2020 Election - Catch-all Thread

58,852 Views | 1686 Replies | Last: 4 days ago by Professor Turgeson Bear
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

OaktownBear said:

concordtom said:

sycasey said:

There's really no good reason health insurance has to be tied to employment, it's just kind of an accident of history that this is how it shook out in the United States, and once people get used to something it's hard to get them to accept something else. Since we had a postwar boom period where almost everyone was employed (or in a family with someone who was) it was fine to have health insurance come from your job. In places where everything was still bombed out and needed to be rebuilt, they went for a government solution.

Also, at one time health insurance tended to be nonprofit, mostly by custom. Then they figured out they didn't have to do it that way.




Before you get too comfortable with the "every American deserves health care as a basic human right", allow me to point out that before companies began to include it as a benefits package, people had none.

At some point, it's just all too expensive. Modern science is a luxury!

I'm not saying I don't want to have some sort of plan for everyone, but "my" plan is not being discussed.

I think I'd run Medicare Light For All. Take care of the simple stuff, like the flu, broken bones, and birthing.
If you get a cancer or suffer other expensive maladies, you'd better have private insurance.
Look, people are going to die, and it sucks.
But we can't pay for everything for everyone.



I saw a sign on a building in Oakland that simply stated the life expectancy for two different Oakland zip codes. One was 10 years higher than the other. I live in the higher zip code. I can pay some taxes to bridge the gap.

I would not make it a Cadillac plan, but nobody should face death because they don't have money any more than people should have to hire personal security guards instead of police or have their house burn down unless they have a private firefighting service.

The Holy Roman Empire had universal health care. I think we can manage it.
I find it funny when people come after universal health care with "what about this?" type comments, as if no one has figured out a workable system. My answer is, "What do they do in Canada, the U.K., France, Germany, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Switzerland, or literally every other first-world country? We can do something like that."
As I recall, none of those countries provide free healthcare to individuals who are not otherwise permanent residents or citizens. In addition, don't people still need private insurance to cover prescription drugs in Canada (which are one of the most costly aspects of healthcare in the US)? Furthermore, the costs and wait time in Canada are some of the highest. Finally, it appears that even with government coverage, the poor, minorities and people living in rural areas still get inferior service.

There are positives and negatives. This site provides a fair high-level assessment of Canadian medical coverage (intended for expats and probably without all of the details that some here will nitpick): Canadian Medical Coverage
AFAIK, the United States still spends more than Canada for worse results and our drug prices are also higher. So as usual, I would still take their system over ours.
I think we all agree that our system needs to be fixed, and the pharmaceutical companies have too much influence with Republicans and Democrats alike. Just because something is broken does not necessarily mean we replace it instead of fixing it, if fixing it would be better than what the replacement would be. I would argue that fixing Obamacare with greater control over drug prices and maybe even creating a government option as one of the option and not the only option would be preferable.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

maybe even creating a government option as one of the option and not the only option would be preferable.
I suspect that's the next move (and the thing Obama originally wanted but couldn't get through Congress at the time).
BearsWiin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

maybe even creating a government option as one of the option and not the only option would be preferable.
I suspect that's the next move (and the thing Obama originally wanted but couldn't get through Congress at the time).
I expect that Republicans would try to sabotage it like they sabotaged the ACA every chance they got, so they could then say see, it doesn't work
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearsWiin said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

maybe even creating a government option as one of the option and not the only option would be preferable.
I suspect that's the next move (and the thing Obama originally wanted but couldn't get through Congress at the time).
I expect that Republicans would try to sabotage it like they sabotaged the ACA every chance they got, so they could then say see, it doesn't work
Sure they will. But in the end, they did not win the ACA fight.
BearsWiin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

BearsWiin said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

maybe even creating a government option as one of the option and not the only option would be preferable.
I suspect that's the next move (and the thing Obama originally wanted but couldn't get through Congress at the time).
I expect that Republicans would try to sabotage it like they sabotaged the ACA every chance they got, so they could then say see, it doesn't work
Sure they will. But in the end, they did not win the ACA fight.
But they did sabotage its implementation, at both the federal and state level, which has led to it not working as well as it couldashoulda.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearsWiin said:

sycasey said:

BearsWiin said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

maybe even creating a government option as one of the option and not the only option would be preferable.
I suspect that's the next move (and the thing Obama originally wanted but couldn't get through Congress at the time).
I expect that Republicans would try to sabotage it like they sabotaged the ACA every chance they got, so they could then say see, it doesn't work
Sure they will. But in the end, they did not win the ACA fight.
But they did sabotage its implementation, at both the federal and state level, which has led to it not working as well as it couldashoulda.

I expect conservatives to always fight to stop progressive gains. So it goes, you keep pushing for them anyway.
BearsWiin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

BearsWiin said:

sycasey said:

BearsWiin said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

maybe even creating a government option as one of the option and not the only option would be preferable.
I suspect that's the next move (and the thing Obama originally wanted but couldn't get through Congress at the time).
I expect that Republicans would try to sabotage it like they sabotaged the ACA every chance they got, so they could then say see, it doesn't work
Sure they will. But in the end, they did not win the ACA fight.
But they did sabotage its implementation, at both the federal and state level, which has led to it not working as well as it couldashoulda.

I expect conservatives to always fight to stop progressive gains. So it goes, you keep pushing for them anyway.
As do I. That's why I'm impatient with the incrementalism. Dream big and fight hard.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Professor Turgeson Bear said:

sycasey said:

OaktownBear said:

concordtom said:

sycasey said:

There's really no good reason health insurance has to be tied to employment, it's just kind of an accident of history that this is how it shook out in the United States, and once people get used to something it's hard to get them to accept something else. Since we had a postwar boom period where almost everyone was employed (or in a family with someone who was) it was fine to have health insurance come from your job. In places where everything was still bombed out and needed to be rebuilt, they went for a government solution.

