2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumRobert Reich: How to respond to Bernie skeptics?
Ok first off there is a VIDEO of this here and it is much better than this. I would urge you all to watch it. It does seem facebook is the only place it can be seen and it doesn't allow for offsite embedding sadly.
Six Responses to Bernie Skeptics
http://robertreich.org/post/137454417985
1. “He’d never beat Trump or Cruz in a general election.”
Wrong. According to the latest polls, Bernie is the strongest Democratic candidate in the general election, defeating both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz in hypothetical matchups. (The latest Real Clear Politics averages of all polls shows Bernie beating Trump by a larger margin than Hillary beats Trump, and Bernie beating Cruz while Hillary loses to Cruz.)
2. “He couldn’t get any of his ideas implemented because Congress would reject them.”
If both house of Congress remain in Republican hands, no Democrat will be able to get much legislation through Congress, and will have to rely instead on executive orders and regulations. But there’s a higher likelihood of kicking Republicans out if Bernie’s “political revolution” continues to surge around America, bringing with it millions of young people and other voters, and keeping them politically engaged.
3. “America would never elect a socialist.”
P-l-e-a-s-e. America’s most successful and beloved government programs are social insurance – Social Security and Medicare. A highway is a shared social expenditure, as is the military and public parks and schools. The problem is we now have excessive socialism for the rich (bailouts of Wall Street, subsidies for Big Ag and Big Pharma, monopolization by cable companies and giant health insurers, giant tax-deductible CEO pay packages) – all of which Bernie wants to end or prevent.
4. “His single-payer healthcare proposal would cost so much it would require raising taxes on the middle class.”
This is a duplicitous argument. Studies show that a single-payer system would be far cheaper than our current system, which relies on private for-profit health insurers, because a single-payer system wouldn’t spend huge sums on advertising, marketing, executive pay, and billing. So even if the Sanders single-payer plan did require some higher taxes, Americans would come out way ahead because they’d save far more than that on health insurance.
.....more in link to video or article
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Don't you even care for the poor H supporters on DU?
Don't you realize that posts such as this make them look dumb and republican-ish?
And they can't participate in threads like this because they would just expose and embarrass themselves if they do.
Have you no pity for them?
Uncle Joe
(58,467 posts)Thanks for the thread, pinebox.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)1) Reich is smart enough to know that GE polls this far out are meaningless. This is not some big secret, it's a widely accepted and understood statistical phenomenon. He's playing dumb here. Bernie hasn't been hit with the GOP attack machine yet, when he does, with his "I'm a socialist" and "yes, I will raise your taxes", he's toast.
2) Reich knows that even with a "revolution", the odds are which are very near zero, we don't take the house and we get 60 in the senate. And even if we did, there's still not nearly the votes for single payer. Bernie's own estimate was that there were maybe 10 or so in the senate. Which means that the political constraints will be real, and Bernie's proposals are meaningless in terms of what will happen in reality.
3) Another embarrassing dodge. Americans like (some) socialist programs like SS, but they certainly do not like "socialism." And Bernie stepped in it by saying "I am a socialist." Gallup found that only 47% of Americans would vote for a socialist, even if s/he were nominated by their party and were well-qualified. It polls lower than atheist or even Muslim.
4) Actually Reich is being duplicitous. The administrative overhead he describes that single payer would save accounts for only a small fraction of our excess healthcare spending versus the rest of the world. Again, he is smart enough to know this, it's not controversial. To really get costs down, you need to reduce the cost of care, not just the cost of administration. This can be done with or without single payer, but either way it is going to be difficult. More knowledgeable and less biased people like Ezra Klein have examined Bernie's plan and found that it just doesn't add up. Moreover, the plan he's talking about has no hope of becoming reality. If it somehow did make it through congress, it would be unrecognizable after all the compromises that would have to be made.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)"You can't fix stupid."
DanTex
(20,709 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)There is no way to rebut your gibberish unless I cut and paste the original post. Your so far off base, we critics can't help you.
Sorry, Dan, you lose.
Bern on, people!
