|
Who do you wish to win the Democratic primaries? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Biden, the Inappropriate Toucher |
|
18 | 1.46% |
| Bernie Sanders, the Hand Flailer |
|
665 | 54.11% |
| Elizabeth Warren, the Plan Maker |
|
319 | 25.96% |
| Kamala Harris, the Cop Lord |
|
26 | 2.12% |
| Cory Booker, the Super Hero Wannabe |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Julian Castro, the Twin |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Kirsten Gillibrand, the Franken Killer |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Pete Buttigieg, the Troop Sociopath |
|
17 | 1.38% |
| Robert Francis O'Rourke, the Fake Latino |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| Jay Inslee, the Climate Alarmist |
|
8 | 0.65% |
| Marianne Williamson, the Crystal Queen |
|
86 | 7.00% |
| Tulsi Gabbard, the Muslim Hater |
|
23 | 1.87% |
| Andrew Yang, the $1000 Fool |
|
32 | 2.60% |
| Eric Swalwell, the Insurance Wife Guy |
|
2 | 0.16% |
| Amy Klobuchar, the Comb Enthusiast |
|
1 | 0.08% |
| Bill de Blasio, the NYPD Most Hated |
|
4 | 0.33% |
| Tim Ryan, the Dope Face |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| John Hickenlooper, the Also Ran |
|
7 | 0.57% |
| Total: | 1229 votes | ||
|
Biggest problem with Warren is her Risperdal supply could run out at any time
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 05:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Why is it a wonderful idea? Discourages high frequency trading.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 05:13
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Even bad moderate D's are against the electoral college.... It doesn't matter. Literally an irrelevant issue. enraged_camel posted:What if I like some, but not all, of Sanders' policies, and the details he has released so far don't exactly fill me with confidence regarding his grasp on how things work? What details, by the way? Be specific.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 05:15
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I mean I find it difficult to trust someone who genuinely believes that a tax on stock and bond trades is a good idea. You realize that between 1932 and 1966 the US had a tax on all sales or transfers of stocks? And that New York state had one until 1981? That freaking Switzerland has one now?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 05:22
|
|
|
look, it must be a bad idea. because Wall Street got rid of it under Reagan, and only bad things were eliminated under Reagan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 05:25
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I really am not. which bank do you work for
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 05:29
|
|
|
Now, here's the really funny thing regarding this "Bernie doesn't understand the economy, as evidenced by his tax on stocks, which is why I am backing Warren" argument: Warren actually defended the idea in previous speeches: https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/238907-warren-were-not-done-with-wall-street-yet The difference in that regard is that Bernie has actually introduced a bill.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 05:36
|
|
|
taxing the rich? impossible! it is I, the finer points of the economy knower
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 05:37
|
|
|
^^^ Anyone can pretend to be smart by using the One Neat Trick of opposing all change on the basis that it could have unintended consequences. By expressing this opinion, you are revealing that you're a complex thinker and mature person who understands that nothing should ever happen because you can't read the future and prove it won't cause the apocalypse.CelestialScribe posted:That's a preception problem, sure. It'll fix itself when people get on M4A and discover how good it is. But in the meantime, understanding that people are actually really loving scared of that option and opt for incremental change isn't bering spineless, it's being a good loving politician. Who gives a poo poo if people misunderstand it? It's an important thing that needs to happen. Most people don't have a good understanding of most things our government does, but that should have no bearing on what you support. As is, there's no reason not to support the thing that already has more than enough public support (and far more than many other things our government routinely does and passes). The logic you're using can always be used to oppose significant change, because the public will always be trigger-shy about that sort of thing. It isn't a reason to not support important things. enraged_camel posted:I mean I find it difficult to trust someone who genuinely believes that a tax on stock and bond trades is a good idea. lol, what do you think is bad about it? Do you think that the marginally decreased liquidity will somehow be disastrous? enraged_camel posted:Didn't she raise her hand when asked if she would be open to banning for-profit insurance companies? Yeah, but in light of the fact that literally within the last 1-2 months she answered "well there are many paths to medicare for all, like (insert a lot of things that aren't remotely close to single-payer healthcare or the actual M4A bill)" should make anyone highly skeptical of her commitment to the idea. She's also guilty of doing the same thing other non-Sanders candidates have done where they treat "Medicare For All" like it's just a slogan that means "universal healthcare" instead of an actual single-payer bill. I have trouble thinking of a reason for this other than "being intentionally deceptive." Warren isn't dumb; she knows M4A is an actual single-payer bill, so you have to question why she felt the need to treat it like some sort of vague goal. My guess is that Warren's angle will be "I support M4A at some point in the future, but in the meanwhile we should do _____ instead." enraged_camel posted:So the argument is that she cannot be trusted because she wasn't balls-to-the-wall about M4A from the beginning? ...yeah? You'd have to be a total rube to actually trust anyone to be committed to the idea when they so recently explicitly waffled on it. Even the most generous interpretation of Warren's words/actions is that she's a less reliable version of Sanders who is worse on several issues. But most people aren't actually making this judgement based off the issues, even if they might claim to be. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Jul 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 05:57