Also, at one time health insurance tended to be nonprofit, mostly by custom. Then they figured out they didn't have to do it that way.




Before you get too comfortable with the "every American deserves health care as a basic human right", allow me to point out that before companies began to include it as a benefits package, people had none.

At some point, it's just all too expensive. Modern science is a luxury!

I'm not saying I don't want to have some sort of plan for everyone, but "my" plan is not being discussed.

I think I'd run Medicare Light For All. Take care of the simple stuff, like the flu, broken bones, and birthing.
If you get a cancer or suffer other expensive maladies, you'd better have private insurance.
Look, people are going to die, and it sucks.
But we can't pay for everything for everyone.



I saw a sign on a building in Oakland that simply stated the life expectancy for two different Oakland zip codes. One was 10 years higher than the other. I live in the higher zip code. I can pay some taxes to bridge the gap.

I would not make it a Cadillac plan, but nobody should face death because they don't have money any more than people should have to hire personal security guards instead of police or have their house burn down unless they have a private firefighting service.

The Holy Roman Empire had universal health care. I think we can manage it.
I find it funny when people come after universal health care with "what about this?" type comments, as if no one has figured out a workable system. My answer is, "What do they do in Canada, the U.K., France, Germany, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Switzerland, or literally every other first-world country? We can do something like that."
Seriously.

There are so many problems in this country that other countries have addressed with working systems. We have plenty to choose from - just pick the one you like the best.

I won't quibble with either of you.
I'll just say, "I apparently need an education in these other systems that work".
The reason why I displayed skepticism in my prior comment is because I am simply looking at a $21T debt and a $1T annual deficit which is going to ruin this country.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well, at least Facebook is concerned about Russian manipulation somewhere.

Facebook Shuts Russian Disinformation Networks Targeting Africa With New Tactics


https://www.thedailybeast.com/facebook-russia-is-targeting-africa-with-new-disinformation-techniques-shuts-down-prigozhin-linked-networks
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

maybe even creating a government option as one of the option and not the only option would be preferable.
I suspect that's the next move (and the thing Obama originally wanted but couldn't get through Congress at the time).
That, I can imagine, will get passed without turning people to Trump.

But who knows. I may be crazy and someone like Warren or Sanders could actually win over the average American.

People may dislike Trump, but I suspect they are not ready for the sharp turn to the left.

I guess we will see if Warren wins the primary. If that were the case, I would be less optimistic about our prospects no matter who wins the main election.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

maybe even creating a government option as one of the option and not the only option would be preferable.
I suspect that's the next move (and the thing Obama originally wanted but couldn't get through Congress at the time).
That, I can imagine, will get passed without turning people to Trump.

But who knows. I may be crazy and someone like Warren or Sanders could actually win over the average American.

People may dislike Trump, but I suspect they are not ready for the sharp turn to the left.

I guess we will see if Warren wins the primary. If that were the case, I would be less optimistic about our prospects no matter who wins the main election.
IMO the Bernie/Warren plan is more about putting stretch goals out there during the campaign, so you can negotiate down from them later. I doubt either of them thinks such a far-reaching thing can actually get passed in the next term.

Well, maybe Bernie does. I doubt Warren thinks so.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

sycasey said:

OaktownBear said:

concordtom said:

sycasey said:

There's really no good reason health insurance has to be tied to employment, it's just kind of an accident of history that this is how it shook out in the United States, and once people get used to something it's hard to get them to accept something else. Since we had a postwar boom period where almost everyone was employed (or in a family with someone who was) it was fine to have health insurance come from your job. In places where everything was still bombed out and needed to be rebuilt, they went for a government solution.

Also, at one time health insurance tended to be nonprofit, mostly by custom. Then they figured out they didn't have to do it that way.




Before you get too comfortable with the "every American deserves health care as a basic human right", allow me to point out that before companies began to include it as a benefits package, people had none.

At some point, it's just all too expensive. Modern science is a luxury!

I'm not saying I don't want to have some sort of plan for everyone, but "my" plan is not being discussed.

I think I'd run Medicare Light For All. Take care of the simple stuff, like the flu, broken bones, and birthing.
If you get a cancer or suffer other expensive maladies, you'd better have private insurance.
Look, people are going to die, and it sucks.
But we can't pay for everything for everyone.



I saw a sign on a building in Oakland that simply stated the life expectancy for two different Oakland zip codes. One was 10 years higher than the other. I live in the higher zip code. I can pay some taxes to bridge the gap.

I would not make it a Cadillac plan, but nobody should face death because they don't have money any more than people should have to hire personal security guards instead of police or have their house burn down unless they have a private firefighting service.

The Holy Roman Empire had universal health care. I think we can manage it.
I find it funny when people come after universal health care with "what about this?" type comments, as if no one has figured out a workable system. My answer is, "What do they do in Canada, the U.K., France, Germany, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Switzerland, or literally every other first-world country? We can do something like that."
Seriously.

There are so many problems in this country that other countries have addressed with working systems. We have plenty to choose from - just pick the one you like the best.

I won't quibble with either of you.
I'll just say, "I apparently need an education in these other systems that work".
The reason why I displayed skepticism in my prior comment is because I am simply looking at a $21T debt and a $1T annual deficit which is going to ruin this country.

