|
Jaxyon posted:What I'm saying is that I think some democrats have adopted one of Bernie's planks. Just last year liberals were attacking anyone who dared criticize the ACA or wanted to push for single-payer. That all changed in under a year. Because of leftists. I'm pretty sure we're going to keep pushing and not let centrists like you gently caress things up like you did for 8 years.
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
WampaLord posted:Except for Harris being flown out to the Hamptons to be vetted by Hillary's personal donors. That's what I said, the people who used to fund Clinton are getting attention, sure. But that doesn't mean anyone is listening to Hillary herself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:It's because said centrists shat the bed so bad that there now are literal white supremacists in the White House, plus they show no signs of learning from their absolute bedshitting unless they're dragged to good positions kicking and screaming, hth. that's why its good that when leftists get advice from someone who has personal experience with the situation (say, a page in her book and a few minutes in an interview talking about 'hey, here's how these specific actions made the loss more likely' ) they are able to calmly digest that and accept those criticisms without lashing out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That's what I said, the people who used to fund Clinton are getting attention, sure. But that doesn't mean anyone is listening to Hillary herself. You can't be this naive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:the us government isn't broke and effectively can't be, that is just a bipartisan pretension to maintain the neoliberal/conservative status quo. it could print the money for single payer, likely without even seeing much inflation - the fed has been doing quantitative easing to fight deflation for a decade now Are you serious? You think we could just print our way to utopia? Whatever the monetary situation right now it doesn't mean it will be that way in perpetuity. Even FDR had to pay for his programs. Was FDR a "neoliberal/conservative"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
I am absolutely all for a single payer plan. But a single payer plan without the pay fors isn't actually a plan. It's a wish.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
Condiv posted:she does hot take: "legacy" is a lame-rear end excuse that coward politicians use when they don't want to have to defend their real opinions. same with "politically feasible"
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:You can't be this naive. You can keep pretending Hillary is some master manipulator who is secretly regaining the iron throne but I'm going to keep living in the reality where her stench of failure is well reported by the press and everyone with clear eyes can see she and her cadre have no political vision, no effective tactics and loyalty to each other instead of strategy. But you can keep thinking Verrit was part of a well articulated plan to Hillary 2020.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:The gently caress does this even mean? A hypothetical primary challenge from the left in 2012 would have likely resulted in Mitt "47%" Romney becoming president.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:I am absolutely all for a single payer plan. But a single payer plan without the pay fors isn't actually a plan. It's a wish. It's also a wish when there's no chance of it passing both houses of Congress and getting signed into law at this particular point in time, but that's not the purpose of this bill. The purpose is to show the Democratic base that Democrats are ready to fight for this, and that single payer has entered the realm of political possibility. The more establishment Democrats sign on, the more normalized single payer becomes. By the time the Democrats have large enough majorities in Congress and the presidency, we will have the details figured out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:hot take: "legacy" is a lame-rear end excuse that coward politicians use when they don't want to have to defend their real opinions. it's also not a particularly good look for the party when someone who was considered a leader at least 10 months ago does stuff like this at least obama is carrying himself well, even if i dislike some of the things he's done/doing Hellblazer187 posted:I am absolutely all for a single payer plan. But a single payer plan without the pay fors isn't actually a plan. It's a wish. can't get singlepayer without discussing it and normalizing it. do you think bernie's bill is going to pass a republican house and senate? are you lindsey graham?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
Scent of Worf posted:Just last year liberals were attacking anyone who dared criticize the ACA or wanted to push for single-payer. That all changed in under a year. Because of leftists. I'm pretty sure we're going to keep pushing and not let centrists like you gently caress things up like you did for 8 years. I'm a socialist. I'm not a centrist. Disagreeing with leftists in the thread doesn't make me one and its pretty lazy to go there but whatever dude. I never said I had any problem with pushing from the left.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I'm a socialist. I'm not a centrist. try not to take it so personally i've been called centrist too
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I'm a socialist. I'm not a centrist. Sorry, you disagreed with one, so you're pretty much Hyper-Cruz.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You can keep pretending Hillary is some master manipulator who is secretly regaining the iron throne but I'm going to keep living in the reality where her stench of failure is well reported by the press and everyone with clear eyes can see she and her cadre have no political vision, no effective tactics and loyalty to each other instead of strategy. I think it's possible that it was part of a plan (it probably wasn't, but it's possible). Whether or not it was a particularly well-thought-out plan that will pay dividends is another discussion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's also a wish when there's no chance of it passing both houses of Congress and getting signed into law at this particular point in time, but that's not the purpose of this bill. The purpose is to show the Democratic base that Democrats are ready to fight for this, and that single payer has entered the realm of political possibility. The more establishment Democrats sign on, the more normalized single payer