|
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 | ||
|
Chilichimp posted:Blandark Sandbarbs I'm confused, PPJ keeps insisting my posts are "bad", can someone explain what makes Centrist McLib's post here acceptable and my posts bad (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:10 |
|
|
Also, sidenote, the gender neutral "bernie bro" appellation is "Sanders Sib"
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
crazy cloud posted:I'm confused, PPJ keeps insisting my posts are "bad", can someone explain what makes Centrist McLib's post here acceptable and my posts bad You haven't developed the pragmatic, mean-tested stockholm syndrome towards capital?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
crazy cloud posted:I'm confused, PPJ keeps insisting my posts are "bad", can someone explain what makes Centrist McLib's post here acceptable and my posts bad Let me see if I can help you, crazycloud. crazy cloud posted:I'm confused, PPJ keeps insisting my posts are "bad", can someone explain what makes Centrist McLib's post here acceptable and my posts bad I hope that clears it up!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
Condiv posted:do they seem above reproach to you when they describe the wealth warren's wealth tax would target as "earned wealth"? Do you think the ultra rich who became rich did so through hard work and risk-taking in today's america? Yeah, I knew the first thing somebody would respond with is a blog post by Howard Gleckman, which is why I brought him up. Gleckman is an analyst at TPC with a specific set of centrist blinders on, and I am not defending his viewpoint. I am suggesting that the analyses done by the Tax Policy Center, which are up to a very different standard from a random TaxVox blog post, are rigorous and warrant a lot more than "lol" if you're going to dismiss them. If you want to tell me they're wrong to, say, put out a paper supporting a proposal for a modest VAT, I'm probably right there with you. If you want to laugh off the revenue tables they generate in that paper, I'm gonna ask for a reason. If we must talk about Gleckman specifically, here's another quote: quote:The very rich are different from the merely wealthy. Most people who make the really big bucks do so from the businesses they own and from other investments, not by bringing home a paycheck. What matters to them are tax rates on capital gains, dividends and business income, not tax rates on ordinary income. Wicked Them Beats posted:They're founded by the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute. AKA people who should not be trusted ever. I'll reiterate: do you have a methodological critique here? Is there a reason that if I want to know the revenue impact of a tax proposal, I shouldn't trust their analysis? When Bernie Sanders cites their numbers, a thing he has been regularly doing for years, is he wrong to do so? I'm more than open to the idea that a flock of center-left analysts is screwing something up, but I've literally never heard anyone with any credibility anywhere suggest they cook the books. As far as Gleckman, he's the exception that proves the rule. When he writes an article like the one I pulled from saying "maybe AOC's proposal to raise the top marginal rate isn't the best way to raise revenue from the wealthy", he's the one guy who actually follows that to "...we really ought to be taxing capital gains as ordinary income instead" and then pushes for that kind of proposal. He's also pretty obviously sincere in his disgust for bullshit GOP tax cuts. He's an odd duck.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 19:50
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:They’re only unreachable so long as you offer them no believable alternative. That’s why the jobs guarantee is a critical part of the GND. If we’re going to get people to go along with the massive changes we need we have to promise to bring them along too. Yes, I'm sure people who have set money aside for retirement would be super-comforted to hear that you want to make it possible for them to work until they die.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
Pinky Artichoke posted:Yes, I'm sure people who have set money aside for retirement would be super-comforted to hear that you want to make it possible for them to work until they die. think of it as means-testing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
Pinky Artichoke posted:Yes, I'm sure people who have set money aside for retirement would be super-comforted to hear that you want to make it possible for them to work until they die. The average American is in that situation now The median 401k balance for Americans 60-69 is $62,000 ie you can't stop working. Retirement is for the privileged few VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Aug 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Retirement is for the privileged few But what about the feelings of the petit bourgeois?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The average American is in that situation now That's liable to be very misleading, 401ks are probably a small portion of retirement income for that cohort. In addition to social security, workers at that age are more likely to have some amount of legacy defined benefit pensions. I don't doubt the overall picture is unfavorable, but quoting 401k balances is only part of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:That's liable to be very misleading, 401ks are probably a small portion of retirement income for that cohort. In addition to social security, workers at that age are more likely to have some amount of legacy defined benefit pensions. Sure. But if the overall picture is unfavorable right now, then the argument that we can't fix income inequality because it will hurt the stock market which will in turn hurt everyone's retirement makes no sense. The picture is unfavorable because of income inequality, and a high stock market doesn't ensure people's ability to retire because most people can't retire now and the stock market is insanely high. Appealing to the existence of social security also makes no sense in the context of this conversation
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Appealing to the existence of social security also makes no sense in the context of this conversation It makes no sense regardless. No one has any savings in social security. That money has already been
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1159482797783953408 Also interesting that Bernie's favorability has taken a dive in Iowa and Warren is now the highest: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 20:46
|
|
|
Reverend Dr posted:It makes no sense regardless. No one has any savings in social security. That money has already been Man I'm having a hard time discerning whether you're making GBS threads on socialism or just trying to insist that we divorce SS from the retirement conversation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
Armack posted:Fivethirtyeight did an interesting podcast episode about how the IA caucus will work next year, including with the new (tentative) rules. seems incredibly democratic to me
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
Reverend Dr posted:It makes no sense regardless. No one has any savings in social security. That money has already been That's how all retirement is. If I "save" a million dollars, I'm not putting loaves of bread into some interdimensional time capsule to withdraw when I'm hungry at 65. All those meals I will eat, medicine I will use, etc will all be manufactured by future workers and my "savings" is just a claim check.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That's how all retirement is. I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger on August 8th 2049.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:excuse me....bernard brother. Sanders Sibling, please, for us enbies
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
This poll asked 289 people above 50 and 112 below. Hmm....