Most of this debt is from Forever Wars ($7 trillion and counting) and the Obama $8 trillion blank check bailout in 2008.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

maybe even creating a government option as one of the option and not the only option would be preferable.
I suspect that's the next move (and the thing Obama originally wanted but couldn't get through Congress at the time).
That, I can imagine, will get passed without turning people to Trump.

But who knows. I may be crazy and someone like Warren or Sanders could actually win over the average American.

People may dislike Trump, but I suspect they are not ready for the sharp turn to the left.

I guess we will see if Warren wins the primary. If that were the case, I would be less optimistic about our prospects no matter who wins the main election.
IMO the Bernie/Warren plan is more about putting stretch goals out there during the campaign, so you can negotiate down from them later. I doubt either of them thinks such a far-reaching thing can actually get passed in the next term.

Well, maybe Bernie does. I doubt Warren thinks so.
This is my problem with Sanders and Warren. Nothing they are proposing is going to get passed. It all just sounds good on the stump. I am for Medicare for all. The votes in congress are not close to there. Even if they were, there is not a consensus around that in the general population and it is something that you should really have widespread consensus for. Otherwise, it will fail and/or be repealed. There is no reason they can't say "Day 1 I will do X,Y, Z to shore up health care and provide care for everyone. Day 2 we get to work to pass Medicare for all." Instead, we have no idea what they will do when the thing they can't get passed doesn't pass.

The wealth tax really annoys me. It sounds like such an easy solution to fix wealth disparity. Only it barely dents it. It will never pass because taking property is a bedrock no no in our country's history, if it passed it would face significant Constitutional challenges and might lose, it likely will require that real property is either not counted or funds from taxing real property apportioned to the state, much of it is easy to avoid, it has been tried and failed elsewhere (see "easy to avoid"), and it would require a whole new tax infrastructure. On the flip side, inequities in the capital gains tax system is a significant cause in wealth disparity. Reforming the capital gains tax system as many other democrats want to do is politically achievable, has no constitutional problems, uses the current tax system and would be a far more effective solution. But "capital gains tax reform" isn't as sexy as "wealth tax". When Warren described her wealth tax, I knew that for all her wonkiness, she isn't running on serious programs. The wealth tax simply is a dodge to try and get elected while it hurts the possibility of passing real reform.

If someone wants to understand the income disparity problem, you just need to look at a chart showing percentage of wealth being held in various income classes historically. It was very stable for decades with middle class slowly edging up in percentage of the country's overall wealth it held. In 1985, blammo! The lines take big turns with the rich piling up the wealth. Reagan's trickle down economics sure did result on everyone but the wealthy being trickled upon. You want to solve the issue, you look at the changes that were made there and after.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

concordtom said:

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

sycasey said:

OaktownBear said:

concordtom said:

sycasey said:

There's really no good reason health insurance has to be tied to employment, it's just kind of an accident of history that this is how it shook out in the United States, and once people get used to something it's hard to get them to accept something else. Since we had a postwar boom period where almost everyone was employed (or in a family with someone who was) it was fine to have health insurance come from your job. In places where everything was still bombed out and needed to be rebuilt, they went for a government solution.

Also, at one time health insurance tended to be nonprofit, mostly by custom. Then they figured out they didn't have to do it that way.




Before you get too comfortable with the "every American deserves health care as a basic human right", allow me to point out that before companies began to include it as a benefits package, people had none.

At some point, it's just all too expensive. Modern science is a luxury!

I'm not saying I don't want to have some sort of plan for everyone, but "my" plan is not being discussed.

I think I'd run Medicare Light For All. Take care of the simple stuff, like the flu, broken bones, and birthing.
If you get a cancer or suffer other expensive maladies, you'd better have private insurance.
Look, people are going to die, and it sucks.
But we can't pay for everything for everyone.



I saw a sign on a building in Oakland that simply stated the life expectancy for two different Oakland zip codes. One was 10 years higher than the other. I live in the higher zip code. I can pay some taxes to bridge the gap.

I would not make it a Cadillac plan, but nobody should face death because they don't have money any more than people should have to hire personal security guards instead of police or have their house burn down unless they have a private firefighting service.

The Holy Roman Empire had universal health care. I think we can manage it.
I find it funny when people come after universal health care with "what about this?" type comments, as if no one has figured out a workable system. My answer is, "What do they do in Canada, the U.K., France, Germany, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Switzerland, or literally every other first-world country? We can do something like that."
Seriously.

There are so many problems in this country that other countries have addressed with working systems. We have plenty to choose from - just pick the one you like the best.

I won't quibble with either of you.
I'll just say, "I apparently need an education in these other systems that work".
The reason why I displayed skepticism in my prior comment is because I am simply looking at a $21T debt and a $1T annual deficit which is going to ruin this country.

Most of this debt is from Forever Wars ($7 trillion and counting) and the Obama $8 trillion blank check bailout in 2008.

Ignoring the fact that Trump is running record deficits, spending like mad while handing out tax cuts to those that don't need them.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

concordtom said:

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

sycasey said:

OaktownBear said:

concordtom said:

sycasey said:

There's really no good reason health insurance has to be tied to employment, it's just kind of an accident of history that this is how it shook out in the United States, and once people get used to something it's hard to get them to accept something else. Since we had a postwar boom period where almost everyone was employed (or in a family with someone who was) it was fine to have health insurance come from your job. In places where everything was still bombed out and needed to be rebuilt, they went for a government solution.

Also, at one time health insurance tended to be nonprofit, mostly by custom. Then they figured out they didn't have to do it that way.




Before you get too comfortable with the "every American deserves health care as a basic human right", allow me to point out that before companies began to include it as a benefits package, people had none.

At some point, it's just all too expensive. Modern science is a luxury!

