All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Tendrin]

Oklahoma Republicans finding the time to vile again.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/oklahoma-...181329648.html

Oklahoma House passes bill that would revoke licenses of doctors who perform abortions

[Steel Inquisitor]

That's demonstrably false.

When Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton, many of those that were dedicated to the movement called him a sell out and refused to fall in line and stop criticizing Hillary. They didn't stay quiet and do as they were told.

There are Democrats that still blame Bernie's supporters for Trump getting elected.

Many of these people are to the left of Sanders. The loyalty they have for him is gone the moment he betrays the movement.

Demonstrate it for me.

They certainly aren't here, a few minor complaints don't make someone a reluctant follower, that's what everyone does. Reluctance requires immense distrust and a last resort, that they could lose at any stage. Sanders has the most dedicated followers in the primaries.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-...hs-11574611201

Some did, not everyone, and he remains to have a tight grip on the moment as this election shows.

There doesn't need to be an inheritor or a successor in the way you're thinking of, that's the point.

To quote Chomsky.

People are becoming politically active because of Sanders, but not just for him.

The movement's survival relies on a successor, they're not like liberals or centrists where there's ten Sanders coming down the pike every day. It's why the left hasn't maintained a strong movement in its existence in America while the other factions continue unabated.

Chompsky isn't a winning move for convincing non-leftists, his credentials have evaporated over the years. It's telling how Chompsky uses the narrative that everyone's "afraid" of Sanders strictly on his ability to upturn the status quo, when Sanders has failed to do this while in congress and that there are numerous plausible reasons to dislike him or think he's not the right man to make that happen.

Without Sanders the movement doesn't get a resurgence, it had faded from the limelight since Occupy. To this day he defines the movement more than the movement defines him.

I'm not surprised.

You've shown a habit of missing things in my post. Like, last when I said I don't think anyone could beat Trump in 2020 and somehow you took that me saying Bernie Sanders would effortlessly beat Trump in 2020.

But, I've criticized Bernie before. I've outright said that he sucks.

I just think the stuff that people here focus on is far less important.

Cherry picking one misread of a post you made to discredit my entire thesis isn't as convincing as you assume it is.

Saying "he sucks" is meaningless, you mustn't hate him that badly too post this long, detailed response if you think he's bad.

Not discussing certain flaws in a candidate your defending isn't being "less important," it's ignoring those faults completely. Given how they're about his health, that's not a minor factor since he's an old man with a heart condition.

The other Presidents you mentioned didn't have what Bernie has going for him. A multiracial working class movement.

What Bernie's proposing, he can't get done in the current system. The people are going to have to transform the system to make stuff like Medicare For All possible.

I'm not talking about a violent revolution or anything, but expect stuff like general strikes and hounding politicians that stand in the way, Democrats and Republicans.

That's the point of Bernie's campaign, empowering people so that they can make radical political change.

It's the opposite of seeing him as some sort of savior figure. We know that we have to continue to be active in order to get what we want, because Bernie isn't just going to give it to us.

That's the funny thing. The people supporting Bernie Sanders are accused of seeing him as some sort of messianic figure, but they are the ones who are going to keep going even after he's elected.

Their political activity doesn't begin and end with voting.

Sanders is supposed to have this right now, and it's nowhere to be found when congress is in turmoil and Trump needed to get convicted in the Senate. His movement didn't move a single inch to make the impossible happen, unless you're crediting Romney's vote entirely on Sanders pressure.

Sanders being president won't remodel the entire American political system, he'll make budges here and there but that's it. The movement you're talking about isn't anywhere near ready for that kind of political pressure. Sanders certainly hans't made it that strong in the three years since Trump's been elected.

I know the point, I disagree that he's shown he's got the capability to do it. So far he's been showing the exact opposite, all he's shown is indirectly shifting the Democrats left - which they were trending to before he made his move in '16.

Except that's not how he's greeted by his followers, they'll go to absurd lengths to help him against his political enemies. Many say what you're saying but the moment itself disproves that. It's why the movement is fragile.

Too many people looking up to Sanders still don't believe voting is important to establishing change in politics, and are too disorganised to engage in protests the likes of which occur in Europe which Sanders relies on to make his vision more than a dream. They're young, and apathetic, Trump himself isn't moving them to what Sanders says he wants to occur.

