Depends on what you mean by help. In one sense Amazon and Walmart help people.

In a sense, so too do drug cartels. In a sense.

So do murderers in the sense that life is pain.

The Clinton's had about a million in debt and low net worth when entering the white house; according to their tax returns, they made $229 million in the 13 years following the presidency (between 2001 and 2014).

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalex.../#35b0a0532ae3

Jfc

95% of people will be saving money, but people who make millions of dollars a year will pay, so, Jake, I understand why your brow is so furrowed.

When was the last time Tapper quizzed a freshmen Republican representative on how he/she planned on funding a neverending war and massive tax cuts and corporate giveaways?

This whole M4A thing shows how easy the right can game the media on their own turf.

They wouldn't get on his show at all.

Democrats should be calling out the media for having a conservative bias. The Republicans are playing the media. They know that the mainstream media need to be trusted by viewers on both sides, and they know that the serious news folks CRAVE that approval because it validates their view of themselves for working hard to put forth unbiased journalism.

So what happens? They call the mainstream media liberal CONSTANTLY, and the media is desperately looking to create both sidesism and grill Democrats over every little point. The problem is, they will NEVER get validation from the right or being honest or unbiased.

Instead, the right will say, "SEE??? Even the liberal media is grilling Dems over Medicare for All!!! And we all know how biased CNN is!" So what do they do? They go harder in the paint fact checking Gillum to call him out for a "half truth" that was really more like a 95% truth, and what do Dems do about it?

Not a damn thing. Instead, they will flake on Medicare for All or cut benefits or increase the taxes more (which the media will grill them on, while the right repeats the "SEE?? Even the liberal media..." nonsense).

As it continues, the right will just find something else, while whining about whatever the media grilled them over. "They sure were mean to Roy Moore and Brett Kavanaugh! And they didn't even give that socialist Bernie Sanders too much hassle over his Medicare for All socialism." Because yeah, totally, giving people healthcare deserves the exact same amount of scrutiny as raping teenage girls.

The only way to change this calculus that I can think of is to attack the media for having a conservative bias. The upside is that the average uninformed American would see this as both sides nonsense and come to view the mainstream media as fair/neutral, and the media might stop catering to the right wing attacks. The downside is that our media's credibility is already under attack, and it really can't afford to lose too much more... but fighting back against the GOP's strategy seems better than just letting them keep attacking that credibility mercilessly for their own gain.

Unfair comparison. Ocasio-cortez is not a freshmen representative.

LOL where were the hard hitting interviews of the Tea Party dumb ****s from 2010 and 2014?

yeah i was seeing those type of ads in maryland and delaware about Ben Jealous. it was constantly even democrats think he will bankrupt maryland with single payer. even cnn thinks Jealous is a disaster..

They think literally every asylum seeker is a murderer, rapist, or terrorist lying about their situation to infiltrate America and destroy it.

"There is some strategy to it [bashing the 'liberal' media] ... If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one."

-Rich Bond, Republican Party Chair, 1992. It's not even a new phenomenon.

There was "legitimate rape" and "I am not a witch" but with the GOP those are generally unforced errors tbh

Questions republicans get, can’t get right, and it’s proof of liberal bias in the media:

Is abortion okay if the woman was raped?

Questions progressives get that in no way disproves liberal media bias:

Please detail to the last cent exactly how you plan to pay for every single policy you have ever expressed support for, from the points of view of an economist and an accountant at the bare minimum.

Jagsfan.gif

Tbf his Medicare for all plan would likely be a disaster. Any such plan would obviously be expensive so you need to ensure those costs will be offset by savings where people are currently paying for their health insurance. His plan for ensuring that employer based plans pass the savings on to the worker are pretty hand wavy for Maryland residents employed in Maryland. There is no effective plan for Maryland residents employed in DC/VA. If there's a realistic plan to implement a statewide single payer system on top of the federal and private systems that already exist, it's not what Jealous has proposed.

Says who?

the same people who just gave trillions of dollars to the ultra-wealthy with no foreseeable plan to offset that cash grab

I am about as far from an expert on the subject as a person can be, so take this however you want, but imo from what I've read about various plans for Colorado, California, et al, single payer in individual states seems like a harebrained idea and potentially a huge threat to the national single payer project.

Everyone? Everyone in support of more government funded healthcare anyway. To include Ben Jealous. Nobody's making the argument that having the government pay for everyone's healthcare will be free. I mean sure you'll have some savings due to the reduced administrative costs and the government pool's stronger negotiating power but there's still a cost that the government is adding to their books. Which, in one way or another, is paid for via taxes. Taxes which would need to be distributed in an extremely progressive manner in order to avoid levying tax increases on most citizens. Which again, is not Jealous' plan. He expects a tax to increase to pay for it. The argument in most cases, and the specific case of Maryland which is what we're discussing, is that the increased tax burden is offset by eliminating the insurance premiums currently paid by individuals and employers.

It's incredible the amount of fail you've managed to pack into a single post. Shall we dissect all the ways? First of all, no, as I mentioned above, it's the opposite of those people. The people you're talking about scream about how government healthcare would mean huge tax increases and they intentionally ignore discussing anything that offsets those costs. Second of all, we're talking about a state based plan while you rail about federal legislators. Nobody involved in the Maryland state government voted for federal tax cuts, nor have they voted for state tax cuts in recent memory. Third, if you dig a little bit deeper into this concept of state vs federal governments, you may begin to see reasons why state funded healthcare plans face significant challenges when the federal government provides the same service to an extent. If you'd like to read up on Jealous' proposals for Maryland and make an informed argument about how he's got it all worked out, I'd be willing to listen. If instead you'd prefer to throw out one liners that sound good in your head but fall apart under scrutiny, maybe try cp.