freeman3 wrote:By the way, California is dealing with major over-crowding of state prison facilities. Currently, they are ordered by a federal court to grant more work-time credits to so-called second-strikers (felon with prior strike) and also consider then for release after 50 percent of their sentence. In 2011 a lot of felonies (non-violent) were directed to be served in county jail instead of state prison. Prop 47 has to be been in light of the overcrowding issue--California has to spend billions of dollars building more prisons or they will be found to be acting unconstitutionally in housing inmates in prisons well in excess of their capacity. The other choice is to prioritize which offenders to keep and which ones to release. And that is it what it has been doing for several years now.

Also even misdemeanors carry jail time. If a person racks up a bunch of them they can be in jail for a long time.

freeman3 wrote:And RJ says I'm a pessimist...

What Sanders doesn’t want to explain is the costs involved in democratic Socialism. On Monday, Reuters columnist Daniel Indiviglio analyzed Sanders’ proposals and foresaw an $8 trillion deficit in its first decade. Expanding Medicare would cost $9.6 trillion alone, with another Obama-style infrastructure stimulus for supposedly shovel-ready jobs adding another trillion dollars. His tax hikes would only bring in $4 trillion, leaving a massive hole in the US budget. “If Sanders wants to realize his socialist dream, he’ll need much higher taxes to achieve it,” Indiviglio concludes.

That may be a low estimate. Last month, The Wall Street Journal priced out Sanders’ agenda and found that it would require “at least $18 trillion in new spending over a decade,” an amount that surpasses the current total national debt of the United States. Nationalizing the US health industry into Medicare will cost $15 trillion, according to Laura Meckler, and Sanders’ expansion of Social Security will cost another $1.2 trillion.

Free access to public universities and colleges will add $750 billion to federal spending – and that may not take into account the inflationary incentives that increasing subsidies will produce at these schools. Meckler only finds revenues of $6.5 trillion even by Sanders’ own reckoning of the effectiveness of his soak-the-rich tax hikes, leaving more than $1 trillion a year in additional deficit spending above the heightened levels of the Obama era.

Neither of these analyses addresses the economic costs of forcing employers to provide paid family leave, either. Earlier this year, Fortune used the mandatory programs in California and New Jersey to conclude that employer costs would be negligible, but only if a national program followed the same employee-contribution model with compensation reduced to 55 percent-67 percent of normal wages. A Heritage Foundation analysis from 2011 similarly showed that employers would find ways to reduce compensation to adjust for the additional cost, as well as reducing productivity.

That, combined with the massively higher taxes that “democratic Socialism” would require to keep from collapsing, would sink the American economy. That also is nothing new; European countries have struggled with this inherent reality of socialism for two decades, and Greece has fallen into outright default over it. This agenda is a Cold War relic, a fantasy long since discredited among all but the academics and their naïve protégés.

Democratic Socialism did produce one surprising moment in the debate. After Sanders declared himself distinct from “the casino capitalist process,” Hillary Clinton rebuked Sanders, calling it “a grave mistake to turn our backs on what built the greatest middle class in history. … I love Denmark,” Clinton later said,” but we are not Denmark.”

Sassenach wrote:I don't really know the details of what he's proposing, but based on a scan through those figures there it does seem the author is overlooking a few of the potential benefits that might go along with those costs. Surely if he's socialising the medical system then that would be an enormous saving for employers who currently have to provide medical insurance to their employees ? It would drive the cost of employing Americans right down, comfortably covering the cost of paying for maternity leave and potentially making it more attractive to bring more jobs back onshore.

Wait. Who is paying for Medicare for all? Where is that money coming from?

It's remarkable how low America places in health care efficiency: among the 48 countries included in the Bloomberg study, the U.S. ranks 46th, outpacing just Serbia and Brazil. Once that sinks in, try this one on for size: the U.S. ranks worse than China, Algeria, and Iran.
But the sheer numbers are really what's humbling about this list: the U.S. ranks second in health care cost per capita ($8,608), only to be outspent by Switzerland ($9,121) -- which, for the record, boasts a top-10 health care system in terms of efficiency. Furthermore, the U.S. is tops in terms of health care cost relative to GDP, with 17.2 percent of the country's wealth spent on medical care for every American.
In other words, the world's richest country spends more of its money on health care while getting less than almost every other nation in return.
It's important to note that this data doesn't necessarily reflect the best health care in the world; it is simply a measure of overall quality as a function of cost.

rickyp wrote:Fate

Wait. Who is paying for Medicare for all? Where is that money coming from?