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)...the time to rebut your points. I'm sure someone else here will. I just think you're a total downer and I disagree with you on most everything.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)1) Reich is responding to the common claim by Hillary fans that only she could win against a Republican in the GE. Bernie does as well and at this point a little better than Hillary against each of the Republicans likely to be the nominee. So, in responding to Hillary fans, it is good to point out that the argument that Hillary is the stronger candidate in terms of winning the GE is bogus. It is bogus. So this is a good answer to the claims of Hillary fans.
2) Hillary is hated by Republicans. And Republicans have even managed to poison the attitudes of a lot of Independents. Hillary doesn't help matters. She is not an Obama. She is a bit harsh and vindictive. She can be very, very arrogant. Her answers sound self-centered. In the forum the other evening, her answer that really turned me off was the one about how she went to Alabama "all by myself." Bernie is more focused on America and Americans. He is far less self-centered. Bernie has been in Congress for many years and knows personally many of the key Republicans. He has worked with them and was master at getting amendments favorable to Democratic values attached to bills. Bernie is the person to choose if you want someone who can get along with Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Hillary served less than two terms in Congress. She doesn't know the ropes or the rules like Bernie does. In fact, Hillary has only been elected twice. When it comes to getting things through Congress, Bernie is our best hope regardless of the make-up of the Congress.
3) The times they are a-changing. The bail-outs woke a lot of people up. It was very clear that the socialism in our country is for the CEOs, the big-bankers and not for the little people who lost their homes in one case I know of simply for missing one payment and then being unable to pay the surcharges imposed because of that one payment. Also, jobs are still hard to get if you belong to a minority or live in the wrong place. Takes more down payment money in many cases to buy a house. Americans will vote for the candidate who speaks to their concerns, especially at this time, their economic concerns, the economic and legal injustice in our system, and that is Bernie.
4) Single payer will be cheaper. Europe does it for less. It may mean some changes in the delivery of healthcare. I was just talking to a doctor about this today. We will need more doctors, more medical personnel. But one big advantage for doctors and hospitals under single payer is that the bills get paid. The bills will still be scrutinized for excessive charges, etc., but if the single payer system agrees to pay a bill, it will be paid. There will be no such thing as the doctor or hospital having to go to a collection agency to get a bill paid. And in this day and age of computers, it is just a matter of time until many very small matters like measuring blood pressure will be done via the computer or some similar system and less nurse or doctor time will be required to follow up on patients. Kaiser Health Care is already using the computer to communicate with patients as are, probably some other insurance companies. I lived in Europe. I liked single payer. Americans will too. It is cheaper. It simply is. Reich is right about this.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)1) Yes, he's responding to the claim, and he's using polls that he very well knows are worthless. Might as well be basing his response on an astrological chart. The electability argument isn't based on worthless polls 10 months out, it's based on the obvious fact that the GOP attack machine will crush him. Which Reich ignores.
2) Republicans hate all Dems. That doesn't change the fact that none of Bernie's ideas have the slightest chance to pass. By Bernie's own admission, single payer had 10 votes last time. Hillary is much more skilled and experienced in actually fighting with the GOP, but even she wouldn't be able to get single payer through. She will be able to get more accomplished than Bernie though.
3) The socialism poll I referred to took place way after the bailouts. The only evidence Bernie fans every present about the acceptance of socialism is anecdotal. Nobody as far left as Bernie has ever won a major election outside a few small states. Only Bernie fans believe that Bernie can win the election, because they think everyone else looks at the world like they do, but the facts don't line up with that belief.
4) It would be cheaper, but not as cheap as Bernie says. Virtually every progressive policy expert that has looked at the issue has come to the same conclusion, and also found that Hillary's approach is better. The numbers just don't add up. And then there's the crucial fact that even if SP somehow makes it through congress, it won't look anything like what Bernie has proposed. The advantage of ACA is that it is already law, now all we need to do is improve and expand it.
