|
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 | ||
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:I still don’t get how that’s not an over the cap in kind donation to Warren. The effect is that you are giving her access to something she otherwise would not have been able to access and that is valued at $100k. I don't think there's a limit to how much a part can give a candidate. So, using your example, a guy paid a comercial landlord $100k for a building in the name of the DNC. While everyone involved was winking like they have a tick, the DNC then decided to go ahead and let Warren use this nice new piece of real estate they just got from a nice donor who didn't give anything at all to Warren. Our campaign finance laws are farcical.
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:43 |
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Is it possible to do M4A without a tax increase on those making less than 250K? I bet it could be done but that's not what she's selling most likely. If you mean is there literally enough cash, rather than something politically practicable? Yes. I've got a post running through the math somewhere, but the amount of untaxed income to those at the top is quite staggering.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:If you mean is there literally enough cash, rather than something politically practicable? Yes. I've got a post running through the math somewhere, but the amount of untaxed income to those at the top is quite staggering. I'd be interested to see that, because everything Ive read, including from the most passionate single payer proponents, say you can't do it without raising taxes on the middle class.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 18:43
|
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but any tax increase on the middle class would be completely neutralized by the fact that health insurance premiums would no longer be a thing, yes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 18:47
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but any tax increase on the middle class would be completely neutralized by the fact that health insurance premiums would no longer be a thing, yes? Not only that, you would almost certainly have more money left in your pocket after all is said and done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but any tax increase on the middle class would be completely neutralized by the fact that health insurance premiums would no longer be a thing, yes? yeah this is basically Bernie's entire argument for M4A's affordability: premiums/co-pays/co-insurance/fees/etc all disappear and leave basically anyone who is not already rich with more money than they would've had. yes their taxes went up, but it's more than offset by the savings
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:I'd be interested to see that, because everything Ive read, including from the most passionate single payer proponents, say you can't do it without raising taxes on the middle class. Found one of them and it was directed to you regarding this exact question  https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3873659&pagenumber=1698&perpage=40#post491750068 I can't prove it rigorously because there will be massive second and third order consequences to switching to single payer. However, making the (wrong, but I'd contend in a way that's unfavorable to my position) assumption that nothing changes other than who picks up the check, there's enough money out there. https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statis...Historical.html about 1.6 trillion in private health insurance and out of pocket expenditures in 2017, number will change a bit depending on how you look at third party expenditures and things like whether workers comp goes away under single payer, &etc. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/model-estimates/baseline-distribution-income-and-federal-taxes-august-2018/t18-0065-baseline 2.557 trillion in untaxed income for returns above 500k in 2019 Again, not precisely apples to apples and not rigorous, but I'd contend enough to show that the money's there. I'd wager the bulk of the analyses are going off of more direct changes to the tax code and working with existing numbers for the current definition of taxable income for individuals, which is quite different from income when we're talking about the mildly to super rich. It can be difficult to get people to understand that our economy directs about as much money to the 1% as it does to the entire federal mandatory budget. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Jul 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 19:07
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Found one of them and it was directed to you regarding this exact question there was also that big study a few months ago financed by a right wing think tank that set out to prove m4a would cost too much, but accidentally showed it'd be 2 trillion dollars cheaper over ten years than the current health insurance model lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
Thanks for the excellent replies. I've tried to use personal examples to family and friends to illustrate that a tax increase does not equate to an income decrease, and it's like trying to run in quicksand. I had to break out my pay stub and show them what I pay for insurance compared to taxes and even then it doesn't stick all the time. How do 2020 candidates get over that hurdle? it seems like even Bernie's still hitting that wall with voters despite him hammering it for the last 3 years. There needs to be an add of people reciting how much they pay out in insurance costs per month and how they would gladly pay more taxes o retain that income.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 19:18
|
|
|