I'm not saying I don't want to have some sort of plan for everyone, but "my" plan is not being discussed.

I think I'd run Medicare Light For All. Take care of the simple stuff, like the flu, broken bones, and birthing.
If you get a cancer or suffer other expensive maladies, you'd better have private insurance.
Look, people are going to die, and it sucks.
But we can't pay for everything for everyone.



I saw a sign on a building in Oakland that simply stated the life expectancy for two different Oakland zip codes. One was 10 years higher than the other. I live in the higher zip code. I can pay some taxes to bridge the gap.

I would not make it a Cadillac plan, but nobody should face death because they don't have money any more than people should have to hire personal security guards instead of police or have their house burn down unless they have a private firefighting service.

The Holy Roman Empire had universal health care. I think we can manage it.
I find it funny when people come after universal health care with "what about this?" type comments, as if no one has figured out a workable system. My answer is, "What do they do in Canada, the U.K., France, Germany, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Switzerland, or literally every other first-world country? We can do something like that."
Seriously.

There are so many problems in this country that other countries have addressed with working systems. We have plenty to choose from - just pick the one you like the best.

I won't quibble with either of you.
I'll just say, "I apparently need an education in these other systems that work".
The reason why I displayed skepticism in my prior comment is because I am simply looking at a $21T debt and a $1T annual deficit which is going to ruin this country.

Most of this debt is from Forever Wars ($7 trillion and counting) and the Obama $8 trillion blank check bailout in 2008.



This is a lie
An old white dude
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not ignoring it, just quantifying it and putting it in perspective.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

concordtom said:

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

sycasey said:

OaktownBear said:

concordtom said:

sycasey said:

There's really no good reason health insurance has to be tied to employment, it's just kind of an accident of history that this is how it shook out in the United States, and once people get used to something it's hard to get them to accept something else. Since we had a postwar boom period where almost everyone was employed (or in a family with someone who was) it was fine to have health insurance come from your job. In places where everything was still bombed out and needed to be rebuilt, they went for a government solution.

Also, at one time health insurance tended to be nonprofit, mostly by custom. Then they figured out they didn't have to do it that way.




Before you get too comfortable with the "every American deserves health care as a basic human right", allow me to point out that before companies began to include it as a benefits package, people had none.

At some point, it's just all too expensive. Modern science is a luxury!

I'm not saying I don't want to have some sort of plan for everyone, but "my" plan is not being discussed.

I think I'd run Medicare Light For All. Take care of the simple stuff, like the flu, broken bones, and birthing.
If you get a cancer or suffer other expensive maladies, you'd better have private insurance.
Look, people are going to die, and it sucks.
But we can't pay for everything for everyone.



I saw a sign on a building in Oakland that simply stated the life expectancy for two different Oakland zip codes. One was 10 years higher than the other. I live in the higher zip code. I can pay some taxes to bridge the gap.

I would not make it a Cadillac plan, but nobody should face death because they don't have money any more than people should have to hire personal security guards instead of police or have their house burn down unless they have a private firefighting service.

The Holy Roman Empire had universal health care. I think we can manage it.
I find it funny when people come after universal health care with "what about this?" type comments, as if no one has figured out a workable system. My answer is, "What do they do in Canada, the U.K., France, Germany, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Switzerland, or literally every other first-world country? We can do something like that."
Seriously.

There are so many problems in this country that other countries have addressed with working systems. We have plenty to choose from - just pick the one you like the best.

I won't quibble with either of you.
I'll just say, "I apparently need an education in these other systems that work".
The reason why I displayed skepticism in my prior comment is because I am simply looking at a $21T debt and a $1T annual deficit which is going to ruin this country.

Most of this debt is from Forever Wars ($7 trillion and counting) and the Obama $8 trillion blank check bailout in 2008.



I really hate it when people (usually rebublicans) say stupid stuff like this.
I suppose you wanted the world economy to melt down along with the banks, right?
I also suppose you did not realize that Bush started the process.

Granted, I wish TARP had ended much sooner than it did, but that's just ridiculous attribution. Shame on you.
Blank check... that gives you away.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

Not ignoring it, just quantifying it and putting it in perspective.


What is the $8 trillion dollar bailout you are talking about? There is no such thing. I can't even tell what you might be talking about it is so much bigger than anything that was spent.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
???
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The person who has researched this to the nth degree is Emmanuel Saenz at Berkeley

From 1962 to 2018, changes in tax rate

Bottom 50% tax rate, up 24.2%
Next 40%, up 27.6%
Top 10%, down 29%
Top 1%, down 30%
Top .1%, down 31.4%
Top 0.1% down 29.4%

It's not rocket science. The burden of taxation is regressive and has been for a long time. Currently the rate for the bottom 50% is 25.6%. The rate for the top 400 is 23%

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/11/opinion/sunday/wealth-income-tax-rate.html


sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

maybe even creating a government option as one of the option and not the only option would be preferable.
I suspect that's the next move (and the thing Obama originally wanted but couldn't get through Congress at the time).
That, I can imagine, will get passed without turning people to Trump.

But who knows. I may be crazy and someone like Warren or Sanders could actually win over the average American.

People may dislike Trump, but I suspect they are not ready for the sharp turn to the left.

I guess we will see if Warren wins the primary. If that were the case, I would be less optimistic about our prospects no matter who wins the main election.
IMO the Bernie/Warren plan is more about putting stretch goals out there during the campaign, so you can negotiate down from them later. I doubt either of them thinks such a far-reaching thing can actually get passed in the next term.