By the way, not all of Europe has single payer. Holland, for example, has basically a better version of Obamacare. Since we already have Obamacare, and it's been shown in other countries that this can work, the logical thing to do is take the approach which is not only politically feasible, but leverages what is already in place and avoids the risks and costs, both logistical and political, of transitioning to something else.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)1) It's Hillary fans who make the claims about electability. Sanders is just responding. I have no idea what the claims about Hillary's electability are based on, but they are wrong if as you say it is too early to tell. Bernie is at least as electable as Hillary. If you don't think the polls are right, then you probably don't think that Hillary is more electable than Bernie. I don't know what you base your ideas on, but I base mine on the people I meet to some extent. And most of the people I meet and the people I meet when out campaigning, prefer Bernie. Anecdotal, yes, but as you point out, the only alternative is to admit that it is too soon to know for sure.
2. Hillary has very far less experience working with and defeating Republicans in elections. Vermont is now viewed as a liberal state. But that is partly thanks to Bernie who was so successful in Burlington when he served as mayor and was able to accomplish a lot and work with Republicans to do it. Hillary -- really she hasn't done that much on her own account politically. She likes to count the years Bill was a successful politician and take credit for them, but look at the awful bills that Bill Clinton signed (I have listed them many times and won't go there now because I am on my way out the door) and how we are still paying for his mistakes. Hillary has only been elected to public office twice. And she made a lot of mistakes as Secretary of State. I note that Hillary supporters like to blame things that were wrong when she was at the State Department as Obama's decisions (things like H1-B visas promised in India, etc.) but like to credit Hillary for good things. That's just nonsense. Either Hillary takes the blame for the bad and the credit for the good or she just admits that she really wasn't ultimately in charge. In fact, she has less executive experience, far less, than Bernie. And we now have ISIS to contend with. There wasn't a strong ISIS to deal with when she became Secretary of State. But there is now. Is there a connection? I probably would answer that one way and you another. But I think that mistakes, serious ones, were make with regard to Syria, Turkey and the entire triangle involved in arming and strengthening ISIS. There are scandals to be unburied there, I suspect.
3) The bankruptcies, bail-outs, foreclosures and job losses have left a far worse scar on the American economy than Hillary and Obama admit. The Fed issued a troubling announcement today. Bernie is the only one who can wake up Americans to what is going on. Each individual has felt the sting of a lost home, a lost job, a closed business. Bernie is the only one who is saying that we are not alone in our losses. That's why Bernie has skyrocketed so quickly to be a serious contender in this race.
4) I see single payer as something that will be built on Obamacare. I do not expect an immediate and sudden transformation of our for-profit, expensive and unwieldy insurance system overnight. I expect the addition of a public option and encouragement of non-profits within the Obamacare system along with extending Medicare for people 50 and over (when unprofitable health problems tend to begin) and paying for that with a tax hike especially on employers. The change will not be overnight. I think a lot of Hillary supporters assume it will be. Chelsea Clinton's statement seemed to assume that. Bernie served in Congress for many, many years. He knows how to get things done. I trust him to bring single payer in through means that will be painless and insure that Americans get the best healthcare at the least cost. I trust Bernie. He has the experience. He has been elected and re-elected many times. That's every two years he was re-elected when he was in the House.
I trust Bernie, and many, many other Americans do too. I think that is his biggest advantage. When Bernie talks about his campaign, it is always about what 'we' can accomplish, not so much about the I. When Hillary talks, it is always about the I, what I have done, what I will do. Hillary is a very egotistical, egocentric candidate. Bernie is the we candidate. He talks about what he will do and stand for, but the focus of his statements is on what America needs and how Americans can achieve their dreams and fulfill their needs.
Bernie is the stronger candidate by far. Robert Reich is right about that.
1) Yes, it is. It's based primarily on (a) the socialist label, which still holds plenty of stigma (b) Bernie won't be adequately funded (c) nobody as far left as him has won any major election outside of a few deep blue states and (d) he's never faced the GOP attack machine. Rebutting that with useless polls, as Reich does, misses the whole point.
2) Bernie's experience is in Vermont, which doesn't generalize at all. Nothing in his past, or in his present, or anywhere else makes it even slightly plausible that he will get single payer or free college through congress. As I said, by his own words, they had about 10 single payer votes in the senate last time. That's the reality. I'm not saying Hillary will have it easy, but she's got much more executive level experience. In my opinion, she'll govern a lot like Obama, and he's been hugely effective.
