5th Democratic Primary Debate Discussion

[MJHolland 12,725]

4 hours ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

That isn't even remotely true. Even in the most conservative poll, which was cited in this thread by one of the people that has been trolling Sanders supporters on this forum for the past week, shows that the vast majority of Democrats and a majority of Americans support M4A.

Bernie has consistently outpolled Warren and Buttigieg in head-to-head matchups against Trump, so this notion that we have to vote for a more moderate candidate to beat Trump is not, nor has it ever been, true. He's MORE electable, and nearly all of the polling shows that.

This is exactly why I don't waste my time trying to get into it with you. You don't know what you're talking about. 

Warren refused to condemn the coup that literally just happened in Bolivia, stayed silent while countless indigenous protestors are being killed in the streets, and granted legitimacy to an unelected right-wing, self-appointed leader by claiming that she would have the power to call for new elections. None of the other candidates have condemned the coup in Bolivia, aside from Bernie Sanders.

And when asked about Venezuela, she flat out said the she supports installing an unelected right-winger that is being pushed by the Trump administration and supports sanctions that would cripple the Venezuelan economy and harm the most marginalized people in the country.

Flat out false that most dems want M4A. Bad faith arguments. 
 

General election match ups mean nothing a year before the election. 
 

bye bye now

[ANVEEROY 65,474]

I just learned that 

Leftists and Centrists hate each other more than any Trumpians. 

[pachinko 10,759]

I'm going with Pete or Bernie.

[pachinko 10,759]

1 hour ago, raragaga said:

daddy pete 

THIS!!! 

[ALGAYDO 35,230]

13 hours ago, HybridAT said:

Proud to support Pete Buttigieg for POTUS and tonight proved it.  Ready for fresh poll bumps . Haters keep hating him and he keeps rising in polls.  

(Cue the sad and lmao reacts by the far-left clowns here)

Quick question: what do you think about the fact that Pete’s climate advisor worked for Trump and that he’s fighting people who are trying to save the climate? 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

 Just an honest question. 

 

How can people be in here saying that it's wrong for Warren/Bernie to want to take away your private insurance away when your employer takes it away nearly every year and gives you a new plan, determines what your premiums are, what your plan options are, which provided you're going to have, etc. Also, bigger companies can get better prices for their employees with regard to premiums--it's a disservice to small businesses that cannot give the same benefits to their employees that large companies do. By freeing employers of this burden, you are going to allow small businesses a better chance at being competitive in the markets the provide their goods and services.

 

Every year, you go to an HR seminar where they are allowed to give you information but can't really tell you what option is best for you. You gotta learn what qualifies as in-network and what is out-network, find out what your deductible is, your copays for insurance, etc. 

 

Why does it need to be so complicated all for the so-called idea of taking away someone's choice? Yes, you can choose to opt out of your employers plan and decide to go to the marketplace; however, again, when you look at the marketplace, there are a plethora of plans and they all have different benefits and pricing. 

 

I'm sorry but I'm just saying that by simplifying the entire system to Medicare where everything is free at the point of sale but is paid through a progressive tax, you ensure that you don't have to know what the copayments are, don't need to know what your premiums are, what is in network or what is out of network. You get freedom of choice with regard to your doctor because every doctor that accepts medicare (under medicare for all, it bans duplicative coverage, so there will be doctors who take medicare) is a doctor that you can go to. 

[Morphine Prince 109,766]

2 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

 Just an honest question. 

 

How can people be in here saying that it's wrong for Warren/Bernie to want to take away your private insurance away when your employer takes it away nearly every year and gives you a new plan, determines what your premiums are, what your plan options are, which provided you're going to have, etc. Also, bigger companies can get better prices for their employees with regard to premiums--it's a disservice to small businesses that cannot give the same benefits to their employees that large companies do. By freeing employers of this burden, you are going to allow small businesses a better chance at being competitive in the markets the provide their goods and services.

