|
Party Plane Jones posted:https://twitter.com/PaulGottinger/status/912524947393826816 LOL. Smart people at the NSA and other ABC orgs : We have too much data and need more man power to do old fashion undercover work/etc. *Donnie opens another pipe of shitdata/noise* tax: Deus Ex is a good game, but it isn't cynical/crazy enough. 
PhazonLink fucked around with this message at 08:31 on Sep 26, 2017 |
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
Condiv posted:last night's town hall: Magnificent. I had to miss it myself, but it sounds like he did really well. Nice that he got to draw the contrast between himself and Graham. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Magnificent. I had to miss it myself, but it sounds like he did really well. Nice that he got to draw the contrast between himself and Graham. here's the town hall for those who missed it and want to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOEujpoBNrk
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 08:37
|
|
|
Condiv posted:last night's town hall: I like how the centrists, including Neera Tanden, are pretending they always believed in Bernie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 09:49
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:There is no political will or economic argument for raising taxes/cutting spending to the level required to pay for 4.2 trillion (for a low 12k per adult) in luxury spending. Theres a study on the effects UBI had on Iran, which gave 29% median income to everybody. After several years the study found that only the under 20 population saw slight increased unemployment, which could be due to staying in school longer, and that hours worked in the service industry increased by an average of 36 minutes. On economic growth a UBI would allow growth to happen since the US is currently in a demand pit due to low wages, so increasing spending power would naturally lift the economy out of it. As UBI is unconditional it would be a force for higher wages since it both forms another floor for wages with minimum wage and it makes unemployment less unappealing / more bearable and so takes some power away from employers. And I have no idea why tax collection is relevent to UBI discussions, or even any policy discussion other than on black/grey economies and how international finance/banking lets people and companies avoid paying taxes. And paying for UBI can be done through changing taxes so that after a certain income level you have new taxes equal to your UBI payments, taxing the rich more in general, and from the increased revenue caused by the increased economic growth and activity. Edit: Theres also savings from the decrease in poverty and its costs too society Communist Zombie fucked around with this message at 10:04 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 10:00
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Edit: Theres also savings from the decrease in poverty and its costs too society This. It's far cheaper to give someone the means to live than to prosecute and lock them up for stealing the means to live, or put them in intensive care when they don't find the means to live.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 11:08
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I'm confused as to what you're being sarcastic about here. I never said advocates for social democracy did or didn't fall under the umbrella of "leftist," just that I wasn't sure if they did. Social Democracy is a different thing than Socialism (not sure if you're trying to imply otherwise). I'm being sarcastic because Socialism and Social Democracy sprung from the same wellspring that half of the member parties of socialist international are Social Democratic parties. Obviously the details are confusing, and it's changed over the centuries, but jesus, Lenin wrote a loving paper in 1905 on social democracy. It is leftism. Is it the same as socialism? No. But is it the same line of thought that cares about society, workers getting their fair share, and taking care of everyone equally? Of course it loving is don't be an rear end. On to Medicare for all. Section 202 says that the compensating fees will start at what the current ones are: "Initially, the current prevailing fees or reimbursement would be the basis for the fee negotiation for all professional services covered under this Act." Presumably meaning the prevailing medicare reimbursment fees, which is not single payer. However it goes on to say that they can't bill the patient. (F) NO BALANCE BILLING.—Licensed health care clinicians who accept any payment from the Medicare For All Program may not bill any patient for any covered service. So who knows who would take it if it became law. Doesn't matter, as it's as much a signalling that won't pass as the repeals were when obama was president. And that's fine. However, one of the ways that medicare isn't single payer is how it deals with medication. The bill has this to say about that: SEC. 205. PAYMENT FOR PRESCRIPTION MEDICATIONS, MEDICAL SUPPLIES, AND MEDICALLY NECESSARY ASSISTIVE EQUIPMENT. (a) Negotiated Prices.—The prices to be paid each year under this Act for covered pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, and medically necessary assistive equipment shall be negotiated annually by the Program. (b) Prescription Drug Formulary.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Program shall establish a prescription drug formulary system, which shall encourage best-practices in prescribing and discourage the use of ineffective, dangerous, or excessively costly medications when better alternatives are available. (2) PROMOTION OF USE OF GENERICS.—The formulary shall promote the use of generic medications but allow the use of brand-name and off-formulary medications. (3) FORMULARY UPDATES AND PETITION RIGHTS.