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 20:56
|
|
|
Phone posted:seems incredibly Democratic to me
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 20:57
|
|
|
spunkshui posted:This poll asked 289 people above 50 and 112 below.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 20:59
|
|
|
Pinky Artichoke posted:Yes, I'm sure people who have set money aside for retirement would be super-comforted to hear that you want to make it possible for them to work until they die. Oh no, they'll have to face the same reality as the majority of people in America right now
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1159482797783953408 It would be great if you stopped posting polls that are so blatantly bullshit, or if you faced any consequences for it at all
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 21:02
|
|
|
Is this poll legit? https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1159506237672906753 Mind_Taker fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Aug 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:It would be great if you stopped posting polls that are so blatantly bullshit, or if you faced any consequences for it at all can i come back to copy pasting bullshit yet if we're going to allow those polls
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 21:06
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:That's liable to be very misleading, 401ks are probably a small portion of retirement income for that cohort. In addition to social security, workers at that age are more likely to have some amount of legacy defined benefit pensions. Very few people in the private sector have pensions anymore. Defined benefit plans (traditional pensions) are only available to 3 percent of all workers in the private sector. Given that this trend has only grown in the past decade (ten years ago it was 13 percent of workers) it's unlikely that a trading tax would impact those with pensions. According to this government study, defined benefit plans as source of income for 67 year olds is projected to range from 5 percent for the oldest boomers to 3 percent for the youngest boomers. The same study also found that those who still do receive pensions are usually white, male and higher-income--in other words, those who could most easily absorb a trading tax.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Very few people in the private sector have pensions anymore. lets not forget the chance those pensions will actually pay out in the future is slim. a constant tactic is to do anything possible to undermine pension agreements or underfund them
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 21:15
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Oh no, they'll have to face the same reality as the majority of people in America right now look, you don't get it. Pinky Artichoke is a better type of human being than those icky poors, and suggesting otherwise is a non-starter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 21:16
|
|
|
Condiv posted:lets not forget the chance those pensions will actually pay out in the future is slim. a constant tactic is to do anything possible to undermine pension agreements or underfund them And that the burden is shifted from the employer to the worker when employers switch to defined-contribution plans: quote:The decline of private sector pensions has consequences. As pensions have become less common, the retirement security of employees in the private sector has decreased. One study found that when companies switched from defined benefit pensions to defined contribution plans, the amount they contributed on behalf of each employee was cut almost in half. To quote The Economist magazine: “Whatever the arguments about the merits of the new wave of [DC plans], if you put less money in, you will get less money out.” In other words, if you don’t contribute enough for a secure retirement, then you won’t have a secure retirement. That Reagan created the laws allowing employers to switch from defined-benefit plans to defined-contribution plans at a time when Warren was still voting Republican is a data point not in her favor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
spunkshui posted:This poll asked 289 people above 50 and 112 below. Because it's a poll of "likely caucus goers", which is, yeah, usually a bunch of old people. Mind_Taker posted:Is this poll legit? Change research is an online poll with a C+ 538 rating, take that as you will. Chilichimp fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Aug 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 21:25
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Man I'm having a hard time discerning whether you're making GBS threads on socialism or just trying to insist that we divorce SS from the retirement conversation. Divorce social security from retirement conversation. It is a fundamentally and completely different than retirement savings and is always used as a wedge by dumbasses and/or conservatives as another reason why better things aren't possible. VitalSigns posted:That's how all retirement is. No its fundamentally different. It is socialism. It literally is the current working generation paying out to previous generations. The whole idea that social security is a form of savings was a lie designed to make it more palatable for the american that hates socialism. Its a lie that is convenient for the argument "we actually should not try to do anything". Seriously the context was talking about retirement and how so few people actually have retirement to fall back on, until someone says "b-b-b-but you aren't taking into account the savings from social security". Yeah no poo poo, retirement savings aren't as big of a deal when there is a socialist program that addresses it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