eke out posted:there was also that big study a few months ago financed by a right wing think tank that set out to prove m4a would cost too much, but accidentally showed it'd be 2 trillion dollars cheaper over ten years than the current health insurance model lol Yeah, that's why I feel it's pretty safe to throw present expense numbers around - it's not like anyone's showing that the bill is actually gonna go up. Now, the tax revenue part is pretty speculative, and modeling the impact on revenue and the economy would depend a lot on what assumptions we're making - how the code changes to capture that income, what measures we implement to prevent capital flight, how many unicorns I get to have in my pasture after we seize the means of production, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 19:21
|
|
|
eke out posted:there was also that big study a few months ago financed by a right wing think tank that set out to prove m4a would cost too much, but accidentally showed it'd be 2 trillion dollars cheaper over ten years than the current health insurance model lol I know what you're talking about and I still don't understand how the results of this study were allowed to see the light of day. Did this Koch-funded think tank just not understand what the numbers were saying?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 19:23
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Thanks for the excellent replies. Honestly, it doesn't even need to be about "taxes" and "income" or anything like that. The amount of money being spent on healthcare is going to stay more or less the same (ignoring, for the moment, savings resulting from administration cuts and price negotiation) - what changes under M4A is that the burden of that spending is shifted upward toward people who can afford to pay more for it, and away from everyone else. Whether that's going to be convincing or not depends on where they fall on the income spectrum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but any tax increase on the middle class would be completely neutralized by the fact that health insurance premiums would no longer be a thing, yes? Correct, the middle class will come out ahead even if they have to pay taxes. People will actually end up saving more because they currently pay more in premiums, either directly or what's taken out of their salary, than whatever taxes they would pay. That's on top of the savings they will make with no deductibles our out of pocket costs. Still though, technically you almost certainly have to raise the taxes on the middle class, even if in the end they come out ahead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 19:45
|
|
|
What also changes if the amount of spending stays the same that the current part of the overall spending that goes to obscene profits for the health insurance industry can be used to pay for actual healthcare instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:I know what you're talking about and I still don't understand how the results of this study were allowed to see the light of day. Did this Koch-funded think tank just not understand what the numbers were saying? they did get a bunch of initial credulous media coverage successfully pushing their message, but a bunch of people on the left (i think matt bruenig/people's policy project pretty much spearheaded this initially but then it became a bigger thing) called it out and more or less forced the media to admit the truth
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:Correct, the middle class will come out ahead even if they have to pay taxes. People will actually end up saving more because they currently pay more in premiums, either directly or what's taken out of their salary, than whatever taxes they would pay. That's on top of the savings they will make with no deductibles our out of pocket costs. And most importantly, the nominal tax increase removing the possibility of bankruptcy by terminal illness is like a small loving price to pay. Not to mention improving public health outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 20:05
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:2800 is the limit to individual candidates. The limit on individual donations to national committees is 106k. In this case, Warren got the multimillionaire to give 100k to the DNC on her behalf. Right, but how is that donor list transferred to Warren without it counting as a $100,000 donation? Either the contribution to the DNC in her name is a violation or giving her something worth $100k that she didn't purchase is. I know all this is just Kabuki theater anyway but this seems awfully brazen and against the intent and letter of the rules
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 20:08
|
|
|
Corsair Pool Boy posted:Right, but how is that donor list transferred to Warren without it counting as a $100,000 donation? Either the contribution to the DNC in her name is a violation or giving her something worth $100k that she didn't purchase is. I know all this is just Kabuki theater anyway but this seems awfully brazen and against the intent and letter of the rules you have no idea how hosed up campaign finance law is if you think this even registers as improper compared to all the crazy poo poo that constantly goes on that's actually illegal and depends on the FEC being completely impotent and unable to enforce anything. that's why the media coverage was about "did she violate the spirit of her pledge?" because it's objectively legal and by no means uncommon. eke out fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Jul 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
she totally violated her pledge, but that’s not surprising ...
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
eke out posted:you have no idea how hosed up campaign finance law is if you think this even registers as improper compared to all the crazy poo poo that constantly goes on that's actually illegal and depends on the FEC being completely impotent and unable to enforce anything. that's why the media coverage was about "did she violate the spirit of her pledge?" because it's objectively legal and by no means uncommon. no-one cares that what she's doing is legal. she portrayed herself as setting a higher bar for her campaign, and now it turns out she's cheating in the hillaryesque way
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
The “I’m not touching you!!” Approach to ethical campaign financing .
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 20:33
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no-one cares that what she's doing is legal. she portrayed herself as setting a higher bar for her campaign, and now it turns out she's cheating in the hillaryesque way caring about whether something is legal is de facto lanyardism-fucksteinism
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 20:36
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/neeratanden/status/1151499271734091776 God I love it when they're this transparent. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 20:41
|
|
|
eke out posted:caring about whether something is legal is de facto lanyardism-fucksteinism
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
eke out posted:caring about whether something is legal is de facto lanyardism-fucksteinism I'm still waiting for your detailed explanation for why taking bribes is OK as long as you haven't promised not to take bribes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 20:45
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I'm still waiting for your detailed explanation for why taking bribes is OK as long as you haven't promised not to take bribes. Wait, so am I bribing politicians when I donate? because that's cool as hell and I'll donate more often
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 20:57
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Wait, so am I bribing politicians when I donate? Tell me more about how the rich buying the entire political system is very funny and harmless.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Wait, so am I bribing politicians when I donate? Literally yes, but the people getting them don't give you anything until you're maxing out donations to multiple candidates and maybe giving a couple hundred grand to the DNC to buy them a voter list. The real access starts when you can line up a sweet lobbying gig for them or maybe get their kid a nice paid internship somewhere fancy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Wait, so am I bribing politicians when I donate? You need about a billion dollars in net worth to afford bribe size contributions
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Wait, so am I bribing politicians when I donate? This guy understands politics
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 21:15
|
|
|
I would vote for Yang over Warren and other establishment candidates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
tylersayten posted:I would vote for Yang over Warren and other establishment candidates. Lol Yang wants us to live under neo feudalism
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 21:41
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's not real. It's a story, just like the stories we tell in cover letters about how our entry-level garbage jobs changed our lives or whatever. That's what they're taught to do from a young age. They learn how to convert every single experience they've ever had into a story of life-changing importance that can be used on a college admissions essay or something, and by the time they're done with their elite education and don't need to pretend they're earning it with merit anymore, the behavior is baked too deep into their brains to turn off. Mayor Pete has been a mercenary all his life? Must have been some sort of terrible infant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
Punk da Bundo posted:Lol Yang wants us to live under neo feudalism I’d rather live under neo feudalism with UBI than neo feudalism without it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 21:47
|
|
|
tylersayten posted:I’d rather live under neo feudalism with UBI than neo feudalism without it. his UBI doesn't count for you if you benefit from any programs it's literally a reverse means-tested UBI
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
Phone posted:Mayor Pete has been a mercenary all his life? So you're saying Revolver Snake is Real
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 21:52
|
|
|
Condiv posted:his UBI doesn't count for you if you benefit from any programs And it’s still better than any Democrat candidate’s platform except Bernie’s. How sad is that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
tylersayten posted:I would vote for Yang over Warren and other establishment candidates. tylersayten posted:And it’s still better than any Democrat candidate’s platform except Bernie’s. How sad is that. So just vote for Bernie? Jesus Christ do not become an unironic Yang Ganger, UBI is a cool idea but his version sucks and he sucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 21:55
|
|
|
tylersayten posted:And it’s still better than any Democrat candidate’s platform except Bernie’s. How sad is that. i don't think it beats warrens, as flimsy as hers is. if you're a fan of reverse means-testing then warren's no-hospital-left-behind proposal should knock your socks off
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:43 |
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:There needs to be an add of people reciting how much they pay out in insurance costs per month and how they would gladly pay more taxes o retain that income. Matt Bruenig wrote an article related to this point with a rhetorical focus that you may find helpful: https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/04/08/us-workers-are-highly-taxed-when-you-count-health-premiums/ You can probably still get a reluctant audience to grant that the government requiring a chunk of cash to be paid to a third party in order to employ someone to be fair to include in a conversation on payroll taxes, and then bring up the rates in other nations. If the conversation shifts to whether the government should be mandating those payments in the first place, well, that sets up the conversation about why tying employment to healthcare coverage is really something we should move away from. The piece builds on ideas in his piece on raising revenue through payroll tax reform, which is also worth reading: https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/01/10/how-to-reform-payroll-taxes-to-fund-medicare-for-all/
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2019 21:58
|
|