—The formulary shall be updated frequently and clinicians and patients may petition their region or the Director to add new pharmaceuticals or to remove ineffective or dangerous medications from the formulary. So who knows how it will cover it. They'll negotiate, and they'll do some best practices, but will they cover drugs as care? Dunno. it's not in the scope of the bill, which is too short to be an actual health care bill in the first place. Ultimately it doesn't matter. Medicare for all could just be an easy but inaccurate way to say healthcare paid for by the state or actually what it means if it was enacted. I couldn't care either way. I'd prefer if all costs were covered by the state but there's a lot of universal healthcare options out there. Realistically I think following the way of Canada as it converted itself would be best, but I'd like to see us do more, and cover the things canadians need supplemental for. Really, nothing about the bill bothers me. It's obviously not meant to be a... piece of enacted legislation, and on the off chance it became one it has a lot of to be dertermined stuff in it. This thought, makes me laugh: (13) Chiropractic services, not including electrical stimulation. Also in that part it does say it'll cover prescriptions, so probably it would? I dunno. It probably is different enough from medicare that medicare for all is a bad title for it, but well, not really worth arguing over titles I guess? edit: Oh and because I forgot it, you totally did say in your post that you prefer leftism refer only to socialism. Don't backpedal. edit 2: Now I'm doing a deeper read of the bill and it probably could be argued to be single payer, but also kind of not perfect and it hinges on everyone signing aboard but also says that everyone will take it, which really can get worked out and is fine? To be real single payer I'd think it'd need more, I don't know. Teeth? Less oh if they take it then it's all covered but there's not any enforcement that people accept it would need to be changed, or it'd need to be a sweeter deal than insurance for people to take, which medicare reimbursements are not? I guess in conclusion MFA is a land of contrasts? v0v edit 3: And for the record none of this is like me saying I wouldn't vote for the bill if I was on the floor. I absolutely would, and propose amendments if I thought it might pass. I'm just going over my read of it. Killer-of-Lawyers fucked around with this message at 11:49 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:I like how the centrists, including Neera Tanden, are pretending they always believed in Bernie. I always did. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
Since we seem to have a lot of people who identify as centrist, what is with the centrist fascination with tax credits?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 12:20
|
|
|
Fear of Republicans
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 12:22
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Since we seem to have a lot of people who identify as centrist, what is with the centrist fascination with tax credits? idk, what's with the leftist fascination with starvation? See how fuckin' loaded that is?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 12:23
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:idk, what's with the leftist fascination with starvation? Which leftists are advocating for people to starve? Cause I can name a couple of centrists who advocate for tax credits: Hillary Clinton and Chuck schumer
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 12:26
|
|
|
Don't we have like... one centrist?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Don't we have like... one centrist? Only one person can truly be the centerest, everyone else by geometry and uniqueness must be to one side or the other of them. Highlander 3: The Third Way
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Since we seem to have a lot of people who identify as centrist, what is with the centrist fascination with tax credits? Have you ever heard of a little theory called Trickle-Down Economics?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 12:31
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Since we seem to have a lot of people who identify as centrist, what is with the centrist fascination with tax credits? i make a lot of money, thanks in advance, namaste
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 12:31
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Don't we have like... one centrist? I'm guessing chilichimp is one considering he leapt up to cry about the question being loaded when we have centrists in power calling for tax credits as a solution to the problems facing the poor. IIRC, Amy Klochubar also started mumbling about tax credits during last night's town hall
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 12:33
|
|
|
Sure, there's a lot of centrists in the dems, but I meant like here. You asked for people here, and said there was a lot of centrists, but I only see Chilichimp? As to why they like it, Dunno. As a Social Democrat I think that if we had 90% taxation for the top bracket I'd also have some credits to encourage spending I wanted from individuals? Like good job you cleaned up a river have some tax credit back? I don't know. Is a credit different than an exemption? Would a reverse income tax that pays our poorest members of society money be a credit?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Sure, there's a lot of centrists in the dems, but I meant like hear. You asked for people here, and said there was a lot of centrists, but I only see Chilichimp? God I'd hope not. Tax credits are hard for the poor to utilize, especially considering how much they can get screwed if they claim stuff wrong or in the wrong way... Also not too big on charity exemptions, cause it's heavily misused and the rich use that money on dumb vanity projects instead of actually good causes
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 12:42
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Why should people be paid for the 'actual' value of their labor? Hell, even asking that question involves buying into several premises that shouldn't necessarily be taken for granted, such as the idea that different people's labor has different "value". If I think this is completely ridiculous does that make me a centrist?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 12:44
|
|
|
I think the credit I'm thinking of would be like a check from the government credit that people just get v0v. As for abuse, well, everything's abusable. I think in an idealized society we'd use both law and reward to encourage people to do what we want. If people abuse it for vanity then it's a fault of the law and code not being up to snuff. Ultimately, my biggest issue is getting money out of the upper echelons of society where it is calcifying into dynastic oligarchy families, and back into the people below. If that happens because we put the screws to them, or because we have clever tax credits that gets them to open a million homeless shelters or hire a lot of people, I don't really care. That's down to policy, and I prefer to keep my arsenal of sticks and carrots to enact policy full, rather than just throwing out tax credits.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 12:47
