|
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 | ||
|
Calibanibal posted:Yeah I think Bernie's cowardice will overcome his hatred for Warren. He'll keep the dagger sheathed and just stick with the tired stump speech What makes you think he hates her? He wanted her to run in 2016.
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 03:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:What makes you think he hates her? He wanted her to run in 2016. You're responding to a gimmick troll
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:What makes you think he hates her? He wanted her to run in 2016. How, how do people keep falling for this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 04:00
|
|
|
Tir McDohl posted:You're responding to a gimmick troll You're responding to someone that knows this. There are levels here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 05:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1155166206443212800?s=20 https://joebiden.com/Healthcare/ quote:The Biden Plan will help middle class families by eliminating the 400% income cap on tax credit eligibility and lowering the limit on the cost of coverage from 9.86% of income to 8.5%. This means that no family buying insurance on the individual marketplace, regardless of income, will have to spend more than 8.5% of their income on health insurance. Additionally, the Biden Plan will increase the size of tax credits by calculating them based on the cost of a more generous gold plan, rather than a silver plan. I like how they pretend on his page that the limit on healthcare coverage is 9.86% when a family plan is still literally north of 2 grand a month even if you're making $20/hr. Also lol at the idea of 8.5% of your pre-tax income being an affordable price on a high deductible healthplan anyways. Captain_Maclaine posted:How, how do people keep falling for this? Liberalism? Marxalot fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Jul 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 08:04
|
|
|
also lol that those numbers aren't even real. last time I bothered to try the marketplace everything was about 350/m even when I was making less than 12K a year. yeah sure that 9.86 was ever real to start with
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 08:14
|
|
|
This Bernand Sanders seems cool but the media I love seems to hate him so I guess I'm all in for Kamala.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 08:21
|
|
|
a helpful bear posted:This Bernand Sanders seems cool but the media I love seems to hate him so I guess I'm all in for Kamala. vote Delaney you coward
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 08:37
|
|
|
Reverend Dr posted:also lol that those numbers aren't even real. last time I bothered to try the marketplace everything was about 350/m even when I was making less than 12K a year. yeah sure that 9.86 was ever real to start with The 9.86% mostly applies to employer coverage. In other words, if your employment situation is such that your employer has at least 50 full-time employees and offers health insurance coverage, then in 2019* your employer is required** to offer you an insurance plan that costs no more than 9.86% of your income. *The 9.86% number applies to 2019 only - the percentage changes from year to year. The IRS changes it each year "in accordance with the threshold that applies with respect to the premium tax credit", whatever the hell that means. The base percentage specified when ACA was passed was 9.5%, but the IRS adjusted it upwards at the first opportunity and it's been slowly creeping upward over the years. You'll notice that the Biden plan says nothing about capping or putting an end to these adjustments. **If the employer fails to offer affordable health insurance, and the employees instead purchase insurance off the marketplace, and those employees receive premium-assistance tax credits, then the employer will be forced to pay a couple grand to the IRS for each employee receiving the tax credit. What if you don't have an employer that offers health insurance (or work at an employer that doesn't have 50+ full-time employees) and have to buy an individual plan on the marketplace? If you make between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty line, then you'll be eligible for a refundable tax credit that will effectively reimburse you for enough of your insurance spending to bring it below 9.86% of your income. Calling that a "limit on the cost of coverage" is a loving joke, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 09:42
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The 9.86% mostly applies to employer coverage. In other words, if your employment situation is such that your employer has at least 50 full-time employees and offers health insurance coverage, then in 2019* your employer is required** to offer you an insurance plan that costs no more than 9.86% of your income. I think there's even more caveats than this though. Last I checked with my previous employer who has a few thousand people on hand and paid literally nothing into our insurance premiums, the cost was -significantly- higher than that (north of 400/mo for a single person plan with very high deductible and up to 2500/mo for a family with just co-pays). Also the cutoff on healthcare/gov for subsidies was around 40k/yr. I have no idea if this is because of loopholes, lax enforcement, penalties that are cheaper than insurance coverage, or people just straight up lying about what employers are required to actually do. e: before that job I worked at a place where everyone was making 12-14/hr and had a loving $7,000/yr deductible, though it was only a $100/mo premium  e2: 1 dude died at that place because lol @ ever being able to afford to go to a doctor for his "coughing up blood" rear end stage 4 cancer, and a lady that worked there got fired because kidney failure was impacting her ability to work. Extremely normal country. e3: stole this out of the texas thread https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1155164898483195905?s=20 Marxalot fucked around with this message at 10:38 on Jul 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 10:20
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The 9.86% mostly applies to employer coverage. In other words, if your employment situation is such that your employer has at least 50 full-time employees and offers health insurance coverage, then in 2019* your employer is required** to offer you an insurance plan that costs no more than 9.86% of your income. No wonder liberals love the ACA so much. It’s p much the king of numbers fuckensteinery
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 11:06
|
|
|
Condiv posted:No wonder liberals love the ACA so much. It’s p much the king of numbers fuckensteinery Fool, you think you know Numbers Fucksteinery? Behold, the final form: https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1155305122911723526
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 13:11