Seventy-eight, but I don't think it's an issue worth giving more weight than his record, and what we have to look out for while he's President. Stuff like his opposition to BDS, his intention to continue using drone strikes, and the shitty US foreign policy he's supported are things I'm more concerned about.

The worst case with Bernie's health is if something happens before the election. I already think Trump is going to win, but that would guarantee it.

Him dying while in office or having to step down aren't as important, because as I've said, Bernie's main importance is the movement that's growing around him.

His record won't count for anything when he's incapacitated in office from health reasons, his VP's will. That's the curse of having elderly candidates. All which go for nought when the VP takes over and they go in another direction. They'd be president then. Another disadvantage to this is he's vulnerable to congress activating the Twenty-fifth amendment, and unlike Trump the Democrats won't as be afraid to vote for it. That's why it's important to have strong ties with the part, they have your back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty...s_Constitution

This is a problem for Biden, too.

The worst case for Bernie's health is dying in office, his VP fails to maintain power and the movement gets depressed from losing an icon which isn't easily replaced. The left in America will shatter into millions of pieces and it'll take decades to mentally recover. The movement itself is directly tied to him, it's not as strong you're trying to convince us it is.

That's highly improbable.

If it were to happen, Sanders would lose pretty much all credibility.

The worst case scenario with Tulsi is that he gives her a position where she can't do any damage but that too is really unlikely.

Tulsi has closer connections to Sanders then you think. She's supported both by Nina Turner and Jane Sanders.

That's a risk you're willing to take, I'm not.

Is there any position in government where she wouldn't cause any damage? She shouldn't hold any position in an administration.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Oklahoma Republicans finding the time to vile again.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/oklahoma-...181329648.html

Let's hear it for Republicans who care more about zygotes than they do REAL children who might be sick, starving, abused, homeless or poorly educated/uneducated.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

Demonstrate it for me.

Already did.

They certainly aren't here, a few minor complaints don't make someone a reluctant follower, that's what everyone does.

This forum doesn't matter. This thread doesn't matter.

Posters here aren't representative of the entire movement, and they have no reason to continuously attack Sanders from the left because doing so here is accomplishes nothing. In this thread, criticism of Sanders comes from his right and is largely pointless.

Reluctance requires immense distrust and a last resort, that they could lose at any stage. Sanders has the most dedicated followers in the primaries.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-...hs-11574611201

Some did, not everyone, and he remains to have a tight grip on the moment as this election shows.

Of course he has the most dedicated base. He's the only viable candidate that will act as a pathway to empower the movement. Right now, he's the only way to get what we want.

It's like you completely missed everything I said.

The other candidates don't provide a pathway to a leftist future. They don't provide a pathway to meaningful change. It isn't swearing fealty to Sanders, it's about recognizing him as the only viable option to advance our political desires.

The movement's survival relies on a successor, they're not like liberals or centrists where there's ten Sanders coming down the pike every day. It's why the left hasn't maintained a strong movement in its existence in America while the other factions continue unabated.

The movement does not need a figurehead like Sanders once it comes into power. Again, Sanders is the path to getting there.

Once it gets there, it'll be mostly be self-sustaining. In the future, there won't be need for a central leader-like figure, only politicians that are sympathetic to our cause, which we already have with say AOC, and Ilhan Omar.

Chompsky isn't a winning move for convincing non-leftists,

Convincing them of what?

If people want stuff like Medicare For All, they will help the movement. They don't need to be hardcore leftists to pursue change that will benefit the masses.

If you mean convincing someone of what would happen with a Sanders presidency, then that's not something I care that much about. Because again, it doesn't matter.

his credentials have evaporated over the years.

Yeah, no.

It's telling how Chompsky uses the narrative that everyone's "afraid" of Sanders strictly on his ability to upturn the status quo, when Sanders has failed to do this while in congress and that there are numerous plausible reasons to dislike him or think he's not the right man to make that happen.

Chomsky was referring to the political class, and they have a vested interested in maintaining the status quo. He wasn't referring to random people like you who may dislike Sanders for a variety of reasons.

Of course there are people that don't think Sanders should be the candidate because in their minds he's got no chance of winning, even if they agree with him politically. But Chomky wasn't talking about people like that.

Without Sanders the movement doesn't get a resurgence, it had faded from the limelight since Occupy. To this day he defines the movement more than the movement defines him.

The movement is still growing. That's why its vital for him to win the presidency if it is to make significant progress.

Cherry picking one misread of a post you made to discredit my entire thesis isn't as convincing as you assume it is.

