at best.

Which is truly why it is silly to talk about "free" stuff. Everything the government does is technically "free". We all get "free" electricity, oil, food, roads, police, firemen, military, politicians, libraries, primary and secondary education, weather data, justice, etc. . So when the GOP talks about tax cuts they are saying that you can have all the same government for less money. ie "free" benefits. When the GOP add to military spending without raising taxes, they are creating a "free" military.

You're using a straw man argument because you're talking "existing" expenses where the usage is directly "shared by everyone", such as the military and police that protect the nation and community at large, and I was never talking about existing expenses but rather the additional "free stuff" to pander to specific blocks of people.  Again, here is a list of some of the new "ideas" that are being promoted by the candidates:

free pre-K
UBI dividend (not really universal, has exclusions)
$6000 tax credit (has exclusions, even for poor elderly)
baby bonds
reparations
free college
wiped college debt
mandated paid family leave
free child care
healthcare for illegals

There's also the $15/hr minimum wage increase, which will ultimately be paid for out of taxpayer's pockets.

Quote
Using the word "free" so ubiquitously makes it lose all meaning and is nothing more than a calling card for declaring your political affiliation.

Well, I don't support politicians promising more and more "free" stuff to people just to win votes, even more so when it hurts other blocks of people or puts a greater tax burden on others.  There's an unfairness to it, and we can't afford it.  As for political affiliation, I'm the one who brought up "free stuff", and I have no political affiliation.  Why do you think I've been speaking favorably of the front-runner Biden and a couple other candidates?  I'm an independent who has voted for for both republicans and democrats in both federal and state/local elections.  I don't drink anyone's Kool-aid and am more of a realist across the board.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2019, 09:06:26 AM by FIREstache »

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1690
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #520 on: July 04, 2019, 09:17:15 AM »


Which is truly why it is silly to talk about "free" stuff. Everything the government does is technically "free". We all get "free" electricity, oil, food, roads, police, firemen, military, politicians, libraries, primary and secondary education, weather data, justice, etc. .

Wow. We paid $40k plus in taxes last year for our "free" stuff.

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #521 on: July 04, 2019, 09:27:37 AM »
Wow. We paid $40k plus in taxes last year for our "free" stuff.

And the cost of "free" stuff goes up faster than inflation!

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4272
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #522 on: July 04, 2019, 09:41:24 AM »
I was never talking about existing expenses but rather the additional "free stuff" to pander to specific blocks of people.  Again, here is a list of some of the new "ideas" that are being promoted by the candidates:

free pre-K
UBI dividend (not really universal, has exclusions)
$6000 tax credit (has exclusions, even for poor elderly)
baby bonds
reparations
free college
wiped college debt
mandated paid family leave
free child care
healthcare for illegals

You can't really separate these things out as "new expenses" without looking at the whole picture.  For instance, EMTALA already provides "free" emergency health care for undocumented immigrants - except of course it's not really free, it's paid for out of a "tax" on everyone else's use of healthcare services.  So are you objecting to EMTALA for "illegals" and would prefer to see them dying on the pavements outside hospitals?  How about providing them with "free" vaccinations, so that they don't spread the kinds of infectious diseases that could and should be eliminated in the 21st century?  Would you object to that?  Saying you are for or against "healthcare for illegals" looks more like a conditioned emotional response than a thought out policy position.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2019, 10:23:28 AM by former player »

FIPurpose

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 985
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #523 on: July 04, 2019, 09:47:55 AM »
Which is truly why it is silly to talk about "free" stuff. Everything the government does is technically "free". We all get "free" electricity, oil, food, roads, police, firemen, military, politicians, libraries, primary and secondary education, weather data, justice, etc. . So when the GOP talks about tax cuts they are saying that you can have all the same government for less money. ie "free" benefits. When the GOP add to military spending without raising taxes, they are creating a "free" military.