|
|
|
Condiv posted:I'm guessing chilichimp is one considering he leapt up to cry about the question being loaded when we have centrists in power calling for tax credits as a solution to the problems facing the poor. Hilary Clinton is not "in power". And yeah, I'm probably not actually a centrist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 12:47
|
|
|
They would be less dumb if we told HRblock and the like to eat a mile long slab of dick and just let the IRS do automatic ready returns, as well as actual free walkthroighs of the credits and the like. Still a lot better ways to help than credits, but we should do the first part anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
Playstation 4 posted:They would be less dumb if we told HRblock and the like to eat a mile long slab of dick and just let the IRS do automatic ready returns, as well as actual free walkthroighs of the credits and the like. Still a lot better ways to help than credits, but we should do the first part anyway. Yeah, definitely. Most civilized countries don't have the huge tax return industry we have in the US after all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
Playstation 4 posted:They would be less dumb if we told HRblock and the like to eat a mile long slab of dick and just let the IRS do automatic ready returns, as well as actual free walkthroighs of the credits and the like. Still a lot better ways to help than credits, but we should do the first part anyway. buh-buh-buh... but government can't do anything right *cries like a republican after being told he can't repeal obamacare this year* Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Yeah, definitely. Most civilized countries don't have the huge tax return industry we have in the US after all. Realtalk, do you guys think the Republicans intend to simplify the tax code enough to destroy that industry? If that isn't the goal, what the gently caress are they up to except tax cuts?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
Playstation 4 posted:They would be less dumb if we told HRblock and the like to eat a mile long slab of dick and just let the IRS do automatic ready returns, as well as actual free walkthroighs of the credits and the like. Still a lot better ways to help than credits, but we should do the first part anyway.  Chilichimp posted:Hilary Clinton is not "in power". When she was vying for the presidency she was pushing tax credits
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Realtalk, do you guys think the Republicans intend to simplify the tax code enough to destroy that industry? If that isn't the goal, what the gently caress are they up to except tax cuts? I think they're just up to tax cuts. They always are. Usually tax simplification is an excuse to raise the taxes on the poor while cutting them for the upper middle and upper class, at least that's what I've noticed during my life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 13:00
|
|
|
Condiv posted:
Yeah, my guess is she was courting the vaunted "undecided voter" with that rhetoric. And by that I mean, people who lean republican on economics but were also shocked SHOCKED at Donald Trump being the nominee. She underestimated how well the propaganda against "the Clintons" had worked over the previous ~20 years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:I think the credit I'm thinking of would be like a check from the government credit that people just get v0v. Charity exemptions have never materialized enough support for charities to fix whatever's needed fixing. The people most likely to be charitable are the people at the bottom, who coincidentally get the least benefit from charity exemptions. Meanwhile, the rich can avoid a good amount of taxes with them, dump money into wasteful causes, and worst of all use said donations to ingratiate themselves to other rich people and network. In essence, the charity exemption acts as one of many subsidies to the rich! The best thing we could do to increase donations to charity is make sure those at the bottom rungs of society have disposable income, and the charity exemption barely helps with that at all, so I say axe it! Condiv fucked around with this message at 13:07 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Since we seem to have a lot of people who identify as centrist, what is with the centrist fascination with tax credits? WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Fear of Republicans Yeah, pretty much. To elaborate: a tax credit, especially a refundable tax credit, is a way to spend money without saying "spending" and unleashing ComradeBot server farm 7-B to whine about #TaxAndSpendGovernment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Well, I mean, I would say that what they mentioned actually is an example of radicalization, but I would also say that "people becoming Leninists" is not even remotely close to being an actual problem in the USA. actually it'd be the opposite of a problem
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
I think at this point being afraid of Republican messaging is a self defeating problem. Obamacare was the compromise but that didn't stop the GOP from actively trying to destroy it while saying it was the worst kind of socialism. Republican media exists outside of any semblance of reality so tempering your own policy and messaging because it might be used against you is stupid when they will just lie anyway. It doesn't really matter if there's some truth to a Republican's claim because their supporters don't care either way and will hate everything they are told to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Charity exemptions have never materialized enough support for charities to fix whatever's needed fixing. The people most likely to be charitable are the people at the bottom, who coincidentally get the least benefit from charity exemptions. Meanwhile, the rich can avoid a good amount of taxes with them, dump money into wasteful causes, and worst of all use said donations to ingratiate themselves to other rich people and network. In essence, the charity exemption acts as one of many subsidies to the rich! Then lets fix it. Let's make credits work like they should. Let's give credits, lets have programs, lets build things, provide welfare, encourage people with credits and sign laws. Let's push food out the back of airplanes and conscript the army to provide meals to the homeless. Poor implementation isn't something that makes me want to stop something. It makes me want to fix it. It makes me want more, not less.