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Now, here's the really funny thing regarding this "Bernie doesn't understand the economy, as evidenced by his tax on stocks, which is why I am backing Warren" argument: Jesus, that is brutal, but thank you for the information.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 05:59
|
|
|
I wonder if we hit a tipping point where industry (not healthcare or insurance ofc) actually pushes for single payer. If you look at how much employers spend on healthcare, that's a huge way to potentially cut costs. The only benefit for them is economies of scale (larger employers negotiate better deals, although that's marginal at best) and being able to keep employees hostage (although that's also debatable)
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 06:05
|
|
|
Vote for Marianne Williamson, shatter the chains that bind reality together to usher in a greater crystalline future.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 06:09
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:I wonder if we hit a tipping point where industry (not healthcare or insurance ofc) actually pushes for single payer. If you look at how much employers spend on healthcare, that's a huge way to potentially cut costs. The only benefit for them is economies of scale (larger employers negotiate better deals, although that's marginal at best) and being able to keep employees hostage (although that's also debatable) Yeah, I seriously think we're drat near that point, for a shitload of businesses the increased taxes would be cheaper than their contribution to healthcare
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 06:10
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:This is fun and easy Few candidates have ever leaned into their most embarrassing weakness nor held a press conference to headline their owngoal faceplant like Warren. It was a campaign ending gaffe, even if primary voters let her off the hook.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 06:12
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Yeah, I seriously think we're drat near that point, for a shitload of businesses the increased taxes would be cheaper than their contribution to healthcare Yeah I mean think about Amazon. They have 700k workers. Let's say they pay for healthcare for 300k of them. Employers pay about $1300 on average per month. That's 4.7 billion per year. Bezos would love to not pay that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 06:14
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Yeah, I seriously think we're drat near that point, for a shitload of businesses the increased taxes would be cheaper than their contribution to healthcare This is why Democrats need to run on M4A being a pro-business policy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 06:39
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Yeah I mean think about Amazon. They have 700k workers. Let's say they pay for healthcare for 300k of them. Employers pay about $1300 on average per month. That's 4.7 billion per year. Bezos would love to not pay that. Yes insurance costs are quite high, while employees are still underpaid a significant portion of what should be real wage gains end up funneled into health insurance plans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 06:55
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:There. Fixed your post to represent our actual reality.  and ponder and take seriously
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 07:08
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The issue is mostly that, even if you trust Warren, Sanders 1. can be relied upon more to not cave under pressure from other Democrats on things and 2. gives a heavy emphasize to building an enduring movement to continue applying pressure during his presidency (which will be necessary, since both his and Warren's main policies won't pass currently). Sanders would also generally represent a departure in terms of hiring staff from outside the current Democratic Party structure, which is a huge deal that would finally help end a status quo that will never create real change, even if a well-intentioned person is at the helm.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 07:13
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:This is why Democrats need to run on M4A being a pro-business policy. No one actually cares about M4A helping businesses. They care about M4A helping themselves and their families.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 07:19
|
|
|
Majorian posted:No one actually cares about M4A helping businesses. They care about M4A helping themselves and their families. Business owners do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 07:20