You're using a straw man argument because you're talking "existing" expenses where the usage is directly "shared by everyone", such as the military and police that protect the nation and community at large, and I was never talking about existing expenses but rather the additional "free stuff" to pander to specific blocks of people.  Again, here is a list of some of the new "ideas" that are being promoted by the candidates:

free pre-K
UBI dividend (not really universal, has exclusions)
$6000 tax credit (has exclusions, even for poor elderly)
baby bonds
reparations
free college
wiped college debt
mandated paid family leave
free child care
healthcare for illegals

There's also the $15/hr minimum wage increase, which will ultimately be paid for out of taxpayer's pockets.

Using the word "free" so ubiquitously makes it lose all meaning and is nothing more than a calling card for declaring your political affiliation.

Well, I don't support politicians promising more and more "free" stuff to people just to win votes, even more so when it hurts other blocks of people or puts a greater tax burden on others.  There's an unfairness to it, and we can't afford it.  As for political affiliation, I'm the one who brought up "free stuff", and I have no political affiliation.  Why do you think I've been speaking favorably of the front-runner Biden and a couple other candidates?  I'm an independent who has voted for for both republicans and democrats in both federal and state/local elections.  I don't drink anyone's Kool-aid and am more of a realist across the board.

Usage may be "shared by everyone" but everyone is paying different amounts. A large majority of citizens are receiving "free" (ie subsidized) money in the form of cheaper utility prices, oil, food, etc. So maybe you're in the upper echelon of tax payers, if so, congrats.

By "existing expenses" you mean "existing free stuff". I mean I'm really just following your example of how you're using the word "free". "I don't want that free stuff because I can't see how it will benefit me. But the free stuff I'm getting today is all fine and dandy."

You're talking about what will create a larger tax burden for yourself, but half the items you listed wouldn't have anything to do with your personal bottom line, so I don't know why you continue to list them all or care so deeply about making sure they don't happen. For example, universal pre-k has been studied to actually be a net gain for society (ie it would overall lower your personal tax burden). Wiped college debt is being proposed to be paid for by a wall street tax (ie not additional income tax), this whole forum is against high trading, so I would guess you would pay relatively little of that. "Healthcare for illegals" already happens in ER's, adding them to a structured program would likely reduce costs to the system.

So no, none of this would "hurt you or other blocks of people" these are all systemic issues that are causing hurt on our entire system. Some of these would actually create more money than they would cost. BUT other people have already mentioned this in the thread, so I don't know why you continue to pretend like they're going to increase your tax burden. You were given a free secondary education. congrats! The government invested in you and then you paid back that investment many times over. Now think about what on your list of "freebees" are actually government investments in its own people. Will that investment pay itself back and then some? If so, then you should be supporting it enthusiastically, because that is basically "free" money that overall will decrease your future tax burden.

Quote
As for political affiliation, I'm the one who brought up "free stuff", and I have no political affiliation.  Why do you think I've been speaking favorably of the front-runner Biden and a couple other candidates?  I'm an independent who has voted for for both republicans and democrats in both federal and state/local elections.  I don't drink anyone's Kool-aid and am more of a realist across the board.

That's still a political affiliation.



Which is truly why it is silly to talk about "free" stuff. Everything the government does is technically "free". We all get "free" electricity, oil, food, roads, police, firemen, military, politicians, libraries, primary and secondary education, weather data, justice, etc. .

Wow. We paid $40k plus in taxes last year for our "free" stuff.

I'm guessing you included all your state and property taxes in that number, so I have no idea how to actually measure that number.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1690
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #524 on: July 04, 2019, 09:50:25 AM »
I didn't share it so you can measure it, I shared it because $40k+ ain't free.

FIPurpose

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 985
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #525 on: July 04, 2019, 09:57:42 AM »
I didn't share it so you can measure it, I shared it because $40k+ ain't free.

The top 5% of returns pay 60% of the federal income tax. So unless you're making north of 200k, you're living off of the system and taking from others. (IE your life is being subsidized by the rich)

So stop claiming that you're somehow paying "your fair share" or something. Because all your roads, oil, food, etc. Are only as cheap as they are because someone else is paying way more in taxes. Your 40k does not come close to paying for the actual costs of the benefits that you're taking from the government.

Well unless you do make more than 200k per year in AGI. Then again. Congrats, but then you also wouldn't be "middle class".

