CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 14, 2016 11:05 AM UTC
18 Comments
Need some advice on your NCAA Tournament Bracket? Don’t pick Kansas. It’s time to
On the Second to the Last Day of the Rubio Campaign……..
Is it too soon to start to wonder about what might have been? Nah…..
What might have been if only Governor Donuts had kept his pie hole shut and refrained from humiliating Rubio during the debate days before the NH primary when Rubio was riding a wave of momentum from his exciting third place finish in Iowa…
What might have been if only
JEB!JEB? had seen the writing on the wall and bailed out before mail ballots went out in Florida, and had endorsed his former protege…What might have been if only the Establishment (lol) had seen that this was going to be a three-person race (or a three-ring circus) between two candidates they despised, but sadly couldn't decided which one they hated more and therefore failed to coalesce around Rubio…
What might have been if only Cruz had seen the tactical advantage of letting Rubio win Florida – if only to stop Herr Drumpf – by stopping his active campaigning in Florida to allow his 22% to join Rubio's 21%in an effort to block Trump…
One thing seems pretty certain. Jebs votes would have gone to one of the remaining not-Trumps. Too late for that now.
I know that it's carry-over news from last week, but being reminded again that Doug Bruce is headed back to prison puts a big
in my Monday!
Bernie to Rahm: Don't Endorse Me
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is one of those Old School DLC/Third Way/ConservaDems who missed the changing tides of voter perceptions. Punching your own side in the face to score bipartisanship points shouldn't be your most important strategy. It was a winning idea post-Reagan, but is long past obsolete post-Bush.
Why do we want to be bipartisan with the most obstructive and destructive political party at the expense of our own base?
Op-Ed writers love bipartisanship; it fits the "both sides do it" crowd. Republicans love bipartisanship. Democrats do not have to love bipartisanship.
If things go as expected, tomorrow is the beginning of the end for the Sanders "free stuff for everybody" campaign.
I'm supporting HRC but it isn't a free suff campaign. I won't bother to explain that again since lately you've been demonstrating Modster level clueless lameness.
True enough, not free stuff. But even liberal economists like Paul Krugman acknowledge that Sanders' plan falls far short of financing the massive expansion of entitlements. I, for one, would like to know how much his stock transfer taxes would cost my 401(k). Because I rely mostly on a buy and hold strategy of S and P 500 stocks, I'm guessing the hit wouldbe $3,000. More active traders would pay a lot more. It might be worth it, but Bernie should stop pretending it only hits the rich. Middle class investers trying to build financial security for their famies will feel the pinch.
Stock transaction taxes are usually quoted at 0.01% – 0.1%. The common figure is about 0.03% – 3 cents on 100 dollars, or $3,000 on $10,000,000 worth of trades. They're only applied at transaction time; the vast majority of the money would come from the automated high-speed transaction market, where frankly I couldn't care less.
Exactly, the fee is designed to discourage the high-risk, ultra-fast (thousands of trades per second) speculative trading done completely via computer algorithms. Value has nothing to do with the computer-driven stock selections, simply speculation and pumping the market for fractions of a penny per trade profit.
According to Market Watch , bernie introduced a bill last may calling for a .5 percent tax , which would be about 16 times the number you cited and double the one suggested by gaf. uThat would be $3,000 on just 600,000 in total trades. Even a very modest 300,000 IRA would hit that sum if it traded only one tenth of its total every year for ten years. So it is irresponsible of you to claim only a 10,000,000 account would hit even that $3,Ooo charge. I think the taxes you referred to were designed for much more modest ends.
"I think the taxes you referred to were designed for much more modest ends."
I think in the ideal, Bernie would like to only tax billionaires but he also knows that it has never worked like that and it never will. So the middle class will pay.
At the outside, I have heard some mention up to a 0.25 percent transaction tax. But even at that high rate, Voyageur's $3,000 would mean a churn of $1.2 million. If his strategy is "mostly…buy and hold," that implies the $1.2M is a small part of his total holdings. So do I feel sorry for a cost of $3,000 on a multi-million nest egg? No.
Oh, I'm quite aware that you don't care what your plan costs me, but didn't expect you to be quite so honest about it. Your math is faulty because even a conservative portfolio has to be adjusted over a 30 to 40 year run. Plus, you ignore the effect of compound interest. Where precisely does Bernie explain how high his tax will be? If we're going to pay for some $1.5 trillion a year in new spending, I don't see how 0.25 percent does it.
Bernie's bill called for .5 pct on stocks, .1 on bonds and .05 percent on derivatives. Thus an IRA of just 300,000 would incur a $3000 charge if it were all in stocks. That is 1,500 when you buy the stocks and another $1,500 when you sold them, as you are required to begin doing when you turn 70. Compound interest in the form of a reduced growth rate, the exit tax on any capital gains, and additional taxes on any rebalances or churning would add substantial sums. Bernie said the tax would raise $75 billion a year. These costs are not annual, but cumulative. They aren't crippling but don't fall only on multi millionares as some on this board insist.
Correction: Bernie's tax on derivatives would be O.O05 pct not 0.05 pct. But 0.5 on stocks and 0.1 pct on bonds is cq.
I agree that Sanders should admit that the kind of transformation he envisions involves a different attitutude toward taxation. They don't just tax the rich in Europe to pay for healthcare, education, childcare and retirement. The middle pays more in tax too. But if you look at over all cost to middle class people, it costs them less to have a quality of life that includes those things we all want because those costs are covered by their taxes. Here, we have to come up with the money for those things in addition to our taxes so when you combine the cost to us of our taxes with the cost of those other things that are not covered by our taxes, we are the ones paying more for less, not the more highly taxed Europeans. They're getting the better deal, enjoying things that American middle income earners struggle to afford at all.
But all pols, including Bernie, know that once you say … yes taxes will be higher and not just for the rich, that's pretty much it. Game over. Nobody is sticking around for an explanation of how it's really going to cost them less to have more. It may be true that his numbers don't add up. Not true that universal quality healthcare and access to higher ed in and of themselves would constitute free stuff any more than roads and bridges do. It's simply a matter of how we choose to pay for those things, not a matter of getting them for free.
The thing about righties is they can't stand the idea of hard working people who make less than they do having things like quality healthcare and access to higher ed. To them, even to the lower income righties, there just doesn't seem to be any point in doing well or even in dreaming of one day coming into a lot of money if those less well off can have a decent life too. They want to be, or at least want to think of themselves as having the potential to be, among the golden few winners at the top, seperated from the common herd of losers. Of course that makes it an article of faith that the majority deserve to be losers and it's against the natural order to let just anybody have things like quality healthcare, childcare or education. And if a child doesn't have the sense to be born into an affluent family, tough luck.
You're on target. In fact, avowedly socialist health care sysyemsbpay about half of what we do for health care, with better outcomes. The problem is moving the money from column a to column b . When I,m king, I go Canadian, medicare at birth. I pay for that with a value added tax on goods and services. That frees up trillions in private insurance and employer health care costs. GM before bankruptcy paid more forbhealth insurance for each new car than for the engine in that car. Eliminating those employer costs lowers the cost of goods and services, which is partially offset by the VAT. Vast sums would be saved on unproductive private insurance costs __ which is whyy those companies fight medicare for all tooth and nail. American exceptionalism in this case means we pay too much fofr too little. Obama and, bless her, Nancy Pelosi fought like lions for the ACA and, after a century tring, we at last took a step in a long journey toward a national health care system.