Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp
Blade Runner 2049 is an excellent film and I'm really glad I saw it in theaters. Just visually gorgeous.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp

Alright, so bullet points:

  • $52 trillion would be spent under current system, slightly less than $52 trillion would be spent under M4A, and under M4A $11 trillion that would be paid through household premiums and out-of-pocket expenses would instead stay with taxpayers, effectively becoming a massive stimulus.
  • Administrative spending on healthcare costs would be cut significantly, from 12% of premiums to 2.3% (current Medicare level)
  • Costs for medical care cut significantly by paying Medicare rates instead of made-up/significantly inflated rates currently charged. Billing costs would also be reduced significantly as a consequence.
  • Break up hospital chains and prevent mergers to ensure competition
  • Bring down prescription drug prices by leveraging buying power to negotiate better prices and, if necessary, making drugs ourselves.
  • Redirect state spending on healthcare to federal spending
  • Total new federal spending required thus estimated at $20.5 trillion over 10 years.

And paying for it:

  • Have employers pay 98% of what they would be spending on healthcare costs to the federal government instead, generating ~$8.8 trillion. Employers can pay less if they have collective bargaining agreements with their employees.
  • ~$1.4 trillion from existing taxes off of the $11 trillion that people would no longer be spending on healthcare premiums/out of pocket costs, or from tax exemptions on health savings accounts.
  • Increase enforcement of existing tax laws, pointing the IRS at the rich and offshore accounts, to the tune of $2.3 trillion we should be collecting anyway
  • $800 billion from a .1% tax on the sale of stocks and bonds by financial firms, and fees on large banks for $100 billion
  • $2.9 trillion from changes to the tax code on corporations to prevent things like depreciation shenanigans and hiding wealth overseas.
  • $3 trillion from taxes on the ultra-wealthy, including a 6% wealth tax on assets over a billion, and changes to how capital gains taxes are assessed and collected.
  • Implement the 2013 immigration reform bill, which will generate ~$400 billion in new revenues
  • Cut the DoD's Overseas Contingency Operations fund, redirect the ~$800 billion that would otherwise be spent on wars over the next ten years.

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp

redneck nazgul posted:

because she can't actually support a single-payer system.

Oh come the gently caress on

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp

That Works posted:

It's more $52 trillion compared to what's being spent currently than "need to come up with another $52 trillion" unless I am mistaken.

$52 trillion is the total of estimated healthcare spending over ten years from private, state, and federal sources. The real number to look at is the $20.5 trillion in new federal spending.

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp
Also I just want to address this point from the article that redneck nazgul posted because lol

quote:

All companies have to do to avoid rather large head tax charges is spin off workers into independent contractor status or spin them off into firms with less than 50 employees that they then contract with for services.

Do we seriously think that Wal-Mart or General Motors are going to dissolve their companies into countless >50 person entities to avoid costs that they're already paying, under a rule that already exists?

Like there seem to be issues with the employer aspect of Warren's healthcare plan, but this is the dumbest possible critique and should not be taken seriously.

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp

hobbesmaster posted:

You subcontract everything to a temp agency that uses independent contractors.

Many service industries have been doing this for a long time. Its very common for call centers for example. Even within the auto industry temps are used on the line a lot of places and all they'd have to do there is to switch agencies to get the total cost of employees down.

Except there are limits to how much you can do this, and many companies are already doing this to the greatest possible degree they can get away with. Which means that it's disingenuous to suggest that every company will immediately start doing this (As though they weren't already) and that it's a fundamental flaw in the plan when the >50 employee rule already exists and has existed for half a decade.

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp

redneck nazgul posted:

You don't build those caveats into a system like this unless you want it to fail.

Politicians don't campaign on policies they don't want (usually). Warren isn't proposing this because she somehow wants to cripple Medicare for All, she's clearly doing it because she wants to campaign on not raising taxes on the middle class. This is politics, not rocket science.

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp

A Bad Poster posted:

Hey.

They're all good dogs.

agreed

here's my mutt:

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp

Syrian Lannister posted:

Where are you seeing this?

e

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/01/politics/beto-orourke-drops-out/index.html

e:2 Harris supposedly laid off a bunch of people in Maryland as well.