becomes. By the time the Democrats have large enough majorities in Congress and the presidency, we will have the details figured out. Except we didn't get the details figured out the last several times we tried this. That's why insurance reform failed under Roosevelt and Truman and Carter and Clinton. We don't need to normalize single payer itself. That's normalized already. Most of America wants that. We need to normalize the associated taxes. Ask an average American - do you want government to provide healthcare to everyone? They'll say yes, even a big plurality of republicans. Then ask the same question - what if it means you pay $x more in taxes? That's the part we need to sell. We need to make clear what the costs would be and then say that they're worth it. Legislative text from a minority party has value in selling an idea, but I don't think this has value without at least SOME detail on how to pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I think it's possible that it was part of a plan (it probably wasn't, but it's possible). Whether or not it was a particularly well-thought-out plan that will pay dividends is another discussion. Anyone who thinks the answer to that second bit is anything other than "Ha Ha! No loving Way" needs to be slapped around for a bit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
I personally blame Hillary's loss on Ken Bone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Except we didn't get the details figured out the last several times we tried this. That's why insurance reform failed under Roosevelt and Truman and Carter and Clinton. yes we do we just had a democratic leader running on "single payer will never ever happen"
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Guys, I made a thread to contain the terrible discussion about Hillary and Bernie. Please take it there. https://forums.somethingawful.com/s...hreadid=3834141
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I'm a socialist. I'm not a centrist. Oh, my bad. It's just that there are a whole lot of supposedly leftist goons running around who concern troll leftism nonstop 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Condiv posted:yes we do ...Because of the associated taxes. The thing that sticks in people's craw is the cost and we need to start acknowledging that and selling single payer DESPITE the costs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Are you serious? You think we could just print our way to utopia? no, there is an obvious hard limit on printing and deficit spending. that would be inflation. quantitative easing exists because the federal government has refused to spend enough money to maintain a healthy currency for the last decade and so QE is a back door way to print over a trillion a year to maintain predictable inflation rates. that money could be printed exactly as it is each year and spent on social programs instead of treasury bond buybacks. more broadly, a government in the position of the US federal government does not exactly have to have a balanced budget, no. modern monetary theory is what you want to look into for the long-winded explanation, but essentially since the dollar is the world reserve currency the US can feasibly maintain long-term deficits in excess of other nations, and even in the absence of that, any government with control over its own currency can in fact "print to utopia" as long as the monetary situation is healthy. taxes and spending do not have to be coupled, they are just ways to either remove money from the private economy or add money to it. this wasn't really very well understood in the 1930s, but no FDR was neither of those, obviously. modern monetary theory is a natural extrapolation of the keynesianism that he subscribed to though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
1-800-DOCTORB posted:I personally blame Hillary's loss on Ken Bone. He is a remarkably stupid person, like most any 'undecided'
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Yes, of course. I'm not suggesting a balanced budget is necessary. But a single payer plan is literally trillions of dollars. It would run out of that room pretty quickly. There's literally nothing in there about paying for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
1-800-DOCTORB posted:I personally blame Hillary's loss on Ken Bone. West Virginia was never swinging to Hillary
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Except we didn't get the details figured out the last several times we tried this. That's why insurance reform failed under Roosevelt and Truman and Carter and Clinton. In what way did the details (or lack thereof) kill those previous attempts at health reform? It seems to me that it was much more anti-Communist scaremongering, at least for FDR, Truman, and Carter. For Clinton, everyone was still wrapped up in the Cult of Reagan. To me, it seems that the political climate has fundamentally changed since then. Taerkar posted:Anyone who thinks the answer to that second bit is anything other than "Ha Ha! No loving Way" needs to be slapped around for a bit. I agree, someone please slap Peter Daou around for a bit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Yes, of course. I'm not suggesting a balanced budget is necessary. But a single payer plan is literally trillions of dollars. It would run out of that room pretty quickly. it doesn't have to be. plenty of countries manage much better systems without nearly as much costs as the US system. we need to cut out a lot of grift
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:no, there is an obvious hard limit on printing and deficit spending. that would be inflation. quantitative easing exists because the federal government has refused to spend enough money to maintain a healthy currency for the last decade and so QE is a back door way to print over a trillion a year to maintain predictable inflation rates. that money could be printed exactly as it is each year and spent on social programs instead of treasury bond buybacks. QE for recapitalizing banks is different than print and spend because the money doesn't circulate as much as when it is spent. Much of the QE was to increase the reserves of the bank. Also since the Fed was printing money to buy securities that have interest the net effect of the QE is not as strong because the interest payments they receive take the money out of circulation. On a long term the net inflationary effect of QE might even be deflationary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it's also not a particularly good look for the party when someone who was considered a leader at least 10 months ago