crazy cloud posted:I'm confused, PPJ keeps insisting my posts are "bad", can someone explain what makes Centrist McLib's post here acceptable and my posts bad you have to post like you have poo poo in your mouth (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Because it's a poll of "likely caucus goers", which is, yeah, usually a bunch of old people. All polls are garbage right now and the only use for them is to push a narrative that benefits your particular favored candidate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
Pinky Artichoke posted:Yes, I'm sure people who have set money aside for retirement would be super-comforted to hear that you want to make it possible for them to work until they die. Well the equivalent to a jobs guarantee for the elderly is MFA and a right to housing. Getting older gets a lot less scary if you know you’ll always have a home and always can get the medical treatment you need. Imagine how freeing that actually would be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
Reverend Dr posted:
I brought up pensions and social security specifically to dispute the notion that "very few" people in their 60s can afford to retire based on their 401ks. I did not intend that narrow fact to be a commentary on the efficacy of socialism or the morality of taxes, but maybe it was taken as such.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 22:17
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well the equivalent to a jobs guarantee for the elderly is MFA and a right to housing. Getting older gets a lot less scary if you know you’ll always have a home and always can get the medical treatment you need. Imagine how freeing that actually would be. I don't really understand why unworkable job guarantees get the time of day from leftists, when an income guarantee would be much simpler and wouldn't require a bunch of exceptions for disability, the elderly, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Because it's a poll of "likely caucus goers", which is, yeah, usually a bunch of old people. So you're telling me it's not actually representative of Bernie's popularity and it shouldn't be touted as such given his success with a very nontraditional voter base????
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:Is this poll legit? It's an online survey whose participants were recruited via banner ads, whose demographics and crosstabs are hidden behind a paywall. So probably not. But in general, all polls are garbage right now, because "who's going to show up to the voting booths next year" is the question that'll decide the result of the election. The pollsters each have their own guesses of what the actual primary electorate is going to look like, and since candidate support is so strongly tied to demographic, poll results are based largely on what kind of sample the pollster picked and how it's weighted. For example, Biden performs well because most of the pollsters are assuming that the primary electorate will be composed overwhelmingly of old people (who love Biden and hate Bernie), so they're polling samples where half the people answering the poll are over age 50. If a pollster assumes that more young people will turn out this time and picks a more balanced sample, then Biden's numbers go down and Bernie's go up. And so on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:I don't really understand why unworkable job guarantees get the time of day from leftists, when an income guarantee would be much simpler and wouldn't require a bunch of exceptions for disability, the elderly, etc. Because there's literally zero chance of an income guarantee being passed while we have this idea that meritocracy is real, whereas "putting the poor to work" is something even dickweeds can get behind
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:10 |
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:I brought up pensions and social security specifically to dispute the notion that "very few" people in their 60s can afford to retire based on their 401ks. I did not intend that narrow fact to be a commentary on the efficacy of socialism or the morality of taxes, but maybe it was taken as such. It was taken as such because you quoted me in a conversation about it to say something that was, apparently, irrelevant. I was responding to someone saying that anything which hurts the stock market will take away everyone's retirement, I pointed out that most people don't have retirement savings in the stock market anyway that's just for the top 10% of bougie lanyards, and you piped up with "ah but they have social security savings". No poo poo, that isn't in the stock market. Reverend Dr posted:No its fundamentally different. It is socialism. It literally is the current working generation paying out to previous generations. The whole idea that social security is a form of savings was a lie designed to make it more palatable for the american that hates socialism. Its a lie that is convenient for the argument "we actually should not try to do anything". Oh I agree with you. My point was we should do away with the notion of "saving" for retirement altogether. Unless you're stockpiling canned food and beans, you're not "saving" for retirement, you're just putting money aside and expecting that when you get old, future workers will turn their labor into things you need and give them to you in exchange for paper. No matter what, old people are going to require X amount of newly created resources to live, so we should just allocate those resource as a society (through social security or whatever), because what we actually do (tell people to gamble on the stock market and pay the financial industry for the privilege and hope they don't get unlucky or they're hosed, unless they're poor and then they're just hosed regardless) is insane and criminal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 22:35
|
|