I mean, you're zero for three right now. It's not cherry picking, it's recognizing a pattern.

Just makes me feel like I'm wasting my time.

Saying "he sucks" is meaningless, you mustn't hate him that badly too post this long, detailed response if you think he's bad.

I don't hate him.

I do think his politics are bad.

Again, what you're missing is that Sanders is the only viable candidate to move towards the future we want. Yeah, he's bad, but he's all we got.

So even though I think his politics are bad, and I've mentioned some of the fucked up **** he's done in the past, I'd rather see him become President than anyone else in the race.

Not discussing certain flaws in a candidate your defending isn't being "less important," it's ignoring those faults completely. Given how they're about his health, that's not a minor factor since he's an old man with a heart condition.

They are less important than the affect he could have on the world. If people want to discuss his health, that's fine.

What I take issue with is that when people criticize Sanders here, they are more concerned about stuff like him not releasing his medical records or where he spent his honeymoon, than the fact that he has a history of approving bombing other countries.

Sanders is supposed to have this right now, and it's nowhere to be found when congress is in turmoil and Trump needed to get convicted in the Senate. His movement didn't move a single inch to make the impossible happen, unless you're crediting Romney's vote entirely on Sanders pressure.

Romney's vote didn't accomplish anything, so I don't see why I would even want to credit Sanders for it. And I've got no interest in rehabilitating the image of Republicans. Romney's trash, his vote doesn't change that.

As for the movement, it's still growing, still in its early stages. That is why its vital for Sanders to become President for it to make progress.

Sanders being president won't remodel the entire American political system, he'll make budges here and there but that's it. The movement you're talking about isn't anywhere near ready for that kind of political pressure. Sanders certainly hans't made it that strong in the three years since Trump's been elected.

Sanders being President isn't supposed to remodel the system. It provides a pathway to do it through people becoming politically active and organizing for change.

You're right that the movement isn't ready yet. Again, that's why its vital for Sanders to become President in order for the movement to grow, in order for it to be empowered to the point where it can bring about radical change.

I know the point, I disagree that he's shown he's got the capability to do it. So far he's been showing the exact opposite,

Well no, because his campaign in 2016 is what jump started the movement. He's raising more money from small donors than any other candidate, he's got the most volunteers. His campaign has shown it has that potential, now it just needs to get there.

all he's shown is indirectly shifting the Democrats left - which they were trending to before he made his move in '16.

Nope.

In 2016 the Democrat's nominee for President spoke out against plans like Medicare For All, and free college. Some of the old-school Democrats like Joe Biden are still against such proposals.

Even saying Sanders moved the party to the left feels kind of off. It's more like there's a struggle for the party, with the progressive side trying to take control.

[Tami]

LOL

Erm... Bloomberg apparently just won the Dixville Notch *Republican* primary as a write-in.

Twitter Link

Small New Hampshire town of Dixville Notch votes for Bloomberg in primary

DIXVILLE NOTCH, N.H. – Former New York City Michael Bloomberg Mayor won the votes of a tiny New Hampshire community that barely hung onto its tradition of being among the first to cast ballots in the presidential primary.

Dixville Notch’s five residents cast their ballots just after the stroke of midnight Tuesday in the first 2020 Democratic presidential primary vote in the nation.

Bloomberg received three write-in votes, one from a Republican and two from Democrats. The remaining votes went to Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders.

Well, it shows that Bloomberg has bipartisan support.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

Except that's not how he's greeted by his followers, they'll go to absurd lengths to help him against his political enemies. Many say what you're saying but the moment itself disproves that. It's why the movement is fragile.

Because he's the only viable option.

They are going to spend more time trying get him elected than they are talking trash about him.

Too many people looking up to Sanders still don't believe voting is important to establishing change in politics,

And that'll change if Sanders were to become President.

and are too disorganised to engage in protests the likes of which occur in Europe which Sanders relies on to make his vision more than a dream. They're young, and apathetic, Trump himself isn't moving them to what Sanders says he wants to occur.

Which is why it's so important for Sanders to win.

That apathy kicks it when they see that the guy they wanted to become President, actually becomes President and won't comprise on his positions.

His record won't count for anything when he's incapacitated in office from health reasons, his VP's will.

Missed the point again.

We don't whether he'll be incapacitated. He might die in office, or he might end up serving two terms. We have no idea how that will play out.