3) You're right about some of that, but Bernie's surge has been basically confined to liberals. Trump is also surging, more so that Bernie even. He's actually the favorite to be the GOP nominee right now, whereas Hillary is still the Dem favorite, if not by as much as before. Does that make Trump electable? Of course not. The only way Trump wins, is if he runs against Bernie, in which case who knows, but against Hillary Trump is toast.
4) What you are describing is more of Hillary's incremental approach. You may see single payer built on Obamacare, but Bernie certainly does not. He makes that very clear. Hillary has the same goal of universal coverage, just a different approach, an approach which, I repeat, virtually all serious progressive policy analysts have concluded is better than Bernie's.
As for the word choice, "I" versus "we", or that stuff, meh. I care about what actually happens. Which laws get passed, and which don't. And what I really care about is not having a Republican in the White House. That would be horrible. Especially Cruz or Trump, and that's who it's gonna be.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)"administration" or administrative costs are actually profits to the 1% who own the insurance industry.
The US ranks 37th in healthcare, not number 1.
The billions that the insurance companies take for profits could all be used to lower the amount of money spent on "healthcare". Those profits easily outweigh the modest tax increase needed to cover a single payer system.
And reducing the cost of healthcare is far easier with a single payer system where profit margins are controlled. It works in every country where it exists, and all of these countries rank better than the US for care.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Eliminating health insurance profits alone will hardly do anything. Reducing all administrative costs to European levels would help more, but still would leave us a long way from Europe.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)profit, or excessive profit.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)what fraction do insurance company profits make up of our total health care expenditures every year.
For example, this article I just googled up puts insurance profits at $12B per year, which is less than half a percent of total healthcare spending. You can be opposed to profits as a matter of principle, but in terms of reducing costs, it won't make any noticeable difference.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/less-than-26-billion-dont-bother/?_r=0
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Generously, let's say 1% of healthcare spending is insurance profits. So you get rid of that, and you've saved 1% of costs. Nobody would even notice.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)on what the ACA defines as "healthcare". That leaves 20%, not your 1%, for non-healthcare costs. And some administrative expenses are included in the "healthcare" spending.
Politicians like to confuse people on real costs. War spending is a favorite, but what is really spent on healthcare is also confusing and hidden.
Many providers hire people for the sole purpose of trying to deal with hundreds of plans and insurers. Customers spend time and money dealing with the same insurers. Those also are costs, though not as easily quantifiable.
The bottom line is that the US officially spends twice what Canada spends per person, with poorer results.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)There are salaries to be paid, buildings to maintain, etc. Also, single payer also has administrative expense.
Yeah, we pay more than Canada. But it's not because of insurance profits. Not by a long shot.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)It is also hospitals that overcharge, pharmaceutical companies that overcharge, doctors that overcharge and fraudulently over bill and over treat.
There are a number of factors. But whatever is spent by insurance companies, that money is not spending on healthcare. That unavoidable fact accounts for money wasted.
The Canadian system, with which I am familiar, controls costs by controlling allocations for healthcare spending. One way that costs are controlled by not having expensive diagnostic machinery/equipment in every medical practice. I am sure you are familiar with the fact that when a provider/facility purchases medical equipment, there is a tendency for the provider/facility to use that equipment more than average. A way of amortizing costs at the expense of the patient.
Another way costs are controlled is by regulating what pharmaceutical companies can charge for drugs.
Taking out the profit motive, or limiting it, leads to lower spending.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Some of it is spend on actual administrative expenses -- processing claims, etc. A tiny fraction of that is profits. Administrative expenses also exist with single payer, but they are lower.
What you are describing with the Canadian system, for example, not having expensive machinery at so many facilities, would reduce costs, but that has nothing to do with the insurance expenses that would be eliminated with single payer. Of course, the flip side of that is that if you need a procedure with that machine, you have to travel farther.
Regulating drug costs would also reduce prices. Drug prices are only a small part of the overspending, but that would help. But government price-setting of drug prices doesn't require single payer. The government could just do that right now, if there was the political will. There's a flip side there too -- it could mean some drugs not being available, or less R&D -- R&D is another area where we overspend relative to other countries.