Well, maybe Bernie does. I doubt Warren thinks so.
This is my problem with Sanders and Warren. Nothing they are proposing is going to get passed. It all just sounds good on the stump. I am for Medicare for all. The votes in congress are not close to there. Even if they were, there is not a consensus around that in the general population and it is something that you should really have widespread consensus for. Otherwise, it will fail and/or be repealed. There is no reason they can't say "Day 1 I will do X,Y, Z to shore up health care and provide care for everyone. Day 2 we get to work to pass Medicare for all." Instead, we have no idea what they will do when the thing they can't get passed doesn't pass.

The wealth tax really annoys me. It sounds like such an easy solution to fix wealth disparity. Only it barely dents it. It will never pass because taking property is a bedrock no no in our country's history, if it passed it would face significant Constitutional challenges and might lose, it likely will require that real property is either not counted or funds from taxing real property apportioned to the state, much of it is easy to avoid, it has been tried and failed elsewhere (see "easy to avoid"), and it would require a whole new tax infrastructure. On the flip side, inequities in the capital gains tax system is a significant cause in wealth disparity. Reforming the capital gains tax system as many other democrats want to do is politically achievable, has no constitutional problems, uses the current tax system and would be a far more effective solution. But "capital gains tax reform" isn't as sexy as "wealth tax". When Warren described her wealth tax, I knew that for all her wonkiness, she isn't running on serious programs. The wealth tax simply is a dodge to try and get elected while it hurts the possibility of passing real reform.

If someone wants to understand the income disparity problem, you just need to look at a chart showing percentage of wealth being held in various income classes historically. It was very stable for decades with middle class slowly edging up in percentage of the country's overall wealth it held. In 1985, blammo! The lines take big turns with the rich piling up the wealth. Reagan's trickle down economics sure did result on everyone but the wealthy being trickled upon. You want to solve the issue, you look at the changes that were made there and after.
So here's the thing, I'm not sure this actually hurts the possibility of passing real reform. My evidence for this is how the Republicans do it: they propose all kinds of crazy extreme policies, so that when they reach the negotiating table they already have Obama or whatever Democrat on the defensive and can get a compromise closer to what they really wanted. I see the Sanders/Warren approach as being basically the left-wing version of that.

Will that work? I don't know. But I do know that the Hillary Clinton/Al Gore approach of having all your policies perfectly crafted and calibrated to the political center while running for office doesn't work. Voters don't give a **** about details. Better to run on aspirational goals.
Cal Junkie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

Cal88 said:

Not ignoring it, just quantifying it and putting it in perspective.


What is the $8 trillion dollar bailout you are talking about? There is no such thing. I can't even tell what you might be talking about it is so much bigger than anything that was spent.
Maybe he's talking about this bailout:

https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/secret-gop-audio-in-2016-i-think-putin-pays-trump-946733123798?fbclid=IwAR28jp3POXxe3dZ9n2cx4YndrXSl0c8FPoSnXrY61Vv4JJbZx401ApFfIxw
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

OaktownBear said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

maybe even creating a government option as one of the option and not the only option would be preferable.
I suspect that's the next move (and the thing Obama originally wanted but couldn't get through Congress at the time).
That, I can imagine, will get passed without turning people to Trump.

But who knows. I may be crazy and someone like Warren or Sanders could actually win over the average American.

People may dislike Trump, but I suspect they are not ready for the sharp turn to the left.

I guess we will see if Warren wins the primary. If that were the case, I would be less optimistic about our prospects no matter who wins the main election.
IMO the Bernie/Warren plan is more about putting stretch goals out there during the campaign, so you can negotiate down from them later. I doubt either of them thinks such a far-reaching thing can actually get passed in the next term.

Well, maybe Bernie does. I doubt Warren thinks so.
This is my problem with Sanders and Warren. Nothing they are proposing is going to get passed. It all just sounds good on the stump. I am for Medicare for all. The votes in congress are not close to there. Even if they were, there is not a consensus around that in the general population and it is something that you should really have widespread consensus for. Otherwise, it will fail and/or be repealed. There is no reason they can't say "Day 1 I will do X,Y, Z to shore up health care and provide care for everyone. Day 2 we get to work to pass Medicare for all." Instead, we have no idea what they will do when the thing they can't get passed doesn't pass.

The wealth tax really annoys me. It sounds like such an easy solution to fix wealth disparity. Only it barely dents it. It will never pass because taking property is a bedrock no no in our country's history, if it passed it would face significant Constitutional challenges and might lose, it likely will require that real property is either not counted or funds from taxing real property apportioned to the state, much of it is easy to avoid, it has been tried and failed elsewhere (see "easy to avoid"), and it would require a whole new tax infrastructure. On the flip side, inequities in the capital gains tax system is a significant cause in wealth disparity. Reforming the capital gains tax system as many other democrats want to do is politically achievable, has no constitutional problems, uses the current tax system and would be a far more effective solution. But "capital gains tax reform" isn't as sexy as "wealth tax". When Warren described her wealth tax, I knew that for all her wonkiness, she isn't running on serious programs. The wealth tax simply is a dodge to try and get elected while it hurts the possibility of passing real reform.

If someone wants to understand the income disparity problem, you just need to look at a chart showing percentage of wealth being held in various income classes historically. It was very stable for decades with middle class slowly edging up in percentage of the country's overall wealth it held. In 1985, blammo! The lines take big turns with the rich piling up the wealth. Reagan's trickle down economics sure did result on everyone but the wealthy being trickled upon. You want to solve the issue, you look at the changes that were made there and after.
So here's the thing, I'm not sure this actually hurts the possibility of passing real reform. My evidence for this is how the Republicans do it: they propose all kinds of crazy extreme policies, so that when they reach the negotiating table they already have Obama or whatever Democrat on the defensive and can get a compromise closer to what they really wanted. I see the Sanders/Warren approach as being basically the left-wing version of that.

