|
My Imaginary GF posted:yet refuses to take public funding for his campaign. He chose the reasonable option of a broken system. He bet that he could go toe to toe with Hillary by small campaign contributions and was right. He wouldn't even have made it through the fall on the public funding system as it is. Hillary chose to keep the traditional "milk the whales" point of fundraising, and that gave her a great warchest for the initial parts of the primary and now she has to scramble to find whoever is left to give.
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
Bad Caller posted:I honestly don't get this post, because FPTP would be replaced hopefully with Mixed-member proportional representation like in Germany or Sweden. Proportional representation, a system which has never resulted in world war. I'll stick with FPTP, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Jacobin posted:The fact that Canada is moving to reform FPTP is huge. At bare minimum it means the issue will get on the news and hundreds of Americans who actually give a poo poo about America's hat will actually learn for the first time that other voting systems exist and that they can change. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
HiHo ChiRho posted:See this is what I don't get. You've seen how the republicans attack Hillary constantly, what makes you thing she is going to get more done than Obama or Sanders or even her husband with a tight senate and locked red House? She's not going to accomplish what Bernie is promising, either. But she seems more savvy about playing the political game and making meaningful, if incremental steps. Earlier in the thread, people were bad-talking Obama for giving up on single-payer healthcare. That's just not going to happen, though. Hillary wants to make improvements to the ACA, which is the only realistic step forward. I know that Sanders could pull an Obama and give up on his lofty promises, and maybe it's better to ask for more than you're realistically going to get, but he just doesn't seem as capable of that as Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Bad Caller posted:I goddamn hate when people think we're all going to get "more conservative" as we get older. Like come on, when stuff is still bad for our generation we aren't magically going to turn on ourselves. Millenials despite the tumblr and other hug boxes are far better informed youth generation than any before it. Everyone hates taxes
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Because she is a moderate with experience on working through the system in Washington. Right because Sanders has had absolutely no experience working in the beltway whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
HiHo ChiRho posted:He chose the reasonable option of a broken system. He bet that he could go toe to toe with Hillary by small campaign contributions and was right. He wouldn't even have made it through the fall on the public funding system as it is. Hillary chose to keep the traditional "milk the whales" point of fundraising, and that gave her a great warchest for the initial parts of the primary and now she has to scramble to find whoever is left to give. So basically in video game nerd terms, Hillary is doing the traditional free to play model of milk a few whales of lots of cash and get a few donations occasionally from others that don't do much for her, and Bernie is selling a finished game at launch but then coming out with expansions later on for people to buy
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
HiHo ChiRho posted:He chose the reasonable option of a broken system. He bet that he could go toe to toe with Hillary by small campaign contributions and was right. He wouldn't even have made it through the fall on the public funding system as it is. Hillary chose to keep the traditional "milk the whales" point of fundraising, and that gave her a great warchest for the initial parts of the primary and now she has to scramble to find whoever is left to give. America with public healthcare for all would make it as far as Sanders' campaign on public funds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Bad Caller posted:I honestly don't get this post, because FPTP would be replaced hopefully with Mixed-member proportional representation like in Germany or Sweden, where diverse parties do actually happen even if they have to make "coalitions". MIGF's gimmick is literally and unashamedly treating America as a feudal empire, complete with underclasses and ruling nobility.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Everyone hates taxes I love paying taxes but I'm weird I guess, I always complain when schools get underfunded or roads go to crap locally and say they should raise taxes to fund these things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
HiHo ChiRho posted:Right because Sanders has had absolutely no experience working in the beltway whatsoever. Given how little he's accomplished, that's accurate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
HiHo ChiRho posted:Right because Sanders has had absolutely no experience working in the beltway whatsoever. Inside the beltway, Sanders is slightly more well liked than Ted Cruz. What does that tell you about his experience?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:FPTP is absolutely loving awesome. Look at Venezuela to see what happens when you get rid of representative government. Look at New Zealand when you have actually representative government, i.e. proportional to votes The people in Blue are Blue Dog Democrats The people in Red are Democrats The people in Green are awesome and most likely to be feeling the Bern
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
Jacobin posted:Look at New Zealand when you have actually representative government, i.e. proportional to votes People in America sincerely believe that the poors are the problem and not the wealthy so it'll be awhile before the Republican party loses support Trying to make people realize how few are "permanently on welfare" and realize how nice social safety nets are is like pulling teeth, but then again I just sort of argue for it with a kill it with kindness view and get people to think about themselves and what happened if they lost work and needed it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
Bad Caller posted:I love paying taxes but I'm weird I guess, I always complain when schools get underfunded or roads go to crap locally and say they should raise taxes to fund these things. If healthcare was a 2% payroll tax that people wouldn't even have to think about like what Bernie is proposing, that would be optimal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:If healthcare was a 2% payroll tax that people wouldn't even have to think about like what Bernie is proposing, that would be optimal. I currently pay about 8% of my income after tax into my HSA and HDHP insurance so in case of emergency I can cover the deductible, so sounds loving great to me. Then again I'm crazy and also am voting for Bernie because he said he'd protect pension programs and my job has one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Bernie Sanders wants to force you to rely upon the public sector, yet refuses to take public funding for his campaign. You don't need Wall St. to successfully fund a campaign. Hillary doesn't need it either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Inside the beltway, Sanders is slightly more well liked than Ted Cruz. Forget that. You already stated that Bernie could never get anything done with Congress, but Hillary can. Exactly how does Hillary make a republican held house fall to their knees and vote her ideas in any better than Sanders or Obama ever could?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:They just played that soundclip of "Senator Sanders is the only person who would describe me, a woman, as part of the Establishment." Thats still absolutely hilarious. That truly execrable "All-Caps Explosion Of Emotion" blog post from pajiba keeps making the rounds among my facebook friends. And then I hear that answer from Clinton...