Another thing, single payer doesn't mean getting rid of the profit motive. Far from it. It only removes the profit motive at the insurance level. It gets rid of insurance companies and has the government pay for everything instead. But the profit motive is still there for healthcare providers, drug companies, etc. Single payer only refers to the payment system, not the delivery system.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)each province sets spending limits. Hospitals cannot charge whatever they want. An example would be a hospital charging $50 for an aspirin, or $20 for a pair of socks.
Much health spending comes when people are hospitalized, and there are no regulations governing how much price mark up there can be. That is another area where sensible regulation can help.
There is no difference in availability of drugs on Canada vs. the US. But the manufacturers are limited in what they can charge the health authority. Speaking of overspending, given that much of the R&D for drugs is actually done at public universities, using taxpayer dollars, pharmaceutical companies in the US spend heavily on advertising. A totally unnecessary, tax deductible expense.
So the Canadian system guarantees universal access, and controls costs. And rates better than the US system, 30 vs. 37, with better mortality and longevity rates. And Canadians cannot be bankrupted by medical costs, another advantage.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And what gives you any confidence that Medicare For All would?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Politicians write laws, except when laws are actually written by lobbyists.
If Medicare Part D had been written to allow Medicare to negotiate prices, billions could have been saved, but the GOP needed to cater to Big Pharma.
Similarly, if a single payer system set prices for procedures, providers would be unable to charge some patients more than others for identical services.
wilt the stilt
(4,528 posts)are we are fat out of shape people who eat like pigs
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Blame the food industry for obesity.
wilt the stilt
(4,528 posts)fat people have higher health costs Don't blame the food blame the way people eat. I'm almost 65 i weigh within 10 pounds of my college weight. I work out eat the right amount and my blood pressure is 122/80. I just had a physical and I was not prescribed any medication. My healthcare costs are very low. Compare that with overweight people.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)That assumes that people are willing to pay attention, and that people have the ability to read labels. I would assume neither.
I also work out 4-5 times a week. At my wife's insistence, I have a physical every year. At 65, my vitals are excellent. Is this my achievement, genetics, luck, a combination? But many people have underlying health conditions that do not always relate to poor personal decisions. And many elderly people are in poor health. Again, sometimes age related.
I have read some articles that tie the nearly epidemic increase in obesity to corn syrup, additives, and a limitation on availability of healthy food choices for many people due to poverty.
And all of that does not excuse the fact that health providers can basically charge whatever they want.
wilt the stilt
(4,528 posts)as we get older we have to consume less. Bottom line. Look at the portions at a restaurant. My wife and I often split an entree.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But many people seem to feel that whatever is on the plate, no matter how big the plate, is a portion.
To me it is simple, if you are gaining weight, you are eating too much.
elias49
(4,259 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Here's a chart that summarizes the areas where we pay more relative to GDP than the rest of the world. It mostly comes down to care. Administration is there, but it's small. So are prescription drug costs.
elias49
(4,259 posts)over half the pie chart is "Remaining spending"
But, in the end, if so many other industrialized nations can provide health care for all, why can't the US? We're not 'up to it'?
Wasteful?
Greedy?
A remarkably unhealthy population?
If only universal health care had been enshrined in the Constitution. 3rd amendment, right after the 'everybody should have a gun' 2nd.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)we spent the same amount on healthcare, relative to GDP, as other countries. The rest of the colors are what we overpay. I was confused about the same thing when I first saw it, not a good label.
The basic conclusion is that we overpay for everything. The extra costs are spread throughout. We are possibly a little more unhealthy, but that's on the chart, and it's only a tiny sliver. We do waste money on administration due to our complicated payment system, but that's only a small amount also, though more than disease prevalence. Our doctors get paid more, but again a small part of it. The right-wing talking point, malpractice suits, is there but it's tiny. Drug costs are there, but not a big fraction. And so on.
To get costs down, the prices of care, like how much the doctor/hospital gets paid for a treatment, has to go down. And that's tricky. Hospitals are organized around current pay rates. If you tell them, you're going to get 30% less for everything, they might have to lay people off, close some wings, stop offering certain things, some will close (but other differently run ones might open), etc.