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #526 on: July 04, 2019, 10:14:34 AM »
I didn't share it so you can measure it, I shared it because $40k+ ain't free.

The top 5% of returns pay 60% of the federal income tax. So unless you're making north of 200k, you're living off of the system and taking from others. (IE your life is being subsidized by the rich)

So stop claiming that you're somehow paying "your fair share" or something. Because all your roads, oil, food, etc. Are only as cheap as they are because someone else is paying way more in taxes. Your 40k does not come close to paying for the actual costs of the benefits that you're taking from the government.

Well unless you do make more than 200k per year in AGI. Then again. Congrats, but then you also wouldn't be "middle class".

It's amazing how many people don't get this. On a healthcare system like what was/is backed by some republicans, a medical procedure will wipe out that $40k 3x over. A child's education would wipe it out twice over. Raised your kids already? Great, what about their expenses for their children if they should have some. It's a bit un-American to only consider what you would benefit from taxes...particularly when you ignore all that you are.

The whole American experiment is based on the premise that EVERYONE benefits when we all progress as a society. You do not want to be a wealthy person in a country where the lower classes are on the verge of revolt. Ask history. So yes, rich people benefit, often financially, but even more so in terms of quality of life, when we all have access to the basic things, and a path towards personal progress.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2019, 10:18:18 AM by Lmoot »

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #527 on: July 04, 2019, 12:28:14 PM »
I didn't share it so you can measure it, I shared it because $40k+ ain't free.

At least you're paying for yourself, as I am.  You sometimes hear how illegal aliens are paying taxes and that their tax contribution to society means they are contributing instead of taking.  But in fact, the vast majority are net takers because the taxes they pay don't pay for their share of costs.

See this thread:

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/now-that-you-are-a-net-'taker'-do-you-support-more-a-more-socialist-government/

For 2016 federal spending, it shows about $30K/yr per household and $12K/yr per capita.

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #528 on: July 07, 2019, 12:43:54 PM »

Saw on MTP this morning that Biden is still doing the best by far in polls showing candidates going head to head against Trump.  The other top candidates are within the margin of error, either tied or slightly leading Trump.

Harris got all over Biden about his busing views, and ironically, she has since admitted she has the same viewpoint on it.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #529 on: July 07, 2019, 12:54:15 PM »
So,.....all this talk about paying your way, etc.  Good to see responsible people.

Is it really responsible to be borrowing money from a foreign government to finance stuff?  History books are full of monarchs that got themselves into deep dudu by borrowing to pay for their wars.  Shuld the United States be borrowing to finance it's wars?

Which of these candidates is the most financially responsible.  Elizabeth Warren seems to know a lot about money.   You guys are frugal.  You don't want to give away the store in Social programs.  How about the other side?  I mean how about the money coming in.  Should taxes already be higher just to pay off what we've already spent?  I ten to forego immediate gratification.  Should Uncle Sam be doing some of the same?

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #530 on: July 08, 2019, 05:03:41 PM »
Should taxes already be higher just to pay off what we've already spent?  I ten to forego immediate gratification.  Should Uncle Sam be doing some of the same?

They would need to be a lot higher for a long time to pay off what we've already spent (borrowed).  But, we're still headed in the wrong direction - debt keeps increasing, which is why we can't just keep giving away more free stuff.  This is why I keep saying we can't afford it.

redbirdfan

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 118
  • Location: Seattle
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #531 on: July 08, 2019, 06:07:10 PM »
I don't necessarily have a problem with the "free stuff."  Societies choose what they value through public policy.  I lived in Germany for a couple of years.  Taxes were high but they covered almost all of tuition, medical care, etc.  I think it is fine that countries use tax revenue for the health and education of its citizens.  Personally, I would rather fight about what is covered on the margins than for everyone to plan their career longevity based on the availability of health care.  The problem to me isn't with the notion of government funded health care and education...the problem is getting from point A (our status quo) to point B.  You can't have "democratic socialist" taxes and capitalist debt.  Having said that, you shouldn't have to mortgage your future to attend college.  You shouldn't have to risk bankruptcy due to an illness/medical event.  That shouldn't be controversial as a starting point. 