What we do know is what his record is, and that's what my main concerns are when it comes to the bad stuff that we get from a Sanders presidency.

That's the curse of having elderly candidates. All which go for nought when the VP takes over and they go in another direction. They'd be president then.

Not as concerning as you think.

Whoever he picks as his VP will still be sympathetic to leftist movements.

Another disadvantage to this is he's vulnerable to congress activating the Twenty-fifth amendment, and unlike Trump the Democrats won't as be afraid to vote for it. That's why it's important to have strong ties with the part, they have your back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty...s_Constitution

The people aren't going to just sit back and let the President they elected be kicked out.

It doesn't even have to get to that level. If Bernie doesn't get the nomination, I expect complete chaos at the DNC, and Bernie's pleas for order and unity won't mean ****.

The worst case for Bernie's health is dying in office, his VP fails to maintain power and the movement gets depressed from losing an icon which isn't easily replaced. The left in America will shatter into millions of pieces and it'll take decades to mentally recover. The movement itself is directly tied to him, it's not as strong you're trying to convince us it is.

Losing the figure that inspired them will be a sad occasion, but it won't kill the movement. If Bernie were to actually win. the pathway has been opened. The necessary step has been achieved.

Will it hurt the movement to lose Bernie? Sure, but it'll still manage.

Anyway, I had to split my response into two posts because I went over the character limit, which I'm going to take as a sign that I should probably drop this.

[InformationGeek]

More vile Trump actions.

Native American burial sites blown up by construction crews building US-Mexico border wall https://t.co/sByks2pYFz

[Tami]

Pay May Drop Under 2020 Democrats’ Safety Net Plans, Study Says

A new study from a conservative-leaning think tank says Democratic proposals for higher payroll taxes would hurt the economy

Twitter Link

[Tendrin]

Pay May Drop Under 2020 Democrats’ Safety Net Plans, Study Says

Twitter Link

Conservatives will pretend to be interested in demand-side impacts of taxation... but only when they can use it to hammer Democrats.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Already did.

You haven't demonstrated anything.

This forum doesn't matter. This thread doesn't matter.

Posters here aren't representative of the entire movement, and they have no reason to continuously attack Sanders from the left because doing so here is accomplishes nothing. In this thread, criticism of Sanders comes from his right and is largely pointless.

They're part of the movement, it's strange why you're distancing the movement from this thread when they participate in it. It accomplishes that both sides see eye to eye and that the non-Sanders supporters can see them as being objective with their candidate. Only "right" in the sense that they're not as far left as you happen to be. Criticism is a vital tool for growing campaigns and learning knowledge outside your circle so you don't miss details. You gain nothing by only agreeing with people, that's why diverse opinions are valuable.

Of course he has the most dedicated base. He's the only viable candidate that will act as a pathway to empower the movement. Right now, he's the only way to get what we want.

It's like you completely missed everything I said.

The other candidates don't provide a pathway to a leftist future. They don't provide a pathway to meaningful change. It isn't swearing fealty to Sanders, it's about recognizing him as the only viable option to advance our political desires.

I haven't missed anything.

That kind of obsession with candidates is unhealthy. Except he's not going to do that.

The movement does not need a figurehead like Sanders once it comes into power. Again, Sanders is the path to getting there.

Once it gets there, it'll be mostly be self-sustaining. In the future, there won't be need for a central leader-like figure, only politicians that are sympathetic to our cause, which we already have with say AOC, and Ilhan Omar.

All movements need leaders

But you're not there. Sanders being president won't get you there, either. All he is one man in the oval office. What you're taking about won't be possible with Sanders. Who are years from being in a position to having the influence Sanders does on the movement.

Convincing them of what?

If people want stuff like Medicare For All, they will help the movement. They don't need to be hardcore leftists to pursue change that will benefit the masses.

If you mean convincing someone of what would happen with a Sanders presidency, then that's not something I care that much about. Because again, it doesn't matter.

Of your argument.

They're not getting Medicare for All strictly from hardcore leftists, it'll be politicians making deals in congress. That's how laws are made.

You're not concerned about what a Sanders presidency would look like? Ok.

Yeah, no.

He's an obscure curiosity now.

Chomsky was referring to the political class, and they have a vested interested in maintaining the status quo. He wasn't referring to random people like you who may dislike Sanders for a variety of reasons.

Of course there are people that don't think Sanders should be the candidate because in their minds he's got no chance of winning, even if they agree with him politically. But Chomky wasn't talking about people like that.