New Hampshire, which is not a good sign for her campaign.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1190391755029565441?s=20

She's basically toast. The primary is really down to four people at this point—Bernie, Biden, Butt, and Warren.

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp

Bored As gently caress posted:

What a waste of loving money all those dumbasses' campaigns were. Booker never had a shot. O'Rourke never had a shot. Neither did Harris. These loving narcissists actually think they had a chance.

Eh, some of them had a chance, but the ultimate problem facing any candidate in a crowded primary is how to make yourself stand out from the crowd in a good way—and while some candidates have been able to carve out a lane for themselves, "Mediocre Moderate" was a logjam from the beginning.

The one I'm actually mad at is Tom Steyer. Dude spent thirty million of his own money in his vanity campaign, when that money would have been better spent doing literally anything else.

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp

Old Boot posted:

Has Bernie actually released any raw-numbers plans for M4A? I'm not finding anything substantial.

The M4A legislation he's introduced and is campaigning on offers a number of funding options, but no hard numbers.* The most likely funding mechanism a Sanders presidency would utilize would be a payroll tax akin to social security (As mentioned a few times in this thread). However, the program would be expensive enough that multiple funding methods would likely be required regardless.

*From Sanders' site, funding options include:
  • Creating a 4 percent income-based premium paid by employees, exempting the first $29,000 in income for a family of four;
  • Imposing a 7.5 percent income-based premium paid by employers, exempting the first $2 million in payroll to protect small businesses;
  • Eliminating health tax expenditures;
  • Making the federal income tax more progressive, including a marginal tax rate of up to 70 percent on those making above $10 million, taxing earned and unearned income at the same rates, and limiting tax deductions for filers in the top tax bracket
  • Making the estate tax more progressive, including a 77 percent top rate on an inheritance above $1 billion;
  • Establishing a tax on extreme wealth
  • Closing the “Gingrich-Edwards Loophole”;
  • Imposing a fee on large financial institutions
  • Repealing corporate accounting gimmicks.

(Note that both Sanders and Warren have proposed variations of several of these bullet points, though for different programs—Warren for instance has made her 2% tax on wealth a cornerstone of her campaign, but has already allocated the money that would be earned towards a wide variety of programs.)

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp
cop dogs are still dogs, and therefore dogs, one of the only good things left in this blasted hellscape

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp

That's an incredibly disingenuous framing of what she's saying, good lord

e: Seriously, here are her two statements:

Statement A: The middle class will not see any tax increases under her plan.

Statement B: The only people who will see tax increases are billionaires.

To arrive at the imagined Statement C, "Everyone who is not a billionaire is middle-class" requires a leap of logic so tortured that it spent most of the bush administration imprisoned at a CIA black site in Kazakhstan.

Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Nov 4, 2019

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp
Man, I'm seasonal NPS at one of the top parks in the country and poo poo is so goddamn turbofucked. Like, you think that article is bad, and it is, but it's just a layer of poo poo on top of what the parks are already going through. Like, hiring is such a mess that we lose people faster than we gain them, especially in critical areas like facilities maintenance. People are stuck in endless details where they're underpaid and overworked for the jobs they've been put into, but also can't do critical long-term planning because everyone's on detail filling in for everyone else, right up to the Superintendent level (Neither Grand Canyon nor Yosemite have Superintendents right now, and Grand Canyon hasn't had one for nearly a year) And the maintenance backlog at the parks is massive, and keeps getting bigger and bigger. There's a ton of critical work that needs to be done that isn't, because there's zero money (Which of course is a cherry on top of the poo poo sandwich of the proposal to privatize campgrounds, as that's more money effectively being funneled out of the parks). And all of this is happening when more and more people are coming to the parks, at a level that is frankly unsustainable with current resources dedicated to the parks.

poo poo's hosed and it's only going to get more hosed, especially if there's another shutdown.

e: Grand Canyon dog tax

Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Nov 5, 2019

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp

Knives Amilli posted:

Is NPS fuckery a result of Trump or have these issues been around been lingering?

Lot of this stuff has been a long time coming, though obviously the administration hasn't helped. The biggest issue is really Congress - getting the parks the money and people they need to function is only going to come through legislation, but despite promises from the administration nothing has happened (What a shocker!).

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp

That Works posted:

Yep.