I believe it is a (historically) conservative position to separate health coverage from employment.  I haven't heard of any conservatives in countries with a national health care system calling for its abolition.  If we could implement it without wreaking havoc, and without the complete disregard of our current system,  it would allow a significant amount of people 55+ to retire with peace of mind and it would allow a significant amount of people to fully run with their entrepreneurial ideas.  Then again, I would also separate the amount of retirement savings from specific jobs.  It's crazy to me that you can save anywhere from $6k to $65k in tax-deferred space based on what your employer allows.   I don't know how to get from where we are to where the rest of the western world is, but I'm open to moving us in that direction in a non-disruptive and sustainable way. 

The country seems to be too polarized and too eager to divide things in terms of "us" and "them" to accomplish anything meaningful.  Republicans have flipped on the ACA which started out as a conservative concept.  Democrats are racing to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  We've officially reached a point at which we'd rather have the political football than a solution.   

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #532 on: July 08, 2019, 06:57:09 PM »
Should taxes already be higher just to pay off what we've already spent?  I ten to forego immediate gratification.  Should Uncle Sam be doing some of the same?

They would need to be a lot higher for a long time to pay off what we've already spent (borrowed).  But, we're still headed in the wrong direction - debt keeps increasing, which is why we can't just keep giving away more free stuff.  This is why I keep saying we can't afford it.

I think some of that "free" stuff is actually an investment.  Health Care takes up about 17 percent of the United States GDP.  If this was changed to be more like other countries there would be a difference that would free up a lot of money to pay off debt or pay for other Social Services by some mechanism I won't propose.  Besides, without the burden of health care, our businesses should be more competitive.

Education is an investment in the future.  It makes people more competitive with the people in other lands who seem to have awesome education these days.

Some of the stuff seems far out and will never pass so I don't worry about it.  For example, the idea of cash reparations.  I am in favor of helping disadvantaged neighborhoods with decent schools, police protection, etc.  Once again, this is an investment in the future.

We can't ever pay back those debts if the country can't sell goods and services to bring in currency.

secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #533 on: July 08, 2019, 07:11:38 PM »
Swalwell dropped out.

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #534 on: July 08, 2019, 07:34:35 PM »
Swalwell dropped out.

Good riddance.

Current front runners and national poll average (ref. NY Times)  2%+

Joe Biden                26%
Bernie Sanders       16%
Kamala Harris          14%
Elizabeth Warren    13%
Pete Buttigieg           4%   
Beto O’Rourke           2%   
Cory Booker              2%
« Last Edit: July 08, 2019, 09:15:13 PM by FIREstache »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4183
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #535 on: July 08, 2019, 08:27:35 PM »
Swalwell dropped out.

Good riddens.

Current front runners and national poll average (ref. NY Times)  2%+

Joe Biden                26%
Bernie Sanders       16%
Kamala Harris          14%
Elizabeth Warren    13%
Pete Buttigieg           4%   
Beto O’Rourke           2%   
Cory Booker              2%

*riddance

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #536 on: July 08, 2019, 09:16:31 PM »

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #537 on: July 09, 2019, 04:56:10 AM »
Didn't remember who he was.  Then I saw that he was the "pass the torch" guy.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/452067-biden-commends-swalwell-after-the-lawmaker-exits-2020-race

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #538 on: July 09, 2019, 06:41:18 AM »
I think Mayor Pete put a hex on him when he gave him that stare down during the debate.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4718
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #539 on: July 09, 2019, 06:56:29 AM »

Saw on MTP this morning that Biden is still doing the best by far in polls showing candidates going head to head against Trump.  The other top candidates are within the margin of error, either tied or slightly leading Trump.

Harris got all over Biden about his busing views, and ironically, she has since admitted she has the same viewpoint on it.
Where have you seen that?