You're right, we should be able to provide healthcare for all without paying so much more than other countries. And we can. But getting there is not going to be easy.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)things. Also, hidden within the doctors' pay is the cost, once again, of billing, collecting bills, administrative costs of all kinds that can be greatly reduced with single payer. Also hidden are the costs of equipment which may be duplicated and which could be reduced if doctors worked together and shared some of that equipment. We have so many hidden costs in our healthcare right down to the waiting rooms of doctors who work in offices on their own rather than in medical groups. Not that single payer would guarantee that doctors were more efficient in their use of space or worked more in groups, but it would make it less risky for a doctor to share space, equipment and staff with other doctors.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
pnwmom
(109,015 posts)And he's been opposing Hillary since the Clinton administration, where he argued (successfully, unfortunately) that NAFTA should be the first priority, not universal healthcare. Hillary had wanted universal healthcare to be the administration's first goal.
Reich's judgement leaves something to be desired.
He said many times that he pushed for stronger labor and environmental side agreements - but couldn't get them done. And he has said he wished he had done more. So do I. But he was part of the Clinton administration - so I'm glad he's out of there and can speak for himself.
But I guess if his judgment leaves something to be desired - Hillary must be the least desirable. Since she was for so many many things (Iraq war, NAFTA, CAFTA, DOMA, TPP, Keystone) that she is now against and against so many things (federal "blanket rules" on guns, same sex marriage, drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants) that she is now for.
Since Bernie has been the most consistent - welcome to the party!
pnwmom
(109,015 posts)And he can say whatever he wants now about pushing for stronger "side agreements" behind the scenes. He was a huge proponent of NAFTA.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/interviews/reich.html
Later in the summer, NAFTA takes the fore. You are passionate about this. AFL-CIO President Lane Kirkland is in your ear all the time. Elsewhere in the administration, there is enormous pressure in support of NAFTA. How did the president deal with that? He had you and labor in one ear, and Rubin and Panetta in the other.
Well, personally, I was and still am a free trader. I think that free trade is inevitable and overall it helps everyone. But labor was very against NAFTA. And I remember appearing on so many stages in front of various labor groups and being booed off the stage because I was representing the president, and the president was committed to NAFTA. He was committed to NAFTA in the campaign. He said, during the 1992 campaign, "I am going to sign the North American Free Trade Act."
What was your advice to him during the debate though?
My advice to him during the campaign was to sign it.
And then later, once, Kirkland was telling you guys that it was going to be a "f-ing disaster," and you were going to come to regret it. You passed that on to the president. What was his reaction?
He shrugged. He was willing to take on organized labor over the North American Free Trade Act. I think the real issue there was what kind of priority NAFTA should get. Should it be one of the highest priorities of the administration in those first years? Should he spend a lot of political capital on it? Should he delay health care in order to get NAFTA done first? And the first lady wanted health care first. She didn't want him to expend political capital on NAFTA. She was concerned, and in retrospect she was absolutely right, that if health care came after NAFTA, then health care might never get done.
Nanjeanne
(5,003 posts)Even now he's not completely against trade - just wants better deals.
But If people are not allowed to change their stance, I still can't quite grasp that he has no credibility but Hillary does when she's "evolved" on almost every policy stand she's ever made. Sometimes even in a matter of weeks ("I'm a moderate / I'm a progressive)!
pnwmom
(109,015 posts)since he has was first trying to get access to Bill Clinton (and wrote about having to do it through her.)
Of course you are right. Robert Reich has no business writing anything because he's jealous that Hillary got more time with Bill than he did. And he's been holding that grudge since - what? 1993?
Got it.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)That can only be answered with evasion.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)You say;
Am I hearing this right?
Yet you support a candidate who is the king of bad judgment?
Gay marriage
Iraq
Syria
Honduras
TPP
KXL
NAFTA (cough)
Single payer
Immigration
on and on.......
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)kenn3d
(486 posts)In deference to pinebox who included the video link in his OP, I embed it here for those who forgot or otherwise didn't have the opportunity to watch it.
I had just tweeted it and still had the url in my paste buffer.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Thanks.