I know what he was saying, it is possible to disagree with Chomsky.

Of course Sanders' has a chance of winning.

The movement is still growing. That's why its vital for him to win the presidency if it is to make significant progress.

He won't make significant progress as president, that's what I'm trying to tell you. He won't be getting all the special privileges Trump will from the Democrats.

I mean, you're zero for three right now. It's not cherry picking, it's recognizing a pattern.

Just makes me feel like I'm wasting my time.

Now you're just insulting me for no reason when I'm politely having a conversation.

I don't hate him.

I do think his politics are bad.

Again, what you're missing is that Sanders is the only viable candidate to move towards the future we want. Yeah, he's bad, but he's all we got.

So even though I think his politics are bad, and I've mentioned some of the fucked up **** he's done in the past, I'd rather see him become President than anyone else in the race.

You're not saying what I don't know, that's blatantly obvious.

When? I rarely read any of your posts scrutinising Sanders.

They are less important than the affect he could have on the world. If people want to discuss his health, that's fine.

What I take issue with is that when people criticize Sanders here, they are more concerned about stuff like him not releasing his medical records or where he spent his honeymoon, than the fact that he has a history of approving bombing other countries.

Again, he won't affect anything in the world when he's in hospital, dying or getting thrown out by congress for being unfit. That's the danger of having an elderly candidate like him in office.

Both are valid topics to discuss.

Romney's vote didn't accomplish anything, so I don't see why I would even want to credit Sanders for it. And I've got no interest in rehabilitating the image of Republicans. Romney's trash, his vote doesn't change that.

As for the movement, it's still growing, still in its early stages. That is why its vital for Sanders to become President for it to make progress.

It was the only significant measure of the GOP moving against Trump we've had in congress and Sanders had nothing to do with it. I'm not rehabilitating anyone, I'm pointing out the one tiny movement we got and Sanders movement has been nowhere to be seen. You're assume this all changes when Sanders becomes president, why?

Sanders being President isn't supposed to remodel the system. It provides a pathway to do it through people becoming politically active and organizing for change.

You're right that the movement isn't ready yet. Again, that's why its vital for Sanders to become President in order for the movement to grow, in order for it to be empowered to the point where it can bring about radical change.

You're going to be sorely disappointed when this doesn't happen like you think it will. It's not going to grow when Sanders becomes a failure.

Well no, because his campaign in 2016 is what jump started the movement. He's raising more money from small donors than any other candidate, he's got the most volunteers. His campaign has shown it has that potential, now it just needs to get there.

He'd had three years since and its still like that. This isn't about potential, this is about impacting the real world and Sanders movement has done neither like they want to.

Nope.

In 2016 the Democrat's nominee for President spoke out against plans like Medicare For All, and free college. Some of the old-school Democrats like Joe Biden are still against such proposals.

Even saying Sanders moved the party to the left feels kind of off. It's more like there's a struggle for the party, with the progressive side trying to take control.

Wrong.

https://www.npr.org/2016/04/02/47243...on-to-the-left

You're not refuting anything I'm saying, you're repackaging the words.

[Tami]

Tulsi Gabbard Defends Donald Trump Firing Alexander Vindman: 'Whether People Like It or Not, There Are Consequences to Elections'

In breaking with some of her opponents for the Democratic presidential nomination, Representative Tulsi Gabbard defended President Donald Trump's decision to fire Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman.

Trump dismissed Vindman from his position at director for European affairs for the United States National Security Council (NSC) on Friday. Vindman, who was on the July 25 call at the center of Trump's impeachment, testified before the House of Representatives in November, prompting critics of the president, including presidential candidates, to argue his firing was Trump exacting revenge.

On Saturday, Fox News host Neil Cavuto asked Gabbard if she agreed with the comparison of Vindman's firing to October 20, 1973, when President Richard Nixon's attorney general and deputy attorney general resigned instead of firing Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox. The congresswoman responded that she has been outspoken about her dissenting opinions on many of Trump's decisions, especially with regard to foreign policy. In this case, though, she said Trump could make whatever choice he wanted.

"Ultimately, whether people like it or not, there are consequences to elections and the president has, within his purview, to make the decisions about who he'd like serving in his Cabinet," Gabbard told Cavuto.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Because he's the only viable option.

They are going to spend more time trying get him elected than they are talking trash about him.

They don't "talk trash" about him now, asking for some objectivity is simply being rational.