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4718
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #540 on: July 09, 2019, 06:58:54 AM »
I don't necessarily have a problem with the "free stuff."  Societies choose what they value through public policy.  I lived in Germany for a couple of years.  Taxes were high but they covered almost all of tuition, medical care, etc.  I think it is fine that countries use tax revenue for the health and education of its citizens.  Personally, I would rather fight about what is covered on the margins than for everyone to plan their career longevity based on the availability of health care.  The problem to me isn't with the notion of government funded health care and education...the problem is getting from point A (our status quo) to point B.  You can't have "democratic socialist" taxes and capitalist debt.  Having said that, you shouldn't have to mortgage your future to attend college.  You shouldn't have to risk bankruptcy due to an illness/medical event.  That shouldn't be controversial as a starting point. 

I believe it is a (historically) conservative position to separate health coverage from employment.  I haven't heard of any conservatives in countries with a national health care system calling for its abolition.  If we could implement it without wreaking havoc, and without the complete disregard of our current system,  it would allow a significant amount of people 55+ to retire with peace of mind and it would allow a significant amount of people to fully run with their entrepreneurial ideas.  Then again, I would also separate the amount of retirement savings from specific jobs.  It's crazy to me that you can save anywhere from $6k to $65k in tax-deferred space based on what your employer allows.   I don't know how to get from where we are to where the rest of the western world is, but I'm open to moving us in that direction in a non-disruptive and sustainable way. 

The country seems to be too polarized and too eager to divide things in terms of "us" and "them" to accomplish anything meaningful.  Republicans have flipped on the ACA which started out as a conservative concept.  Democrats are racing to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  We've officially reached a point at which we'd rather have the political football than a solution.
Can you elaborate on what you mean here?

Samuel

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 301
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #541 on: July 09, 2019, 08:34:33 AM »
The country seems to be too polarized and too eager to divide things in terms of "us" and "them" to accomplish anything meaningful.  Republicans have flipped on the ACA which started out as a conservative concept.  Democrats are racing to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  We've officially reached a point at which we'd rather have the political football than a solution.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right.

+1 to everything. I too long for sensible discussions, compromise, and incremental change. The proposed "solutions" just get more and more extreme when no one can think past the next election and all we have are A or B choices.

Psychstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 821
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #542 on: July 09, 2019, 10:59:35 AM »
The country seems to be too polarized and too eager to divide things in terms of "us" and "them" to accomplish anything meaningful.  Republicans have flipped on the ACA which started out as a conservative concept.  Democrats are racing to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  We've officially reached a point at which we'd rather have the political football than a solution.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right.

+1 to everything. I too long for sensible discussions, compromise, and incremental change. The proposed "solutions" just get more and more extreme when no one can think past the next election and all we have are A or B choices.

Can you identify a time when this actually happened consistently? Or is it more a general wish?

Samuel

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 301
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #543 on: July 09, 2019, 11:31:58 AM »
The country seems to be too polarized and too eager to divide things in terms of "us" and "them" to accomplish anything meaningful.  Republicans have flipped on the ACA which started out as a conservative concept.  Democrats are racing to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  We've officially reached a point at which we'd rather have the political football than a solution.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right.

+1 to everything. I too long for sensible discussions, compromise, and incremental change. The proposed "solutions" just get more and more extreme when no one can think past the next election and all we have are A or B choices.

Can you identify a time when this actually happened consistently? Or is it more a general wish?

It's definitely a bit of wishful thinking, but not that long ago it was much more common for legislation to pass with a mixture of D and R votes. Now everything is party line votes + a handful of electorally vulnerable opponents, and then sweeping executive orders (and court battles) when Congress can't find any common ground and fail to pass even modest compromises.

Visualized in 80 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEczkhfLwqM

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2389
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #544 on: July 09, 2019, 12:37:56 PM »
The country seems to be too polarized and too eager to divide things in terms of "us" and "them" to accomplish anything meaningful.  Republicans have flipped on the ACA which started out as a conservative concept.  Democrats are racing to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  We've officially reached a point at which we'd rather have the political football than a solution.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right.

+1 to everything. I too long for sensible discussions, compromise, and incremental change. The proposed "solutions" just get more and more extreme when no one can think past the next election and all we have are A or B choices.

Can you identify a time when this actually happened consistently? Or is it more a general wish?

It's definitely a bit of wishful thinking, but not that long ago it was much more common for legislation to pass with a mixture of D and R votes. Now everything is party line votes + a handful of electorally vulnerable opponents, and then sweeping executive orders (and court battles) when Congress can't find any common ground and fail to pass even modest compromises.