 

Every year, you go to an HR seminar where they are allowed to give you information but can't really tell you what option is best for you. You gotta learn what qualifies as in-network and what is out-network, find out what your deductible is, your copays for insurance, etc. 

 

Why does it need to be so complicated all for the so-called idea of taking away someone's choice? Yes, you can choose to opt out of your employers plan and decide to go to the marketplace; however, again, when you look at the marketplace, there are a plethora of plans and they all have different benefits and pricing. 

 

I'm sorry but I'm just saying that by simplifying the entire system to Medicare where everything is free at the point of sale but is paid through a progressive tax, you ensure that you don't have to know what the copayments are, don't need to know what your premiums are, what is in network or what is out of network. You get freedom of choice with regard to your doctor because every doctor that accepts medicare (under medicare for all, it bans duplicative coverage, so there will be doctors who take medicare) is a doctor that you can go to. 

Americans love the idea that they have "a choice" when that's not a reality. 

Either way, under a M4A-like plan, private insurers would fill in gaps in coverage for certain things. 

The end goal should be to eliminate the roll private health insurance companies in this country have in dominating the market. They are a burden on people's health and access to healthcare. M4A would expand coverage to everyone and for more services. 

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

8 hours ago, Economy said:

One issue im concerned about is a potential shrinking of the tax base over the years. Like i said, investment assets only grow by more than 8% on the good years (which is more like 6% inflation adjusted), by taxing that out of the rich every year who own a big chunck of capital, growth in equity markets would slow at least a bit... If capital markets on the longer term dont really ecceed this much growth (especially adjusted for inflation) I definitely dont see it growing this fast after the tax...

I dont know how sustainable it really is long term

Warrens plan of 3% would not be high enough for that impact and still raise a lot of revenue. I guess i just think its more sustainable 

this is not something i can say for sure. Capital markets are something hard to predict how they react. But i think its a legit concern with a tax that high.

Also i  dont think you responded to my comment about general Corporate Taxes

Tho a modest increase i think is fine (I think Trump did go too far with the cuts, once they are low enough to be internationally competitive, the benefits to lowering them any further are limited and not worth the lost revenue). But a high increase would caused higher prices for consumers and like i said, people have stakes on corporate earnings too

i think going after rich individuals capital gains is more effective in targeting only the wealthy because Corporate tax hikes end up taxing everyone directly or indirectly

PS: One thing i love about Bernie is hes one of the few that talked about some cuts to US Military. Thats a lot of wasted money that can pay for a lot of good

Edit: Also i can give u a very solid example of a major policy change that went theu a lot of political debate here in Ontario (our Province is more populated than even the biggest Scandinavian Countries so i think theres enough GDP scale to make it a fair test) of how both the left wing and the right wing over estimated their Predictions of the impact and how the truth ended up being  as usual somewhere in the middle

but i already typed a lot so ill give u the example only if u actually wanna hear it

No, I did hear your points. My point is just that I quite literally don't think these things are good enough reasons to not try it. I focused on the 8% tax rate for people above $10 Billion to give an example of scope that's really emblematic of the entire issue of wealth inequality. We fundamentally need to redistribute and balance wealth between the rich and the poor-working-middle classes and those social repercussions will be far more significant than whatever outcomes it may have to our overall wealth, growth, etc. as a country, sans total massive collapse, which I don't think is what youre saying would happen (certainly the people who work on Sanders and Warren's plans dont believe so)

 Higher taxes and prices are also okay in theory in a more equitable society where people quite literally do have and make more money and have less fundamental needs to pay for like healthcare, college, etc. We aren't just deleting all of our money,  its a distribution of wealth from top down to bottom in theory, so that's not my biggest concern. People in America have been gaslit over "higher taxes" and "higher prices" by the conservative party for a long time, but when people actually have them, they almost never notice or care significantly when those higher taxes, prices, etc. are coupled with public goods, services, utilities, polling shows that people tend to love  those things more than they care about increased prices/taxes. At least, that's how its worked for almost everything we've ever done here. So, its not my concern. Republicans can't call everyone in America freeloaders that get hand outs when it doesn't affect specific groups of people they tend to send their hate at (like the poor, black and brown people, etc.), so I think over time that this would eventually diminish this attitude and create a healthier mindset about what our economic rights as a people are.