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:Business owners do. Ah, so you're saying that for every non-business owner vote the Democrats lose, they'll gain two business owner votes if they follow your grand strategy of tacking to the right on all things. Brilliant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 07:24
|
|
|
Business owners will support m4a if it's cheaper for them. That's it. In some cases I'd imagine business subsided insurance is one reason a public option won't be as useful as going full bore M4A- employees won't want to lose their employer paying for 80% or whatever of their plan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 07:29
|
|
|
I didn't see this posted earlier. It's mostly stuff we already know, but having it in one twitter thread is always handy: https://twitter.com/niktaylorde/status/1145281507449286656
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 08:43
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Ah, so you're saying that for every non-business owner vote the Democrats lose, they'll gain two business owner votes if they follow your grand strategy of tacking to the right on all things. Brilliant. It's not a zero-sum game. You can appeal to both groups.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 09:07
|
|
|
With so many people biting Bernie's policy ideas, I think he really needs to get aggressive. You can attack someone without "going negative." He really needs to hammer home the fact that all of these ideas Harris, Warren, Pete, etc. are paying lip service to are policies he's been fighting for since the 80's, not something he's pretending to be in favor of now because he's a political weathervane like most of his competition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 09:16
|
|
|
Glass of Milk posted:Business owners will support m4a if it's cheaper for them. That's it. Quoting this one because it was the last post about this. Even really large businesses are spending 26-30k/yr on an employee's family plan (assuming the employee's cost is only a few hundred a month, obviously). So I get it and it's true on some level; But the problem with thinking that business not supporting M4A is somehow illogical, and that they'll actually benefit from not paying these huge variable insurance premiums, is that all of this spending represents such a vast part of our economy at this point* that dialing it back will necessarily cause the same rich assholes who own large stakes in these companies to lose money. Whether that be through taxation of their wealth, income, property, stock trades, or just the general loss of income from their slightly less profitable stock portfolio. That's why they fight this. The only scenario where this really pans out are smaller local outfits, but those guys don't have any real political power. *US healthcare is something like ~15-18% GDP 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 09:31
|
|
|
Marxalot posted:Quoting this one because it was the last post about this. I've said a lot of stupid poo poo in this thread but this must be the dumbest thing I have ever seen someone say in D and D.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 10:25
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I've said a lot of stupid poo poo in this thread but this must be the dumbest thing I have ever seen someone say in D and D. thanks for the contentless "you're dumb" post celestialscribe you really convinced me that marxalot is dumb
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 10:54
|
|
|
I disagree with Marxalot but I don't know why that comment was needed. For content: even if M4A caused a sudden decrease in GDP, businesses are rational actors for their own bottom line. It's like the tragedy of the commons. If a majority of Fortune 500 companies can see millions/billions in savings per year, they have no rationalization to act in their "common interest" of not seeing GDP decline That being said, a sudden switch to M4A *would* have economic consequences. You'd see a decrease in doctor salaries, which is a good thing because lol at anesthesiologists making $450k per year, when their European colleagues make half that. But a sudden decrease in wealth for 5% of the country would absolutely impact the economy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 11:16
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I've said a lot of stupid poo poo in this thread but this must be the dumbest thing I have ever seen someone say in D and D. TIL that "rich assholes stand to lose a lot of investment money if healthcare no longer costs a family 30k a year" is a hot take. e: because you posted literally right when I did  oxsnard posted:I disagree with Marxalot but I don't know why that comment was needed. For content: even if M4A caused a sudden decrease in GDP, businesses are rational actors for their own bottom line. It's like the tragedy of the commons. If a majority of Fortune 500 companies can see millions/billions in savings per year, they have no rationalization to act in their "common interest" of not seeing GDP decline While corporations are legally people, they're run by -actual- people who would not be fond of paying for your heart medication, or seeing their healthcare related stocks decline in value. Corporations are not sentient rational actors and all of this talk about "well, actually this would be kind of good for business!" erases the role of individual capitalists collectively spending enormous gobs of money to buy political favors that actively make your life worse. Marxalot fucked around with this message at 11:25 on Jul 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 11:16