Visualized in 80 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEczkhfLwqM

Correct. Deepest thanks to Newt Gingrich and Mitch McConnell, who have been the primary architects and executioners of hyper-partisan policy for the last few decades.

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #545 on: July 09, 2019, 04:33:34 PM »

Saw on MTP this morning that Biden is still doing the best by far in polls showing candidates going head to head against Trump.  The other top candidates are within the margin of error, either tied or slightly leading Trump.

Harris got all over Biden about his busing views, and ironically, she has since admitted she has the same viewpoint on it.
Where have you seen that?

I saw that multiple places, can't remember where exactly, so I searched just now to find some references:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tulsi-gabbard-says-kamala-harris-hatched-political-ploy-to-smear-joe-biden-on-race

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-laughs-at-kamala-harris-for-her-shift-on-busing-our-positions-arent-any-different

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala-harris-crushed-joe-biden-on-busing-at-the-debate-heres-why-shes-walking-it-back?

« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 05:03:05 PM by FIREstache »

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1449
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #546 on: July 10, 2019, 12:08:14 AM »
I'm not a Kamala apologist, but the thing that bothered me about that exchange was how unprepared Biden seemed to be for it. All he had to do was explain that Black Americans were split on whether they wanted mandatory busing, or to point to some helpful legislation that he was able to pass by cooperating with Dixiecrats. But he couldn't seem to do it.

I think Kamala (and Booker, earlier) was genuinely aghast at the things Biden had been saying, like “He never called me 'boy,' he always called me 'son.'”  (of course Eastland wouldn't call Biden 'boy', why would he since they were the same race?) This was a chance to explain himself, but Biden missed the point entirely.

On another note from the debate, some have mentioned that they're worried that Warren isn't tough enough to take on Trump. Have a look at this article.  She has a record of being plenty tough-- at least to Democrats. 
https://www.thenation.com/article/warren-democrats-obama-president/



SpeedReader

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 154
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Lynnwood, WA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #547 on: July 12, 2019, 09:35:31 PM »

Saw on MTP this morning that Biden is still doing the best by far in polls showing candidates going head to head against Trump.  The other top candidates are within the margin of error, either tied or slightly leading Trump.

Harris got all over Biden about his busing views, and ironically, she has since admitted she has the same viewpoint on it.
Where have you seen that?

I saw that multiple places, can't remember where exactly, so I searched just now to find some references:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tulsi-gabbard-says-kamala-harris-hatched-political-ploy-to-smear-joe-biden-on-race

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-laughs-at-kamala-harris-for-her-shift-on-busing-our-positions-arent-any-different

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala-harris-crushed-joe-biden-on-busing-at-the-debate-heres-why-shes-walking-it-back?

Sorry, but I can't accept Fox News as a legitimate source.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 915
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #548 on: July 12, 2019, 09:46:30 PM »
Why no love (or hate) for Tulsi here? She has an interesting foreign policy position (basically a "Russian plant" source 1, source 2)

FIREstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #549 on: July 12, 2019, 10:01:21 PM »

Saw on MTP this morning that Biden is still doing the best by far in polls showing candidates going head to head against Trump.  The other top candidates are within the margin of error, either tied or slightly leading Trump.

Harris got all over Biden about his busing views, and ironically, she has since admitted she has the same viewpoint on it.
Where have you seen that?

I saw that multiple places, can't remember where exactly, so I searched just now to find some references:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tulsi-gabbard-says-kamala-harris-hatched-political-ploy-to-smear-joe-biden-on-race

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-laughs-at-kamala-harris-for-her-shift-on-busing-our-positions-arent-any-different

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala-harris-crushed-joe-biden-on-busing-at-the-debate-heres-why-shes-walking-it-back?

Sorry, but I can't accept Fox News as a legitimate source.

That's funny, that's how I feel about msNBC.  However, I provided 3 different sources, so what are you complaining about?  And come to think of it, I didn't even post those for you, so I don't give a rat's a$$ what you consider legitimate.