does stuff like this if the post-2016 career of hillary clinton has had any effect on the democratic party's image, it wasn't reflected in the 28-point swing toward the democrats in new hampshire or the 31-point swing in oklahoma last night. i'm going to wind down, because i've been repeating myself for a few posts now and don't think i am adding much to the conversation. my main point is that the american public ultimately cares very little about hillary clinton's post-2016 career. elites in the party and the national political media will care, but both, obviously, have a vested interest in downplaying criticism that implicates them. i think that's kind of a shame because, though hillary clinton is an imperfect messenger, she does make a handful of good points in her book about "what happened." ((these points are couched in tangents about hamilton and weird attacks on sanders, but i digress)) there will be a few days of chris cillizza and the washington examiner leaving sick burns on hillary via twitter, but then her book will fade back into the background like every other candidate retrospective. it's a useful perspective that will be important to the very few, but i seriously doubt it will make a lasting impression beyond those individuals.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
this continued left v liberal poo poo is going to get us all killed. and I'm saying this with two decades of bernie canvassing under my belt
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Personally I'd be surprised if even a majority of the people that buy Hillary's book will open it to read, let alone more than a chapter of it. Those kind of books are more symbol books than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it doesn't have to be. plenty of countries manage much better systems without nearly as much costs as the US system. we need to cut out a lot of grift No country offers a plan as generous as the one Sanders put forward today. Yes there would be reductions in administrative costs and waste, and yes the government has the negotiating power to lower prices across the board. But even if we assume the lowest per capita spending of all 1st world countries with UHC, and apply that across the US population, it's an enormous government program. We need to sell the fact that even if taxes go up you still wind up with something better. You pay $2k more in taxes but $3k less in premiums, you're better off. But we can't start making that argument until we have the tax (or, ideally, tax plus military cuts) side of this figured out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:if the post-2016 career of hillary clinton has had any effect on the democratic party's image, it wasn't reflected in the 28-point swing toward the democrats in new hampshire or the 31-point swing in oklahoma last night. i think the 31 point swing in oklahoma is due to leftism tbh. rosencrants pushed policy well to the left of what conventional political wisdom says he should've been able to in a state as red in oklahoma and that there's been that much of a swing makes me feel even more sure that there's a deep need for leftist policy in today's america and we need to go hard left to win back a lot of people in any case, i'm just glad my home state is a little less red than it used to be 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:if the post-2016 career of hillary clinton has had any effect on the democratic party's image, it wasn't reflected in the 28-point swing toward the democrats in new hampshire or the 31-point swing in oklahoma last night. I mean, I agree, to the extent that if the backbiting stops here, it won't have any effect at all. But I don't think that rabid Clintonistas like Brian Fallon, Peter Daou, or Joy Reid want to bury the hatchet. They feel like the Bernies backstabbed them, and they want their pound of flesh now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:this continued left v liberal poo poo is going to get us all killed. I think most of the people in this thread did vote for Clinton. I certainly would have voted for Bernie. I think it's good for the non insane half of the country to fight about what to put forward. Whether it's public option or straight up single payer, or whatever, both the "left" and the "liberals" are committed to expanding healthcare. I think Hillary is a singular event. There are legitimate reasons to dislike her, semi-legitimate reasons to dislike her, and totally non-legitimate reasons to dislike her. But she's very disliked, and I don't think the next nominee will be to the same degree, whether he or she is a "leftist" or a "liberal."
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:No country offers a plan as generous as the one Sanders put forward today. This is superficially incorrect, did you mean something other than "Medicare for All is more generous than any nation's healthcare? "
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Yes, of course. I'm not suggesting a balanced budget is necessary. But a single payer plan is literally trillions of dollars. It would run out of that room pretty quickly. This is by design of the bill, though - he's not pretending that it doesn't need to be paid for, but the discussion of "how specifically should taxes be raised by the shitload that is required" can reasonably be a different bill. and yeah splitting the bills makes it a whole lot easier to support this bill without having to go on record as co-sponsoring a bill to raise taxes by 10%
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:This is by design of the bill, though - he's not pretending that it doesn't need to be paid for, but the discussion of "how specifically should taxes be raised by the shitload that is required" can reasonably be a different bill. Exactly. Plus it gets those legislators on the record as having supported it. It's an easy commitment to make, but a commitment nonetheless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
Condiv posted:i think the 31 point swing in oklahoma is due to leftism tbh. rosencrants pushed policy well to the left of what conventional political wisdom says he should've been able to in a state as red in oklahoma and that there's been that much of a swing makes me feel even more sure that there's a deep need for leftist policy in today's america and we need to go hard left to win back a lot of people There are a *lot* of not-yet-aware-of-it socialists in tge GA GOP's voter pool. I think dixiecrats and their kids might be a little fed up with the southern hick know-nothing bible-thumping racist republican brand. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:10
|
|