There are some contingencies written in these plans to adjust for potential decreases or less revenue than expected, at least in Sanders plans for things like M4A, Free tuition, etc. Thats where I'm out of my depth though, I'm not an economist, so I only have basic knowledge of things through research, its not all connected knowledge, just here and there.

For example, I have no problem with the idea of a capital gains tax, or even a value added tax as proposed by Yang. But this is where the political theater comes in. Everyone in mainstream media is arguing endlessly over what kinds of taxes are too much, which ones aren't enough, which ones are "unfeasible", "impossible", "hard to get passed" etc. And thats on purpose. They don't look at the Joe Bidens and Pete Buttigieg's of the world and say "how do we pay for this thing", or better yet they propose something that isn't new, it isn't a real change at all and doesn't solve any of our problems. I just don't think youre getting the point that informs my beliefs on this topic, which is that it doesn't really matter at the end of the day whether its a modest or high wealth tax, a moderate  or high corporate tax hike, a value added tax, a capital gains tax, estate tax, etc. NONE of these are going to happen if we don't try,  but we do have to try, if we want to be a society that values human lives, access to fundamental needs, and promotes a pursuit of happiness over monetary gain, we have to tax the rich, because massive income inequality isn't compatible with democracy - its not sustainable, as we are seeing already. Also, thankfully, most people in this country support taxing the rich. The support is there where it matters, it just has to be weaponized into collective bargaining and massive political pressure. With Bernie, it could be from the top down as well as the bottom up and be much more effective.

If your concerns with Bernie's plans and Warrens plan really boil down to - some of these things might be hard to implement, not as successful as they intend to be, or mess with prices, stocks, etc. then I'm telling you the alternative is much worse than those potential outcomes. I really don't think Bernie especially is 100% devoted, committed, and inflexible about taxes or ways to tax the rich. It's a hard thing to do, and there are many ways to do it, but that doesn't mean we should argue about it forever and never try any of them. (This is why for example he has a document on methods of potential revenue for M4A, and Warren was forced to try to make a concrete plan, even though Sanders' plan is already very solid. I promise you that the only reason anyone cares about whether its a 2% wealth tax up to 6% for the ultra wealthy to pay for it, or its a capital gains tax is because the rich don't want either. They let the media spread these things around and scare people into fighting against themselves while they reap the benefit. I do have an opinion on what things are better, like a progressive tax vs a head tax on employers to fund M4A, but if the goal is a single payer universal health care system, then I'm ultimately not concerned about the amount of additional take home there being different, since people will be saving money in mass in both instances, quality of health care goes up, and access goes up. 

You can give that example if you wish, but we're off topic a bit now.

[Economy 52,951]

51 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

No, I did hear your points. My point is just that I quite literally don't think these things are good enough reasons to not try it. I focused on the 8% tax rate for people above $10 Billion to give an example of scope that's really emblematic of the entire issue of wealth inequality. We fundamentally need to redistribute and balance wealth between the rich and the poor-working-middle classes and those social repercussions will be far more significant than whatever outcomes it may have to our overall wealth, growth, etc. as a country, sans total massive collapse, which I don't think is what youre saying would happen (certainly the people who work on Sanders and Warren's plans dont believe so)

 Higher taxes and prices are also okay in theory in a more equitable society where people quite literally do have and make more money and have less fundamental needs to pay for like healthcare, college, etc. We aren't just deleting all of our money,  its a distribution of wealth from top down to bottom in theory, so that's not my biggest concern. People in America have been gaslit over "higher taxes" and "higher prices" by the conservative party for a long time, but when people actually have them, they almost never notice or care significantly when those higher taxes, prices, etc. are coupled with public goods, services, utilities, polling shows that people tend to love  those things more than they care about increased prices/taxes. At least, that's how its worked for almost everything we've ever done here. So, its not my concern. Republicans can't call everyone in America freeloaders that get hand outs when it doesn't affect specific groups of people they tend to send their hate at (like the poor, black and brown people, etc.), so I think over time that this would eventually diminish this attitude and create a healthier mindset about what our economic rights as a people are.