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Arbitrary was probably poor word choice. My point was pretty simple in that we can potentially evolve beyond capitalism because it is not the natural order of things, but merely a thing we created to deal with: Just a quick reminder that scarcity will always exist in a limited-resource universe (the one in which we live). In fact, even in a high-technology society, you will still see scarcity and resultant demand for the most complicated and sophisticated products. Yes, we shouldn't be seeing scarcity for things like food and water anymore, but you will always have limits on highly-trained human resources, complicated medical procedures and highly-advanced technical products to name a few. This is why it's important to understand the capitalist system of allocation via supply and demand and attempt to come up with complimentary alternatives. In a post scarcity society, "workers" won't actually be working. They'll own the means of production and a limited number of resources, and they'll still have to figure out a way to make decisions about how those resources are used. While the free market system isn't "natural law" or anything of the sort... it does attempt to model an important aspect of human existence: namely that all value is subjective. It doesn't matter how much labor or materials went into an object, if I don't want it or don't need it, it is worth nothing. Conversely, something relatively cheap can be imbued with value not only through useless poo poo like social pressure, but also things like timeliness and relevance. An artists needs a paintbrush, not a boot, even if the materials and labor value for each is exactly the same. The artist's preference is what determines the value, not the inputs on creating the product. In this sense, supply and demand attempt to model how the forces of production should respond to subjective consumer choice. There are some serious flaws with this system like inelastic demand (i.e. healthcare) and artificial scarcity (i.e. hoarding/monopolies), but it does reflect an important aspect of human nature that has to be grappled with by any society. When the "workers" will have their means of production and limited resources returned to them, they will still have to make decisions about how to supply people with goods based on subjective preference. How to make those decisions is the model that has to evolve in a post-Marxist, post-Capitalist world. Pembroke Fuse fucked around with this message at 13:21 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 13:19
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Then lets fix it. Let's make credits work like they should. Let's give credits, lets have programs, lets build things, provide welfare, encourage people with credits and sign laws. Let's push food out the back of airplanes and conscript the army to provide meals to the homeless. one of the best ways to fix the charity exemption is to either remove it entirely or cap it extremely low as i said, it doesn't really work as an incentive, is all too often used as a tax dodge, etc. those who are most charitable benefit least from it but still remain charitable. so why waste money on the exemption at all and instead put that money to good use elsewhere (like making sure the poor have enough money to give charitably?)
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
Works for me. Or only make it available to lower tax bracetes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Also - book reqs? You guys have a Clintonite flirting with socialism. Get me over the edge. economic problems of socialism in the ussr by j.v. stalin Boon posted:Something I've never really pondered before about a 100% socialist economy is how are things valued? Like, if someone is paid for the 'actual' value of their labor, how is that determined? in socialist countries, firms operate(d) under the auspices of state ownership with bodies of workers, managers and party members calling the shots. rather than directing profits back into the firms via top level pay, the money would go to the state, which administrated various universal benefits. there would also be a bonus levied to the workers of the firm that in a capitalist economy would be surplus value flowing right into the pockets of the bourgeoisie. the bonus would increase with productivity or for those working in hazardous conditions
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 13:33
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Since we seem to have a lot of people who identify as centrist, what is with the centrist fascination with tax credits? It's not a centrist fascination. Conservatives, Liberals, Leftists, Libertarians, and Centrists alike all love tax credits. It's because a tax credit (especially a refundable one) is spending that doesn't increase the budget and can't be zero'd out by a budgetary issue unless you specifically remove it. Spending money without raising taxes or calling it spending is politically popular in all countries and among all ideological groups. Tax credits are an economically inefficient way to distribute funds, but a very politically popular and easy to implement method.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Also - book reqs? You guys have a Clintonite flirting with socialism. Get me over the edge. Coates: Between the World and Me The Case for Reparations These are two books out of my library that people actually ask to borrow when I have them read a page, so I'd suggest that they are broadly consumable and engaging.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
They're also just a tool and it's weird to try to assign a political lean to it. But if you follow Condiv's posts, many of them are him trying to drive a wedge between himself and 'centrists'Potato Salad posted:Coates: I think Between the World and Me is so relatable because it's premise is as a letter to his son. That's pretty universal
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 14:22
|
|