And that'll change if Sanders were to become President.

No, it won't.

Which is why it's so important for Sanders to win.

That apathy kicks it when they see that the guy they wanted to become President, actually becomes President and won't comprise on his positions.

They have no idea what's going to happen, it'll hit them like a tonne of bricks. Sanders not compromising as president won't go down as well as you think in achieving the movement's goals.

Missed the point again.

We don't whether he'll be incapacitated. He might die in office, or he might end up serving two terms. We have no idea how that will play out.

What we do know is what his record is, and that's what my main concerns are when it comes to the bad stuff that we get from a Sanders presidency.

I got your point but you sure missed mine.

We can see plausible scenarios, it's not like any of which I said was impossible. That you refuse to acknowledge these as events to be prepared for is worrying. We're talking about a man whose immensely important to a political moment, not a chess piece.

Not as concerning as you think.

Whoever he picks as his VP will still be sympathetic to leftist movements.

Maybe to you, you're underestimating how dire this would affect the movement both within the government and the activists.

So? That's no guarantee they'll be able to pick up the pieces once he's gone.

The people aren't going to just sit back and let the President they elected be kicked out.

It doesn't even have to get to that level. If Bernie doesn't get the nomination, I expect complete chaos at the DNC, and Bernie's pleas for order and unity won't mean ****.

Sure they will. That's what they're doing now. They won't be able to stop it had they tried, however.

Which means Trump gets another term. Great. We've seen Sanders reaction to that before, he'll likely fail that again, as well.

Losing the figure that inspired them will be a sad occasion, but it won't kill the movement. If Bernie were to actually win. the pathway has been opened. The necessary step has been achieved.

Will it hurt the movement to lose Bernie? Sure, but it'll still manage.

Anyway, I had to split my response into two posts because I went over the character limit, which I'm going to take as a sign that I should probably drop this.

Never said it would kill the movement. It managed before by remaining obsolete for years, I wouldn't have thought you wouldn't like to repeat that cycle.

Why? It means you're taking politics seriously like a responsible adult.

[4saken1]

Whoever he picks as his VP will still be sympathetic to leftist movements.

I've actually wondered if that would be the case. Candidates usually choose a running mate that will strengthen their chances of winning by appealing to a sector of the population that otherwise might not vote for them. Sanders already has the leftist vote in spades.

Problem is, if he were to choose a centrist running mate in hopes of getting the Moderate vote, he runs a high risk of alienating many of his more rabid supporters. I remember comments from his base like "F%&k you, Bernie" and them calling him a sell-out and booing him at the Democratic Convention when he backed Hillary in 2016. Many of these people make Trump look phlegmatic.

[TriggerWarning]

Where are the numbers that show that "Bernie Medicare For All Plan..." would cost you that?

Never mind that you are leaving another incredibly obvious element out of you "It Will Rip Me Off!!..." equation.

Here is the chart being put out by the Sanders campaign.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForP...rall_cost_you/

At 140,000 a year I'd be close to $5000 vs the $1848 I pay now.

[TriggerWarning]

I'm just going to compare some numbers. I pay about $3500 per year for health insurance, and that's with a discount for taking the wellness physical and being smoke free - otherwise it would be about $5000 for only two people. If you can cover a family for under $2000 a year you have an incredibly good health plan, something beyond what the majority of the country has.

And while I am aware that $140K per year isn't anywhere near the 1%, anywhere I have lived or looked into living it is at least on the cusp of upper middle class rather than in the middle block. You are in the top 20% (82nd percentile) with that amount.

You have to consider cost of living, housing prices, etc before you deem me upper middle class. We are definitely middle class but by no means upper.

And why should be I punished with higher costs, see the chart I linked last post, for having a good health plan. Also $30,000 of our combined income was overtime money - I get paid OT for anything over eighty hours in a two week period but I work anywhere from 100 to 120 hrs every pay period. The pay period I'm in right now I'm working 11 of the 14 days and getting at least 45 hrs overtime.

So yes it absolutely is punishment if your telling me your going to pull money from me, a middle class person, to pay for the health care for those not making as much. Especially since I know how desperate my occupation, law enforcement (my Spidey cop avatar is on purpose), is for applicants. Want my wages with my health plan, fill out an application. We are hiring. As is every agency in the country. If you don't want to be a cop apply for dispatch, they are hiring too and are on the same health plan. Or stay at a Walmart level job and complain about its not fair.