There are some contingencies written in these plans to adjust for potential decreases or less revenue than expected, at least in Sanders plans for things like M4A, Free tuition, etc. Thats where I'm out of my depth though, I'm not an economist, so I only have basic knowledge of things through research, its not all connected knowledge, just here and there.

For example, I have no problem with the idea of a capital gains tax, or even a value added tax as proposed by Yang. But this is where the political theater comes in. Everyone in mainstream media is arguing endlessly over what kinds of taxes are too much, which ones aren't enough, which ones are "unfeasible", "impossible", "hard to get passed" etc. And thats on purpose. They don't look at the Joe Bidens and Pete Buttigieg's of the world and say "how do we pay for this thing", or better yet they propose something that isn't new, it isn't a real change at all and doesn't solve any of our problems. I just don't think youre getting the point that informs my beliefs on this topic, which is that it doesn't really matter at the end of the day whether its a modest or high wealth tax, a moderate  or high corporate tax hike, a value added tax, a capital gains tax, estate tax, etc. NONE of these are going to happen if we don't try,  but we do have to try, if we want to be a society that values human lives, access to fundamental needs, and promotes a pursuit of happiness over monetary gain, we have to tax the rich, because massive income inequality isn't compatible with democracy - its not sustainable, as we are seeing already. Also, thankfully, most people in this country support taxing the rich. The support is there where it matters, it just has to be weaponized into collective bargaining and massive political pressure. With Bernie, it could be from the top down as well as the bottom up and be much more effective.

If your concerns with Bernie's plans and Warrens plan really boil down to - some of these things might be hard to implement, not as successful as they intend to be, or mess with prices, stocks, etc. then I'm telling you the alternative is much worse than those potential outcomes. I really don't think Bernie especially is 100% devoted, committed, and inflexible about taxes or ways to tax the rich. It's a hard thing to do, and there are many ways to do it, but that doesn't mean we should argue about it forever and never try any of them. (This is why for example he has a document on methods of potential revenue for M4A, and Warren was forced to try to make a concrete plan, even though Sanders' plan is already very solid. I promise you that the only reason anyone cares about whether its a 2% wealth tax up to 6% for the ultra wealthy to pay for it, or its a capital gains tax is because the rich don't want either. They let the media spread these things around and scare people into fighting against themselves while they reap the benefit. I do have an opinion on what things are better, like a progressive tax vs a head tax on employers to fund M4A, but if the goal is a single payer universal health care system, then I'm ultimately not concerned about the amount of additional take home there being different, since people will be saving money in mass in both instances, quality of health care goes up, and access goes up. 

You can give that example if you wish, but we're off topic a bit now.

As long as people are going into it with the mentality that its unclear what the full net benefit is, and Bernie is willing to be flexible and adjust the plan like u said if say the rate turns out to be too high etc

 

i have no issue with trying these things... i do think 8% is too high... but if Bernie wants to try it, as long as hes humble enough to admit his plan needs to be adjusted (if it turns out to be the case)... then im ok with giving it a shot!