In most states, general taxation

When the costs of medical insurance are added to most people's tax paid in the US, they exceed countries with national health insurance..
And the benefits of national health systems are great...

Three months after Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email address and server while secretary of state was referred to the FBI, an intelligence source familiar with the investigation tells Fox News that the team is now focused on whether there were violations of an Espionage Act subsection pertaining to "gross negligence" in the safekeeping of national defense information.

Under 18 USC 793 subsection F, the information does not have to be classified to count as a violation. The intelligence source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity citing the sensitivity of the ongoing probe, said the subsection requires the "lawful possession" of national defense information by a security clearance holder who "through gross negligence," such as the use of an unsecure computer network, permits the material to be removed or abstracted from its proper, secure location.

Subsection F also requires the clearance holder "to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer. "A failure to do so "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

The source said investigators are also focused on possible obstruction of justice. "If someone knows there is an ongoing investigation and takes action to impede an investigation, for example destruction of documents or threatening of witnesses, that could be a separate charge but still remain under a single case," the source said. Currently, the ongoing investigation is led by the Washington Field Office of the FBI.

A former FBI agent, who is not involved in the case, said the inconsistent release of emails, with new documents coming to light from outside accounts, such as that of adviser Sidney Blumenthal, could constitute obstruction. In addition, Clinton’s March statement that there was no classified material on her private server has proven false, after more than 400 emails containing classified information were documented.

Clinton and her team maintain the use of a private account was allowed, and the intelligence was not classified at the time, but later upgraded. The latter claim is disputed by the intelligence community Inspector General, who represents the agencies involved, which concluded the information was classified from the start.

One of Clinton's primary defenses is that the emails containing classified information, did not carry classification markings, but a leading national security defense attorney says that is no excuse under the law.

“The fact that something's not marked or that the person may not know that it was classified would not be relevant at all in a prosecution under the Espionage Act,” defense attorney Edward MacMahon Jr. recently told Fox.

In other words, taxes are going up.

rickyp wrote:fate

In other words, taxes are going up.

In countries with a national health insurance plan ...A middle income family will spend less on combined taxes plus medical insurance costs than
a US middle class family spends on taxes plus health insurance costs ...
In part because the private insurance industry provides costs with few benefits and greatly complicate the administration of insurance claims for hospitals and doctors.
In part because regulated fees and negotiated prices keep costs down.
How do we know? math.
17% of the SU gdp is on health care.
Anywhere else its less than 11%.

A buck spent on health care is a buck not spent on something else Fate.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Sassenach wrote:I don't really know the details of what he's proposing, but based on a scan through those figures there it does seem the author is overlooking a few of the potential benefits that might go along with those costs. Surely if he's socialising the medical system then that would be an enormous saving for employers who currently have to provide medical insurance to their employees ? It would drive the cost of employing Americans right down, comfortably covering the cost of paying for maternity leave and potentially making it more attractive to bring more jobs back onshore.

Wait. Who is paying for Medicare for all? Where is that money coming from?

Sassenach wrote:I'm not saying that Sanders' scheme is going to be affordable, just that you can't have it both ways. Some of his proposals are going to be beneficial for employers and some negative, but the article you quoted completely ignores the positive and solely focuses on the negative. As such it's a little dishonest. The projected cost of maternity leave is going to be dwarfed by the savings in healthcare costs and this needs to be acknowledged in a proper critique. It may still end up being the case that the overall package of policies is crazy, but you do need to look at the whole picture.

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Are student loans forced upon any incoming student? Perhaps loans are not to have interest? No, and No.

Well, not "force" but then again can they get through university and have the time to properly study for their degree without one?

I did. But then again, I worked for my degree.

danivon wrote:And why can't we have interest free loans? Or effectively interest free if pegged to inflation (as indeed the student loans in the UK have been and certainly were when I took them out)?

I am all for a company offering interest free-loans if that is what they choose to do. I do not want the government to offer interest free loans, because of the non-payment of loans issue. If a student does not repay a loan, then it is the responsibility of the taxpayer. That is not right. If a company has a loan that is not repaid, then the company takes the responsibility for that loan; not the taxpayer.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Are student loans forced upon any incoming student? Perhaps loans are not to have interest? No, and No.

Well, not "force" but then again can they get through university and have the time to properly study for their degree without one?

I did. But then again, I worked for my degree.

Bully for you. Your life is not the only way we should live, dude.