I'm waiting to see how the Mississippi race turns out but it so happens that the Dem running for Governor there is basically just a GOP shitlord in all but his views on state medicare stuff. All of his social stuff is complete bigoted trash just like the rest of his state and constituency so I'm not sure if it really would even count as a 'win'.

Mississippi delenda est.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7fgB0m_y2I

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp

Kawasaki Nun posted:

I dunno what Utopic states you Mississippi hating jerks are from but maybe take it easy on the Magnolia state. They're obviously struggling real bad.

I did an internship where I lived at Shiloh Battlefield in Tennessee and worked in Corinth, Mississippi right across the border.

There were a lot of burned out or abandoned houses along my commute.

joat mon posted:

I expect it's the difference between local and national races. Local stuff, signs are more important to getting your name out there than ads or mailers. For national stuff, I expect the word is gotten out by ads and news, and signs are more for voters to show their support.

Local races, you want as many people as possible people to have signs to get your name out, so it's an expense (and a good one) National races, your name's already out there and I guess the idea is that people will pay to show their support to support other parts of the campaign. Sort of like free baseball tickets to get people into the park, but fans will pay for shirts and ballcaps.
Still, the idea of charging for signs is weird.

Lawn signs are actually pretty bad for advertisement (It's very easy to ignore them and even if you don't, all you might remember is a name not connected to party or policy). And as a practical concern, they're big and bulky—so not only is it hard to store and distribute them, but they also take up a lot of room that would be better spent on more effective physical advertisements, like mailers and door hangers.

The only area where lawn signs really have a place is motivating your own supporters and volunteers. Even if they're highly unlikely to get people interested in your candidate on their own, supporters like having them because it's an easy way to tell people who you're voting for, and it can be encouraging to drive through an area and see tons of lawn signs for your preferred candidate (And, conversely, discouraging when you can see a ton of opposing lawn signs and relatively few of your own).

If you want my guess, Sanders' campaign wants their supporters as motivated and active as possible—so if they make lawn signs as cheap as they can possibly provide, it means more people are going to pick them up and dump them everywhere, which in turn makes people think that support for Sanders is higher than they might otherwise believe, which continues to motivate supporters and get them doing other, productive things like knocking on doors or passing out mailers.

It's not the strategy I'd pick, but maybe it's working for them? Obviously just the idea of cheap lawn signs is motivating people here, so it's doing some work at least.

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1192061080488611843?s=19

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp
Reading the MJ article, it's hard to say it's a bad plan because it really seems to be more like a sponsored fact-finding mission - they're basically telling schools "Find a way to keep your doors open year-round from 8 to 6, we'll give you cash and measure the results." There's a lot of ways this could be implemented, many bad, but many good, and that will be up to the individual school districts.

eh, worth a shot I guess

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp

Crakkerjakk posted:

Isn't silent generation the people born in the inter-war period? I thought it went silent-greatest-baby boomer-x-millenial-z

If you could have been drafted for World War II, you're Greatest Generation.

If you could have been drafted between Korea and the Cuban Missile Crisis, you're Silent Generation.

If you could have been drafted for Vietnam or invaded Grenada, you're a Baby Boomer.

If you could have invaded Iraq or been shot down by SAMs in Serbia, you're Gen X.

If you could have invaded Iraq the second time, you're a Millennial.

If the war in Afghanistan is older than you, you're Gen Z.

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp
I have no idea who this person is and I'm 26, but that's mainly because I don't pay any kind of attention to contemporary music. Like even when I was in high school/middle school I would have struggled to tell you what bands everyone was listening to.

anyway that's my story, thanks for listening

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp

Crakkerjakk posted:

I believe his usual theory of power is more along the lines of "we'll win more seats than the Republicans, and then we'll have supporters go confront dipshits who aren't getting with the program wherever they go, and I'll tell my VP to ignore the senate parliamentarian and just pass whatever we feel like through reconciliation."

I've always thought this is a dumb as hell strategy. Reconciliation can only be used once per budget cycle, and if you gently caress it up, it's gone (See the Republican attempt to repeal Obamacare in 2017). The left's entire theory of action is that they need to prove to the voters the left will do for them what the Republicans won't, but you need to go FDR's Hundred Days for that poo poo, with constant coverage of new bills that will help people's lives. One bill a year is just not going to cut it.