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Inside the beltway, Sanders is slightly more well liked than Ted Cruz. It tells me that you are making poo poo up
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
I wish someone would come out saying the K-12 system needs a complete overhaul because it's fundamentally broken and a major cause for most of America's problems
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:If healthcare was a 2% payroll tax that people wouldn't even have to think about like what Bernie is proposing, that would be optimal. Not to be that guy, but also a 6.2% payroll tax on the employer's side. Does Bernie have any break on that for the self employed (remember, this includes marginally attached employees like uber drivers and other 1099s), or do they just get throttled with an 8.4% increase if they don't use the S-Corp dodge?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
squidgee posted:Not to be that guy, but also a 6.2% payroll tax on the employer's side. The self-employed pay through the nose for health insurance so I don't think they're gonna get "throttled" by single-payer bud.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:If healthcare was a 2% payroll tax that people wouldn't even have to think about like what Bernie is proposing, that would be optimal. We already have a payroll tax to cover Social Security and Medicare. Its split between employee and employer, but employers have significant ability to shift all of the costs on to the employee through lowered wages. 'Hiding' it is not a good argument for a payroll tax. A good argument is that a payroll tax creates a sense of ownership that will make UHC virtually impossible to repeal or change. Its still a little regressive and, in a better world, would be handled with a progressive tax on income or capital gains or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
HiHo ChiRho posted:Forget that. You already stated that Bernie could never get anything done with Congress, but Hillary can. Exactly how does Hillary make a republican held house fall to their knees and vote her ideas in any better than Sanders or Obama ever could? I feel like you're oversimplifying this. "It doesn't matter who we elect because they all have 0% odds of accomplishing anything!  checkmate!"The point is that Bernie over-promises to a ridiculous degree and doesn't explain how he'll actually do it. Maybe he'll be great at it, but it seems like a Sanders presidency will emotionally destroy his supporters when none of the promises come true lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:The self-employed pay through the nose for health insurance so I don't think they're gonna get "throttled" by single-payer bud. I assume that means no break for the self employed in his plan? If they're single, or their spouse has insurance through their employer (which they'd eligible for coverage under), they're not paying 8.4% of income for health insurance on any decent income. So yes, they'd be getting throttled. nah thanks has issued a correction as of 05:59 on Feb 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Proportional representation, a system which has never resulted in world war. ah yeah, the big problem with pre-nazi germany was proportional representation
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:I feel like you're oversimplifying this. "It doesn't matter who we elect because they all have 0% odds of accomplishing anything! I think most Bernie supporters are aware that the country is turbo hosed and understand that progress is slow and rich people are making it insanely hard to do anything that doesn't involve funneling money directly into their dragon hoard. This isn't Obama. This is post Obama when everyone realized how much work actually needs to be done.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:I feel like you're oversimplifying this. "It doesn't matter who we elect because they all have 0% odds of accomplishing anything! Ignoring their policy positions altogether, I was asking exactly how would Hillary succeed where Bernie would fail, since the republicans, much like they do under Obama's presidency would undermine both all the same based on their current actions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:I think most Bernie supporters are aware that the country is turbo hosed and understand that progress is slow and rich people are making it insanely hard to do anything that doesn't involve funneling money directly into their dragon hoard. He certainly has realistic supporters who realize Hillary's incremental theory of change is closer to being real than his, even if they find themselves agreeing more with his policy preferences, but the majority of Bernie supporters I've talked to off the internet seem to think Obama sold out by not single handedly destroying the banks in his first term, even if it meant losing reelection, and they want Bernie to do what Obama wasn't willing to do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:He certainly has realistic supporters who realize Hillary's incremental theory of change is closer to being real than his, even if they find themselves agreeing more with his policy preferences, but the majority of Bernie supporters I've talked to off the internet seem to think Obama sold out by not single handedly destroying the banks in his first term, even if it meant losing reelection, and they want Bernie to do what Obama wasn't willing to do. Then you're managing to talk to online Bernie supporters offline, because literally every Bernie supporter I know IRL is pretty realistic. They know he probably isn't going to get the nomination, but he's really, really good for the direction of the Democrats right now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