 

But hes so into the idea of redistributing wealth as much as possible and has put so much political stake in that message, that i dont know if the unintended consequences are too much, that hed ever admit he went over board and bring it down a notch... But if im wrong about that tho and Bernie is willing to be flexible and not 100% comited to a specific plan like u said, then great

—————————-

 

As for my example it was a big minimum wage hike. It was raised from $10.25/h to $14/h thats an over 30% increase

 

left wing endorsers insisted it would not only help the struggling poor, but boost the economy over all with higher wages and lead to higher consumption and that the higher consumption would compensate for higher labor costs  and that there would be no job losses. They even spoke of a “trickle up” effect where those making low wages but still more than the minimum would see a boost

 

the right dramatized it as this business killer that would cause surging prices, huge job losses and that wed go right into recession...

 

now what actually happened?

 

Jobs: There was a drop in hiring the first 6 months or so (probably as businesses adjusted to higher costs). But there was no collapse in employment like the Right dramatized and no recession. After about half a year employment growth resumed its normal tragectary it was in during the economic recovery

 

Prices This one only affected cost of retail stuff and fast food mostly. Stuff did go up a bit. The middle class ended up being worse off that way, but the poor were still way better off because prices went up way less than the minimum wage. Prices did go up but not as drastically as the Right advertized would happen

 

overall economy: Growth stayed about the same. There was no major slow down or acceleration or change to consumption levels.

 

If i had to guess why id say its because this “trickle up” effect the left was hoping for didnt seem to happen. I dont think any statistics were released on this, it was anecdotal evidence tho based on what we all just observed.

 

Generally speaking anyone who made MORE than minimum wage but not a lot more (say $15/h), didnt get a comperable raise to compete. So the low incomes consumption probably did rise but the middle class and low-middle class probably dropped a bit due to no wage hikes but higher prices which offset poor peoples higher consumption

 

In the end i think it was still a positive thing cuz it really did help the poor and im not against the hike... But the point im trying to bring out here is that the opposite ends of the political spectrum tend to over estimate how good their policies are because they dont consider the other side of the coin

 

The real results ended up being more in the middle of the extreme predictions because the Right ignored the positive sides of it and the Left over estimated the benefits because they were focused on the positives and did not take the offsetting negatives enough into account

 

When I see Bernie Sanders and his enthusiastic supporters i see the same thing. All focusing on the good the policies will ring but arent considering how drawbacks will also deminish some of the overall net benefit

 

Basically, things never come out as perfectly as advertized. If ppl set their expectations too high... they will end up being disapointed

 

[Buddy 5,686]

4 hours ago, pachinko said:

I'm going with Pete or Bernie.

Bernie bitch 

[Nicogly 2,579]

10 hours ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

That isn't even remotely true. Even in the most conservative poll, which was cited in this thread by one of the people that has been trolling Sanders supporters on this forum for the past week, shows that the vast majority of Democrats and a majority of Americans support M4A.

Bernie has consistently outpolled Warren and Buttigieg in head-to-head matchups against Trump, so this notion that we have to vote for a more moderate candidate to beat Trump is not, nor has it ever been, true. He's MORE electable, and nearly all of the polling shows that.

This is exactly why I don't waste my time trying to get into it with you. You don't know what you're talking about. 

Warren refused to condemn the coup that literally just happened in Bolivia, stayed silent while countless indigenous protestors are being killed in the streets, and granted legitimacy to an unelected right-wing, self-appointed leader by claiming that she would have the power to call for new elections. None of the other candidates have condemned the coup in Bolivia, aside from Bernie Sanders.

And when asked about Venezuela, she flat out said the she supports installing an unelected right-winger that is being pushed by the Trump administration and supports sanctions that would cripple the Venezuelan economy and harm the most marginalized people in the country.

Honey please dont embarras yourself. Maduro is a dictator and the Venezuelan constitution appointed him president as there was an usurpation of power done by maduro and co when the fraudulently won last presidential elections. Please dont conflate your valid leftist ideals with non leftist actually fascist political techniques employed in Venezuela. People there are starving not because of the sanctions which only affect government officials but because of mismanagement and neglect. 

[pachinko 10,759]

2 hours ago, Buddy said:

Bernie bitch 

Okay fine.