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp

Proud Christian Mom posted:

He doesn't though I mean you're really projecting Biden onto him whole cloth and its bizarre.

IIRC Sanders has stated in the past, when asked what will happen if the Dems don't win the Senate, that McConnell and the Republicans will be forced to bow to grass-roots pressure to allow his agenda to go through.* This feels... optimistic at best.

*I swear he said this during the... first debate? Maybe? I don't think I'm crazy but it's hard to dig through and find a specific source.

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp

Crakkerjakk posted:

I think Trump has laid a pretty good blueprint for taking over a party. Like's it's not perfect because Trump mostly is 100% fine with all the normal republican poo poo (except for the trade war thing), but most Republicans are terrified of crossing him because most republican voters love Trump and he'll call out Reps that annoy him at the drop of a feather.

And Trump getting elected first ripped a lot of the stupid decorum band-aid off our politics so if Sanders wins and does something similar there's less weight behind "how dare he criticize the honorable rep Johnson (D-Amazon)"

The problem with looking towards the Republicans as an example is that they control a vast media network with roots dating back to the 1970s that is dedicated to crafting and controlling a specific narrative for their voters with a substantial religious component. Republicans aren't going to go against Trump because not only will Trump call out any defectors, but so will Hannity and Carlson on Fox, Limbaugh and Levin on the radio, r/The_Donald and all the other internet cesspits, and potentially their own pastor at their church. The left simply does not have and will never have that level of media and narrative control.

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp
Can't wait to see even more millions of dollars be wasted that would have been better spent on literally anything else.

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp

That Works posted:

People get mad about wasting money on fireworks but at least they bring some spark of joy to more than ones self.

An obviously wasted campaign... why

Most likely a desperate attempt to torpedo Warren. Objectively speaking, if current trends continue and the polling isn't horrifically inaccurate everywhere, she's probably the most likely person to be the nominee, and her plans for increased regulation on Wall Street and taxing wealth has got the the billionaire class clutching pearls like nothing else.

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp
So two years ago, Jon Oliver did a piece on the coal industry in the US, and had some choice words for notoriously litigant and giant piece of poo poo Bob Murray:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw6RsUhw1Q8

Murray, of course, sued after the video was released, and only just recently dropped the case, allowing Oliver to talk about the suit, and these kinds of lawsuits in general.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN8bJb8biZU

It is well worth watching it to the end.

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp

Best Friends posted:

The high court in Bolivia that ruled term limits didn’t apply is popularly elected


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Tribunal_of_Justice_(Bolivia)

There’s no “typical strongman” stuff here. A legitimate court ruled term limits didn’t apply, and then he was popularly elected. And nationalizing industries is something every successful country has done at some point in its history.

Having a court overturn the constitution that you wrote just to let you stay in power is still some bullshit. I mean hell, it's not like the decision in Bush v. Gore made the 2000 election any less hosed up.

This feels like a situation where Morales flew too close to the sun. By fighting so hard to personally remain in power, in spite of both the constitution and the public referendum, he empowered and partially legitimized the opposition's claims he was becoming a dictator. And it sucks, because he did a lot of good for Bolivia, and much of the opposition against him clearly appears to be made up of assholes. Had Morales picked a successor and had them run in his stead, he could have likely continued working to lead Bolivia behind the scenes. Now, who knows what the gently caress is going to happen, other than "nothing good, probably."

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp

45 ACP CURES NAZIS posted:

the term limits came into effect during his first term and the supreme court ruled that first term didn't count toward his term limit.

This is not what they ruled at all!

Background: Morales was elected to his first five-year term in 2005 with about 53% of the vote (A full 25% over the next most successful candidate). Much of his early presidency was spent presiding over the 2006-2007 Constitutional Assembly, which rewrote Bolivia's constitution. Once written, the constitution was put to a vote in early 2009, passing 61-38, and called for new elections in December 2009. As written, the Constitution stated that people in certain positions, including the Presidency, could only run for reelection once—however, it was also understood at the time that, as Morales' first term had been under the old Constitution, he would be able to run in 2009 and still run for reelection in 2014.