Will that work? I don't know. But I do know that the Hillary Clinton/Al Gore approach of having all your policies perfectly crafted and calibrated to the political center while running for office doesn't work. Voters don't give a **** about details. Better to run on aspirational goals.
I'm not voting for bad policies on a vague notion that they are some Crazy Larry approach to negotiating good policies. That is what Trump voters did and a lot of them got something other than what they bargained for. Do you have any idea what Sanders and Warren would ACTUALLY implement if not the policies they say they would? Are you really sure they aren't all or nothing on these policies (with Bernie especially I would not bet on it).

The policies I described aren't politically calibrated to the center. Reforming capital gains won't get a single Republican vote. If conservatives were actually faced with having to choose between a wealth tax and the type of reform to capital gains others are talking about they would take the wealth tax and laugh their heads off at the liberals while eating their roast pigs. One of the issues I have with this cycle is everything Warren and Sanders say is defined as "liberal" and everything else is "moderate". It just isn't true. I'll say it again. The wealth tax is "build the wall". A stupid policy that won't be enacted, that wouldn't be an effective solution to the problem, but just is a buzz word to say "I'll be even more liberal". Hillary and Gore never ran on the things I'm talking about.

I have to say I have some dismay at the tenor of my liberal brethren that seem to think the way to defeat Trump is to adopt his tactics instead of countering them. The Democrats are making big inroads on the educated vote (this is exactly what happened in California). Turning our campaigns into the liberal flip side of the Trump campaign with simplistic buzz words and questionable claims just because they might be believed by some is not the way to go. I'm seeing a lot of emotional reactions and a lot of "people are stupid" type strategies. I don't think that is the way to go.

I want good liberal policies that will produce good liberal results.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

But Republicans don't need to have a monopoly on outrage. Rather than the Trump variety of outrage and fear of the other, the correct blend of righteous progressive outrage on climate, on inequality and corruption could compete with the virality of the MAGA message. Outrage, indignation and alarmism sentiments proven to win online can be harnessed by Democrats, provided they choose the right candidate.

Whether Democrats can compete with their integrity intact is unclear. But what is clear is that in 2019, one of the few ways to political power is to never, ever stop making content.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

The person who has researched this to the nth degree is Emmanuel Saenz at Berkeley

From 1962 to 2018, changes in tax rate

Bottom 50% tax rate, up 24.2%
Next 40%, up 27.6%
Top 10%, down 29%
Top 1%, down 30%
Top .1%, down 31.4%
Top 0.1% down 29.4%

It's not rocket science. The burden of taxation is regressive and has been for a long time. Currently the rate for the bottom 50% is 25.6%. The rate for the top 400 is 23%

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/11/opinion/sunday/wealth-income-tax-rate.html





That may all be true, but as any Fox News watcher can tell you: "Facts and data have a liberal bias."
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Out.


sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

sycasey said:

OaktownBear said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

maybe even creating a government option as one of the option and not the only option would be preferable.
I suspect that's the next move (and the thing Obama originally wanted but couldn't get through Congress at the time).
That, I can imagine, will get passed without turning people to Trump.

But who knows. I may be crazy and someone like Warren or Sanders could actually win over the average American.

People may dislike Trump, but I suspect they are not ready for the sharp turn to the left.

I guess we will see if Warren wins the primary. If that were the case, I would be less optimistic about our prospects no matter who wins the main election.
IMO the Bernie/Warren plan is more about putting stretch goals out there during the campaign, so you can negotiate down from them later. I doubt either of them thinks such a far-reaching thing can actually get passed in the next term.

Well, maybe Bernie does. I doubt Warren thinks so.
This is my problem with Sanders and Warren. Nothing they are proposing is going to get passed. It all just sounds good on the stump. I am for Medicare for all. The votes in congress are not close to there. Even if they were, there is not a consensus around that in the general population and it is something that you should really have widespread consensus for. Otherwise, it will fail and/or be repealed. There is no reason they can't say "Day 1 I will do X,Y, Z to shore up health care and provide care for everyone. Day 2 we get to work to pass Medicare for all." Instead, we have no idea what they will do when the thing they can't get passed doesn't pass.

The wealth tax really annoys me. It sounds like such an easy solution to fix wealth disparity. Only it barely dents it. It will never pass because taking property is a bedrock no no in our country's history, if it passed it would face significant Constitutional challenges and might lose, it likely will require that real property is either not counted or funds from taxing real property apportioned to the state, much of it is easy to avoid, it has been tried and failed elsewhere (see "easy to avoid"), and it would require a whole new tax infrastructure. On the flip side, inequities in the capital gains tax system is a significant cause in wealth disparity. Reforming the capital gains tax system as many other democrats want to do is politically achievable, has no constitutional problems, uses the current tax system and would be a far more effective solution. But "capital gains tax reform" isn't as sexy as "wealth tax". When Warren described her wealth tax, I knew that for all her wonkiness, she isn't running on serious programs. The wealth tax simply is a dodge to try and get elected while it hurts the possibility of passing real reform.

If someone wants to understand the income disparity problem, you just need to look at a chart showing percentage of wealth being held in various income classes historically. It was very stable for decades with middle class slowly edging up in percentage of the country's overall wealth it held. In 1985, blammo! The lines take big turns with the rich piling up the wealth. Reagan's trickle down economics sure did result on everyone but the wealthy being trickled upon. You want to solve the issue, you look at the changes that were made there and after.
So here's the thing, I'm not sure this actually hurts the possibility of passing real reform. My evidence for this is how the Republicans do it: they propose all kinds of crazy extreme policies, so that when they reach the negotiating table they already have Obama or whatever Democrat on the defensive and can get a compromise closer to what they really wanted. I see the Sanders/Warren approach as being basically the left-wing version of that.