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Fool, you think you know Numbers Fucksteinery? Behold, the final form: I've gone blind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 13:16
|
|
|
glad to see student debt forgiveness for entrepreneurs show up again
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 13:16
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:glad to see student debt forgiveness for entrepreneurs show up again This is even worse, I don't think Hillary's plan was limited to if the business was in a disadvantaged community for three years. My god, how many businesses fail in the first year? Most of them! Her plan is clearly supposed to encourage entrepreneurship, but imagine if it worked. Most of the people who started a business in a disadvantaged community with an eye towards having their student debt relieved would end up way further in debt after their business failed during the three year waiting period.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 13:21
|
|
|
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Participants can have up to $20,000 of debt forgiven and can defer all of their student loans, interest-free, during a business-formation period that can last for as many as three years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 13:24
|
|
|
no it's great you get out from under the yoke of that 80 grand sunk into your phd by opening a pinkberry in an abandoned downtown in rural missisippi in exchange for partial debt relief with tiered qualification thresholds to be determined and subject to congressional approval
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 13:28
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:no it's great you get out from under the yoke of that 80 grand sunk into your phd by opening a pinkberry in an abandoned downtown in rural missisippi in exchange for partial debt relief with tiered qualification thresholds to be determined and subject to congressional approval I'm sorry, the Pinkberry closed after 18 months. You are now 150,000 dollars in debt. Have you considered suicide?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 13:31
|
|
|
The platonic ideal of centrist dem policy is some Rube Goldberg-esque system constantly falling apart under its own weight that ends up helping about three people total and that the Dem fanboys will defend until they're blue in the face by accusing everybody who sees the obvious flaws of not caring about those three people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 13:43
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Fool, you think you know Numbers Fucksteinery? Behold, the final form: If it remains open for longer than 3 years the deal expires The Kamala piece in last week's New Yorker really nails how much of an aloof aristocrat SF Dem she really is
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 14:27
|
|
|
Does she bother to define what "disadvantaged" means or did she just establish a limit on how helpful it could be and call it a day
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 14:31
|
|
|
You can really tell Harris has the full backing of Clinton campaign veterans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 14:34
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Fool, you think you know Numbers Fucksteinery? Behold, the final form: Complexity seems to be the point. Corey Robin posted:We saw a version of it during the debate on Obama’s healthcare plan. I distinctly remember, though now I can’t find it, one of those healthcare whiz kids — maybe it was Ezra Klein — tittering on about the nifty economics and cool visuals of Obama’s plan: how you could go to the web, check out the exchange, compare this little interstice of one plan with that little interstice of another, and how great it all was because it was just so loving complicated. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2013/12/socialism-converting-hysterical-misery-into-ordinary-unhappiness/
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 14:39
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Fool, you think you know Numbers Fucksteinery? Behold, the final form: I'm not like, actually proposing real ideas when I make shitposts saying the exact same thing that's in that tweet. I'm being a dick. A huge god drat dick making fun of neolibs. Means tested work study programs for veteran working mothers is a dumb idea please stop stealing my GOD drat JOKES they are not meant to be used as policy platforms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 14:50
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:Does she bother to define what "disadvantaged" means or did she just establish a limit on how helpful it could be and call it a day Of course not. https://twitter.com/jakebackpack/status/1155473533608353793?s=19
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 14:51
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:Does she bother to define what "disadvantaged" means or did she just establish a limit on how helpful it could be and call it a day It looks like the tax cut bill in 2017 established so-called "opportunity zones" based on census data which is just whichever department going over the data and saying "hey this zip code has a ton of poor black people" and designating it such a zone. They're mentioned as a reform target in her plan, so she'd probably just use those same designations for where your business could be located and still receive the benefit. So bad luck if you started a business in the wrong zip code before this plan landed. Not that this should be any surprise, but if you go through to her plan it's just a whole bunch of stuff like this. "We'll help black people by making minor adjustments to SBA loan qualifications" or "we'll reform this bureaucratic process" without any real substance or meaningful specifics. I like the part where she wants to help HBCUs by having the DoD use them for research more often. Address the bloated MIC? Nah, just let some small group of black people get in on the grift, maybe, using non-binding recommendations to the Pentagon that we'll find out weren't enforced via an exposé five years down the road.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 14:54
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Of course not. *hypothetical loan forgiveness is also only for job creators and not anyone who just works at these businesses lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Fool, you think you know Numbers Fucksteinery? Behold, the final form: https://twitter.com/KrangTNelson/status/1155487478394085377
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 15:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/notsofiacoppola/status/1155485187603517441?s=19
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
Comrade Delaney of all people is going forward with a full illiberal, collectivist mandatory national service plan. https://twitter.com/JohnDelaney/status/1155434279347916800 To be completely fair, in the abstract it would be a fairly good proposal if it wasn't mandatory, although there's an infinite number of ways you could gently caress it up in the execution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