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I've said a lot of stupid poo poo in this thread but this must be the dumbest thing I have ever seen someone say in D and D. Given that you admit that you're an idiot and you think that post was dumb, I'm forced to conclude that it was, in fact, smart and correct. Thanks a lot for clearing that up, pal. Also the capitalist class is generally against M4A because it would remove one of the biggest sources of power it holds over the workers, and hence lead to a loss of both influence and money in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 11:21
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Given that you admit that you're an idiot and you think that post was dumb, I'm forced to conclude that it was, in fact, smart and correct. Thanks a lot for clearing that up, pal. That's debatable. I agree with the premise, but among salaried workers, job to job movement has never been higher
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 11:25
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Given that you admit that you're an idiot and you think that post was dumb, I'm forced to conclude that it was, in fact, smart and correct. Thanks a lot for clearing that up, pal. Also worth considering that medical benefits are a large chunk of an employee's compensation package, and that right now the actual amount of that compensation is obfuscated. Your average employee knows their wage, but they often don't consider how much they're actually being "paid" when you tally up the total cost of their salary and benefits. In a world where the government provides the healthcare, the employee may eventually realize that they're now receiving less from their employer and demand higher wages to make up for the lower overall compensation. And any world where a worker is advocating for better pay or treatment is a world that capital hates to see.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 11:28
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:That's debatable. I agree with the premise, but among salaried workers, job to job movement has never been higher It's extremely clear once you ditch the liberal perspective of looking at individual employers and instead look at the capitalist class as a whole. For their class interest it doesn't really matter where any individual works, only that most everybody has the latent threat of losing your health insurance hanging over them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 11:29
|
|
|
Marxalot posted:
Europe provides a real example of how much cheaper healthcare can be, which is a key point for M4A that I think most people in this thread agree with. If you think an oil or tech CEO gives a single gently caress about the GDP consequences of extracting some of that 30% net margin from health insurerers for themselves, you're loving high.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 11:31
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Europe provides a real example of how much cheaper healthcare can be, which is a key point for M4A that I think most people in this thread agree with. If you think an oil or tech CEO gives a single gently caress about the GDP consequences of extracting some of that 30% net margin from health insurerers for themselves, you're loving high. What's good for a particular business is not necessarily good for capital as a whole. Also cheaper, for you and me, means that we get to spend less money that would go to some rich rear end in a top hat when we decide to get that thing on our skin checked out. This contraction in ~consumer spending~ is obviously very bad for the companies that rely on charging you several thousand for an MRI. And while someone may be a 5% shareholder of Twitter, they also have stocks in the current healthcare grift that consists of almost a full loving fifth of our economy. On top of all of this we propose (at least, I assume you're pro M4A) to pay for the now cheaper healthcare procedures by taxing that very same person. This hurts the capitalist. This is why they oppose you. This is why they fund Bidens and Charlie Kirks and Kamela Harris-es. They're not idiots. Marxalot fucked around with this message at 11:39 on Jul 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 11:37
|
|
|
Marxalot posted:What's good for a particular business is not necessarily good for capital as a whole. You are insane. This is not how rich people think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 11:40
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Well, we were talking about trust, which is why I brought it up. Bernie clearly doesn't understand the finer details of the economy, and has not given serious thought to how he would accomplish his goals. Abloo abloo they told me this was bad and dumb on Marketplace and during Econ 101 sundayschool at the Church of Business Other countries have done it and it didn't implode their economy. It's effectively one of the most progressive taxes that's been implemented, and some libs get behind it because it curbs some of the most visible and flamboyant absurdities of capitalism like HFT. Some dumbass economists who wake up in cold sweats because of ~~speculation and volatility~~ instead of climate change will back it too. But I probably just don't grasp the fine subtleties of the economy well enough to have Serious Thoughts about it like this: enraged_camel posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 11:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
Marxalot posted:What's good for a particular business is not necessarily good for capital as a whole. I agree to an extent, but let's not forget that banks in the 00's sowed the seeds of their own demise by looking at only the next quarter/year's profits. You give way too much credit to "capitalists" by assuming they know what the gently caress they're doing as a monolithic entity
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 11:43
|
|