Will that work? I don't know. But I do know that the Hillary Clinton/Al Gore approach of having all your policies perfectly crafted and calibrated to the political center while running for office doesn't work. Voters don't give a **** about details. Better to run on aspirational goals.
I'm not voting for bad policies on a vague notion that they are some Crazy Larry approach to negotiating good policies. That is what Trump voters did and a lot of them got something other than what they bargained for. Do you have any idea what Sanders and Warren would ACTUALLY implement if not the policies they say they would? Are you really sure they aren't all or nothing on these policies (with Bernie especially I would not bet on it).

The policies I described aren't politically calibrated to the center. Reforming capital gains won't get a single Republican vote. If conservatives were actually faced with having to choose between a wealth tax and the type of reform to capital gains others are talking about they would take the wealth tax and laugh their heads off at the liberals while eating their roast pigs. One of the issues I have with this cycle is everything Warren and Sanders say is defined as "liberal" and everything else is "moderate". It just isn't true. I'll say it again. The wealth tax is "build the wall". A stupid policy that won't be enacted, that wouldn't be an effective solution to the problem, but just is a buzz word to say "I'll be even more liberal". Hillary and Gore never ran on the things I'm talking about.

I have to say I have some dismay at the tenor of my liberal brethren that seem to think the way to defeat Trump is to adopt his tactics instead of countering them. The Democrats are making big inroads on the educated vote (this is exactly what happened in California). Turning our campaigns into the liberal flip side of the Trump campaign with simplistic buzz words and questionable claims just because they might be believed by some is not the way to go. I'm seeing a lot of emotional reactions and a lot of "people are stupid" type strategies. I don't think that is the way to go.

I want good liberal policies that will produce good liberal results.
Well, personally I don't think this is exactly what Trump does, because what Trump does is take everything to a ridiculous extreme. I'd say it's more like what Congressional Republican leaders have been doing. And sure, you can argue that this is also not something liberals should embrace, but that doesn't mean it won't be effective.

My argument is that it may not actually hurt the implementation of liberal policy, since presumably anything a hypothetical President Warren or Sanders would want to accomplish (especially anything involving taxes) would have to be passed through Congress anyway. That's where the kinks need to be worked out. I don't need the President to pre-work out all the kinks ahead of time.

Do I know any of that for sure? No, I don't.

Who do you think has the best grasp on policy out of the Democratic field?
Professor Turgeson Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:



The policies I described aren't politically calibrated to the center. Reforming capital gains won't get a single Republican vote. If conservatives were actually faced with having to choose between a wealth tax and the type of reform to capital gains others are talking about they would take the wealth tax and laugh their heads off at the liberals while eating their roast pigs. One of the issues I have with this cycle is everything Warren and Sanders say is defined as "liberal" and everything else is "moderate". It just isn't true. I'll say it again. The wealth tax is "build the wall". A stupid policy that won't be enacted, that wouldn't be an effective solution to the problem, but just is a buzz word to say "I'll be even more liberal". Hillary and Gore never ran on the things I'm talking about.
Why do we care what the losers ran on? They were losers because they inspired no one. No one should ever look at any presidential strategy Clinton ever had as a guide on how to do it. She coasted on name recognition and made horrible decisions every step of the way.

Quote:


I have to say I have some dismay at the tenor of my liberal brethren that seem to think the way to defeat Trump is to adopt his tactics instead of countering them.
When the liberal brethren start advocating for outright lying, character assassination, encouraging foreign interference, and adopting policies to appeal to the worst elements of American society, then I'll buy that claim. Until then you can take your holier-than-thou corporate Democrat values and stuff it.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Professor Turgeson Bear said:

OaktownBear said:



The policies I described aren't politically calibrated to the center. Reforming capital gains won't get a single Republican vote. If conservatives were actually faced with having to choose between a wealth tax and the type of reform to capital gains others are talking about they would take the wealth tax and laugh their heads off at the liberals while eating their roast pigs. One of the issues I have with this cycle is everything Warren and Sanders say is defined as "liberal" and everything else is "moderate". It just isn't true. I'll say it again. The wealth tax is "build the wall". A stupid policy that won't be enacted, that wouldn't be an effective solution to the problem, but just is a buzz word to say "I'll be even more liberal". Hillary and Gore never ran on the things I'm talking about.
Why do we care what the losers ran on? They were losers because they inspired no one. No one should ever look at any presidential strategy Clinton ever had as a guide on how to do it. She coasted on name recognition and made horrible decisions every step of the way.

Quote:


I have to say I have some dismay at the tenor of my liberal brethren that seem to think the way to defeat Trump is to adopt his tactics instead of countering them.
When the liberal brethren start advocating for outright lying, character assassination, encouraging foreign interference, and adopting policies to appeal to the worst elements of American society, then I'll buy that claim. Until then you can take your holier-than-thou corporate Democrat values and stuff it.
Regarding what the losers ran on, I was responding to the previous poster who implied that Clinton and Gore ran on similar strategies. They did not. Gore and Clinton both ran terrible campaigns. I would never advocate running similar campaigns.