When I was a grad student I worked at a public policy evaluation firm and it became really easy to understand the needless complexity of policy. We did evaluation of a particular program. That evaluation component had a small business designation, but the small business that won it had like 5 employees, so of course they couldn't evaluate 50+ nationwide sites. So they subcontracted the work to my massive for profit corporation, essentially getting a cut to be a passthrough. The entirety of the evaluation was done by underpaid grad students as a side gig as I did. The principals and directors and etc were all about getting grants. They'd nonstop work on grants, and then the evaluation would be entirely done by people like me, at the time making 14 bucks an hour with a masters, on my way to the PhD. This evaluation grant was so large that once the company won the bid for the renewal, they took out the entire division for lunch at a fogo de chao, with drinks included. 30 or 40 people having lunch at a a 50 buck a head restaurant. As for our evaluation, in 08 we received comments back from the OMB on the congressional report for the 02 fiscal year. Of course, the other part of the complexity is that it becomes very easy to cut off people. Something like 16% of all HBCU students dropped out because Obama tightened the rules for Parent Plus loan eligibility.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 16:00
|
|
|
Heavy neutrino posted:Comrade Delaney of all people is going forward with a full illiberal, collectivist mandatory national service plan. I feel like the biggest indicator of fuckery is when they label it a National Service plan and not a Jobs Program. The former will almost certainly only exist to drive construction labor costs down by serving as an incredibly low rent temp agency for the giant corporations who get the contracts to unfuck infrastructure. And they'll sell it to us by saying that the people in it are young, getting $7/hr below market rates because they're doing it for the experience, and don't need health insurance anyways. Not that anything titled a Job's Program can't possibly be Neoliberal Hell, but it really serves to illustrate where their mind is at when they start talking about "National Service" like you're doing some sort of duty to the country by building a new pipeline terminal for Halliburton. e: To clarify; A giant rear end national collective jobs program that builds poo poo would be amazing, cool, and good so long as it's not designed to pump out cheap assets for the donor class. If The People's Public Works start churning out a hundred solar plants a year then they should be owned by a government entity and not sold off to some shady energy company for pennies on the dollar. Marxalot fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Jul 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 16:03
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/KrangTNelson/status/1155488041361952769?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 16:28
|
|
|
Nothing else in this campaign will be the perfect encapsulation of neoliberal thinking as this Kamala policy. This monstrosity creates: - Multiple points at which you can be rejected (didn't qualify for pell, didn't graduate, didn't create a business in the right district, etc) - Multiple points where the program can be severely gutted by a technical change in definitions, so it can be rendered useless without repeal - Multiple opportunities for ancillary people to profit from it: evaluation grants, training grants to help people apply for it, etc. - To set up a policy that is as likely to leave intended recipients much worse off as it is likely to help people. Maybe your business survives for 3 years and you get the 20k reduction. Or maybe you incur multiple times that in dept, only for your business to fail 2 years in and you to have student debt AND a bankruptcy on top of. Again, this requires the college graduates in the most precarious position (pell grant recipients with substantial student loan) to take perhaps the riskiest business decision (open your own business in a poor neighborhood) with absolutely no relief in case of failure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
The “good” thing about the Kamala plan is that it’s absolute poo poo electorally because it enthusiastically limits itself to an extremely small portion of the democratic electorate and an even smaller portion of the general electorate. People are generally somewhere between “meh” and “bleh” on programs that help people who aren’t them. Even moreso when the plan is barely helpful for the small group of beneficiaries. That’s one of the reasons we tend took be anti-means testing around here. Anybody who likes that poo poo plan is sure to notice that Warren’s is better and Bernie’s is MUCH better. This does indeed scream “Hillary advisors” loudly and unmistakably.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 17:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/1155509450259730432
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Fool, you think you know Numbers Fucksteinery? Behold, the final form: What the gently caress is this bullshit? "I'm sorry you decided to become a pediatrician or a social worker but we only give a poo poo about ENTREPRENEURS".
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Fool, you think you know Numbers Fucksteinery? Behold, the final form: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 17:15
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:The “good” thing about the Kamala plan is that it’s absolute poo poo electorally because it enthusiastically limits itself to an extremely small portion of the democratic electorate and an even smaller portion of the general electorate. People are generally somewhere between “meh” and “bleh” on programs that help people who aren’t them. Even moreso when the plan is barely helpful for the small group of beneficiaries. That’s one of the reasons we tend took be anti-means testing around here. Anybody who likes that poo poo plan is sure to notice that Warren’s is better and Bernie’s is MUCH better. This does indeed scream “Hillary advisors” loudly and unmistakably. People don't really vote based on policy. I think at most you use policy to tell a story about yourself - Bernie's policy narrates that he's a populist opposed to big money, Warren's policy narrates that she's an academic and policy wonk, Biden's policy narrates that he is the natural successor to Obama and other electorally successful Democrats - but Kamala isn't the kind of candidate who is going to win the primary by promising the Democratic base policies that will directly improve their lives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Fool, you think you know Numbers Fucksteinery? Behold, the final form: Loan forgiveness for slumlords.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 17:23
|
|