squidgee posted:I assume that means no break for the self employed in his plan? lol if you think employees arent already paying the full amount for payroll taxes. Employers just offer lower wages to compensate for 'their' half of the payroll tax.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:We already have a payroll tax to cover Social Security and Medicare. Its split between employee and employer, but employees have significant ability to shift all of the costs on to the employee through lowered wages. 'Hiding' it is not a good argument for a payroll tax. Let's say I'm an employer. I'm currently paying $200/month towards an employee's health insurance premium. The employee also pays $200/month towards the health insurance premium. The employee makes $50,000. The employee is currently paying: $2,400 annually for premiums and $735 in Medicare taxes ($3,135 annually) The employer is currently paying: $2,400 annually for premiums and $735 in Medicare taxes ($3.135 annually) Total cost: $6.270 The same employee and employer under Bernie's plan... The employee would pay: $1,000 annually in Medicare-For-All taxes The employer would pay: $3,100 annually in Medicare-For-All taxes Total cost: $4,100 The employee would save $2,135 annually under Bernie's plan The employer would save $35 annually under Bernie's plan
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
HiHo ChiRho posted:Ignoring their policy positions altogether, I was asking exactly how would Hillary succeed where Bernie would fail, since the republicans, much like they do under Obama's presidency would undermine both all the same based on their current actions. Her entire focus is "What can we realistically accomplish?" while his focus is "What do college kids want to hear?" Obviously this is just marketing. I know the difference between a TV commercial and a product review. But generally, Hillary has done a better job giving details and specifics. I like her sales pitch better. I'm a dumbass with a surface level understanding of politics, though. It feels like it would take me years to understand these issues well enough to make actual informed opinions on them, because they're so complicated and every information source has its own biases. So I'm not trying to convince you of anything here, I'm more trying to see how my arguments stand up to opposition, so thank you for replying 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Let's say I'm an employer. I'm currently paying $200/month towards an employee's health insurance premium. The employee also pays $200/month towards the health insurance premium. The employee makes $50,000. I'm not arguing that UHC wouldnt save money. I believe in UHC. I'm saying that employers will shift the full burden of payroll taxes to the employee no matter how you structure it, so claiming half the tax falls on the employer and half on the employee is not a selling point. Whenever you talk about payroll taxes, the assumption should be the employee will shoulder the full cost (and has already been shouldering the full cost of current taxes) of the tax. Anything less is obscuring the point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Jacobin posted:Look at New Zealand when you have actually representative government, i.e. proportional to votes How does your parliament feel about vaccines, new nuclear power plant construction, and GMO's?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:I'm not arguing that UHC wouldnt save money. I believe in UHC. I'm saying that employers will shift the full burden of payroll taxes to the employee no matter how you structure it, so claiming half the tax falls on the employer and half on the employee is not a selling point. Whenever you talk about payroll taxes, the assumption should be the employee will shoulder the full cost (and has already been shouldering the full cost of current taxes) of the tax. Anything less is obscuring the point. That's a different issue then - how do you prevent private companies from doing that exactly?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:I'm a dumbass with a surface level understanding of politics, though. It feels like it would take me years to understand these issues well enough to make actual informed opinions on them That doesn't stop anyone else in this thread or the rest of D&D, so don't feel shy in expressing your terrible opinions  I understand the marketing aspects and would love to see more detailed information on some of these issues from Sanders, but I was just more focused on the usual attack against Sanders that he won't get things done but Hillary would with her incrementalism, when the reality is nothing will get accomplished by a president with a do-nothing Congress in the current atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:ah yeah, the big problem with pre-nazi germany was proportional representation The best part is they still use it anyways!
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
Majorian posted:Then you're managing to talk to online Bernie supporters offline, because literally every Bernie supporter I know IRL is pretty realistic. They know he probably isn't going to get the nomination, but he's really, really good for the direction of the Democrats right now. Same here, most Bernie supporters irl, like anyone you talk to irl that can't just say whatever without social repercussions, is far more sane to talk to
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:24
|
|