Regarding your last statement, you are exhibit A of the stupid liberal falling for stupid gimmick policies. I have corporate values, do I? Do you know what capital gains taxes are? They mostly tax earnings on investments in corporations. My policy would tax all income at the same rates instead of giving capital gains a much lower rate. That would result in a near doubling of the capital gains rate and raise 3-5 times more revenue from wealthy sources than Warren's wealth tax. It would dramatically alter the rate of taxes that the wealthy pay compared to the poor and middle class bringing us much more in line with pre Reagan times when the wealth disparity was stable for decades. Further, I would do away with rules that allow the resetting of capital gains to zero upon death without paying taxes, which is how the uber wealthy go generations without paying taxes on their investments and accumulate hordes of wealth sitting on their asses. My guess is you have no idea how capital gains policies work to favor the uber rich and screw over the rest of us. I suggest you learn.

My policies would do far more to further liberal economic policies than anything Bernie and Warren are peddling. No one would call my policies corporate. They just don't match the useless gimmick policies that you are following. But fine. Fall for the less liberal policy that won't get passed and won't work if it does and call liberals who try to explain why it doesn't achieve liberal aims corporate. That will surely get you what you want. As I said, if conservatives had to choose between the wealth tax and capital gains reform, they will take Warren's wealth tax in a heartbeat and laugh hysterically at how little they have to pay.
Professor Turgeson Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

OaktownBear said:



The policies I described aren't politically calibrated to the center. Reforming capital gains won't get a single Republican vote. If conservatives were actually faced with having to choose between a wealth tax and the type of reform to capital gains others are talking about they would take the wealth tax and laugh their heads off at the liberals while eating their roast pigs. One of the issues I have with this cycle is everything Warren and Sanders say is defined as "liberal" and everything else is "moderate". It just isn't true. I'll say it again. The wealth tax is "build the wall". A stupid policy that won't be enacted, that wouldn't be an effective solution to the problem, but just is a buzz word to say "I'll be even more liberal". Hillary and Gore never ran on the things I'm talking about.
Why do we care what the losers ran on? They were losers because they inspired no one. No one should ever look at any presidential strategy Clinton ever had as a guide on how to do it. She coasted on name recognition and made horrible decisions every step of the way.

Quote:


I have to say I have some dismay at the tenor of my liberal brethren that seem to think the way to defeat Trump is to adopt his tactics instead of countering them.
When the liberal brethren start advocating for outright lying, character assassination, encouraging foreign interference, and adopting policies to appeal to the worst elements of American society, then I'll buy that claim. Until then you can take your holier-than-thou corporate Democrat values and stuff it.
Regarding what the losers ran on, I was responding to the previous poster who implied that Clinton and Gore ran on similar strategies. They did not. Gore and Clinton both ran terrible campaigns. I would never advocate running similar campaigns
That is not what he implied. He said they crafted their stances to already be ready to pass. He's talking about starting out demanding more than you expect to get and then move from there.

Quote:

Quote:

Regarding your last statement, you are exhibit A of the stupid liberal falling for stupid gimmick policies. I have corporate values, do I? Do you know what capital gains taxes are? They mostly tax earnings on investments in corporations. My policy would tax all income at the same rates instead of giving capital gains a much lower rate. That would result in a near doubling of the capital gains rate and raise 3-5 times more revenue from wealthy sources than Warren's wealth tax. It would dramatically alter the rate of taxes that the wealthy pay compared to the poor and middle class bringing us much more in line with pre Reagan times when the wealth disparity was stable for decades. Further, I would do away with rules that allow the resetting of capital gains to zero upon death without paying taxes, which is how the uber wealthy go generations without paying taxes on their investments and accumulate hordes of wealth sitting on their asses. My guess is you have no idea how capital gains policies work to favor the uber rich and screw over the rest of us. I suggest you learn.

That's nice. Of course, you have no idea what you're talking about, but that's still nice.
Quote:

My policies would do far more to further liberal economic policies than anything Bernie and Warren are peddling. No one would call my policies corporate. They just don't match the useless gimmick policies that you are following. But fine. Fall for the less liberal policy that won't get passed and won't work if it does and call liberals who try to explain why it doesn't achieve liberal aims corporate. That will surely get you what you want. As I said, if conservatives had to choose between the wealth tax and capital gains reform, they will take Warren's wealth tax in a heartbeat and laugh hysterically at how little they have to pay.
I don't care about policies. I care about values. Values determine what kinds of policies will be pursued. We've seen Trump's values. We saw that Obama talked a good game, but left the uber wealthy (many of whom were white collar criminals in the mortgage loan crisis) at the status quo. And we've seen who Warren has been cozying up to when the cameras aren't on her.

Who really wants to create change? Who is looking to be a public servant and who is just looking to nurse at the Washington teat? That's what determines who gets my vote, not who is the best realist.
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A quick recap of the state of the Democratic Primary. Below is a link to the latest poll for Iowa, and it is looking like a 4 horse race with Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, and Biden all within the margin of error of each other at the top. The second tier seems to be thinning (Beto dropped out, Harris is making drastic moves to salvage support for Iowa, and Buttigieg has advanced into the Top tier). The biggest news is that Biden is now fourth, with Warren in the lead.

https://scri.siena.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/IADem1019.pdf

Personally I think a Buttigieg / Yang ticket would be quite interesting. A centrist midwesterner combined with a facts-based big idea candidate.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Headline in the liberal media after Iowa primary; "Buttigieg finishes fourth, surges in Iowa."
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mayor Pete and Yang would both make good cabinet appointments.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

Mayor Pete and Yang would both make good cabinet appointments.


Based on their interest in being President? I think they both have interesting ideas but being an effective agency leader is much more than that. I would like to think the president chooses the best person for each job and it's unlikely to be either of those two, just as Ben Carson and Rick Perry were not the best people for HUD and Energy.

Both Pete and Yang should continue in public service and one day may be the best people to run agencies or this country. As far as I'm concerned, that time is not now.
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.