After winning by large margins in 2009 (64-27) and 2014 (61-24), on top of his victory in a 2008 recall referendum (67% to stay), Morales stated he would abide by the constitution and not run for reelection in 2019. Then, he changed his mind, stating that his supporters wanted him to run again, and put the issue of abolishing term limits and amending the constitution to a referendum in 2016. The vote failed narrowly, 51-49, and was the first time Morales had lost a national election. At first, Morales said he would stand by the results of the referendum and retire after his term was up... but then went to the country's constitutional court (Not the supreme court!) to ask them to abolish term limits. The court, whose members are elected in national elections, voted to declare the Constitution was Unconstitutional, citing that term limits violated the American Convention on Human Rights. This opened the way for Morales to attempt the Full Roosevelt, though the decision was widely protested (For obvious reasons).

In the most recent election, setting aside the claims and counterclaims of fraud/not fraud, Morales won with his lowest approval yet, 47-36, just barely avoiding a runoff election, and his party got murdered in the parliamentary elections, losing a full third of their seats in the lower house and several seats in the upper house, leaving them still in power but with extremely slim majorities.

Regardless of whether the opposition's accusations of fraud are true, it's clear that Morales' decision to run for a fourth term hurt him and his party badly at the polls, and energized the opposition. It's a lovely situation all around, and one that likely could have been avoided if Morales had decided to accept the results of the first referendum and found someone else to run in his place and continue his work.

Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Nov 12, 2019

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp
There's like a 90% chance it was one of his staffers.

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp

facialimpediment posted:

An insight from a reporter that more or less sums up your outlook: Do you think you can get 50 Democratic Senators to vote in Medicare for All, if Democrats take the Senate in 2020? I don't think so, so as much as I think M4A is good, it's a pipe dream because a Manchin will always hold it up. Not to mention that M4A-style candidates aren't selling at the countrywide level, last I saw, it costs about 5%-ish at the polls.

One thing I'm wondering is if she straight-up doesn't think she can get it past 50 votes in the Senate, and is planning on punting it past the midterms (and after over a year and a half of the buy-in being implemented, proving the country didn't explode) to give herself a better margin in the Senate, giving (hopefully) PA, FL, WI, IA, and NC all a chance to flip D.

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp

so wait is BLM here supposed to be Black Lives Matter or Bureau of Land Management, I can see it either way

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp

pantslesswithwolves posted:

BLM supersoldiers team up with BLM supersoldiers to seize all the cattle and then behead all the white ranchers on public lands, maniacally firing confiscated AR-15s in triumph out of the windows of stolen police cruisers.

I just hope they can take time out of their busy schedule to round up every rear end in a top hat who rides ATVs/UTVs through areas they've clearly and repeatedly been told not to, the guillotine is too good for them

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp

:lol: he deleted the first tweet

For those who didn't see it:

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp
Honestly the only thing that would truly shock me at this point would be if he resigned.

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp

A Bad Poster posted:

Don't pick-up trucks usually have a bed?

It does have one... the roof is just part of the gate.



Good lord this thing looks awful and impractical. I especially want to take whoever thought that giant-rear end A-pillar was a good idea and slap them

e: beaten

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp

Suicide Watch posted:

If you watch the gif, you'll see that the glass absorbs the energy and doesn't allow penetration...sure it looks bad now it can probably take bullets and protect the inhabitants.

too bad there's no crumple zones so everyone will just be turned to jelly in a crash

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp

Cugel the Clever posted:

Looking forward to the day when a poor family of five in a crosswalk gets murdered by the bullbars on this thing and America just continues to shrug its shoulders and say, "Well, at least it's electric."

Ban all cars

please don't ban all cars, I have to drive for an hour and a half to get groceries as is

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp
Something else that has occurred to me is that if the windows are intended to be unpenetrable, then if you're ever in a situation where the door can't open and you need to get out or get someone out of the car (i.e you accidentally drove into a lake), then they're effective trapped in the car and potentially doomed to a terrible death by drowning

I don't think Mr. Musk has thought this whole car through!

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010
Ultra Carp
Anyway my bet is that they're desperate to beat the electric F-150 to the market and decided to push it out as quickly as possible, but as a result they didn't have enough time to scrub out all of Musk's dumb loving ideas.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply