Dems worried about a Sanders nomination

[Economy 53,144]

5 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

The lie is that "m4awwi" gives choice. There currently is no choice. M4A gives people choice of access to virtually any doctor/hospital they want.

What we have now is Not a choice. You get fired, your healthcare is gone. Your only options are the ones your employer chooses for you (not a real choice) and which are blocked off by your income usually (so again, not a choice) and your employer can take your insurance away from you at any point, or replace it with cheaper (less comprehensive) insurance.

Even Pete Buttigieg knows this  He's just dishonest about his plan because he wants to win. He named it M4AWWI because he knew it was popular, but his plan as multiple people have told you is a Lie. It is Not Universal Health Care, and it will not be able to substantially reduce prices.

Literal Health Care executives have testified to the fact that the "freedom of choice" talking point is a lie meant to trick people.

If you want to support a plan that is a grift on the American people, do so from an informed standpoint at least  

This literally happened to me last week. I got laid off and suddenly I got no insurance for my meds or the dentist I had an appointment for

 

And I can only imagine that happening in the US where meds tend to be even more expensive and every segment of healthcare is privatized not just some

[rojo 560]

I'm excited to see Bernie debate against Trump. All other candidates would take the elite snobbish approach like hillary, specially Pete. Bernie would actually fight!  

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

20 minutes ago, Democrats 2020 said:

Sanders will have to raise taxes through the roof to get what he wants and that's a very hard sell to folks outside the Socialistic far left. People are tapped out as it is with taxation. That's why the Democrats aren't behind Sanders. We don't even have a concrete number for how much M4all will cost.  Sanders couldn't beat Hillary in the last primary. He's easily beatable by Trump.

Do you just like... copy paste sentences that sound good to you in a row and hope a point sticks?

1) 4% on income offset by thousands in premium deductible co-pay out of pocket for M4A... saves money for likely 70%+ of Americans. Other plans tax the extremely wealthy and or institutions, not the middle class directly - Which is why when in polling if you stress the cost savings, its approval ratings go back up

2) Corporate Dems arent behind Sanders because they are funded by health insurance and pharma people, not because they don't know the plan is solid or dont know how to sell a message through media. We fought for Obamacare despite it being much much less popular than M4A, and to this day people are still bitter over things like "you can keep your doctors" lol.

3) Technically there is no concrete cost for any major plan like this, but obviously there is a good estimate. Obamacare ended up costing a little bit over 2x what it was estimated, because they had clearly undersold it by any stretch of the imagination. The world did not end. In comparison, M4A's cost estimates are high in some regards, low in others. Low estimation of savings for administrative cost, high expectation of how much current $ used can be re-allocated towards M4A, average estimation of revenue raised from 4% income tax and wealth tax on 32mill+.

Also, deficit hawks are the silliest people on the planet, China is not going to roll up to America nukes pointed ready to fire if at some random point in the near future we have a high deficit, nor will our economy bankrupt itself because we can print our own damn money  This is a talking point wealthy lobbyists created ("how do we pay for X") decades ago that we are still slaves to. We actually don't really need to know in order for things to pass.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/02/02/wealthy-are-victims-their-own-propaganda

 Any politician that makes the point "we dont know the exact $ cost!" is being disingenuous. They know how these things work because they work on these bills - they are trying to turn the public against the proposal for their own agenda, not because they care about the price tag or see it as being impossible.

4) Most polling showed Bernie beating Trump solidly compared to Hillary Clinton, and to this day he still beats him in a general matchup even when you call him a socialist. In fact, he does worse when you tell moderates that hes a "Democrat"  

Also, Trump himself (both blatantly and secretly) has confirmed he is scared about running against Bernie because he has a real following and movement behind him, and because Bernie is right about economic issues like trade, jobs, wages, entitlements, etc. (Things he ran on, but did not commit to fixing or made worse)

[Harris Walz 2024 1,451]

11 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Do you just like... copy paste sentences that sound good to you in a row and hope a point sticks?

1) 4% on income offset by thousands in premium deductible co-pay out of pocket for M4A... saves money for likely 70%+ of Americans. Other plans tax the extremely wealthy and or institutions, not the middle class directly - Which is why when in polling if you stress the cost savings, its approval ratings go back up

2) Corporate Dems arent behind Sanders because they are funded by health insurance and pharma people, not because they don't know the plan is solid or dont know how to sell a message through media. We fought for Obamacare despite it being much much less popular than M4A, and to this day people are still bitter over things like "you can keep your doctors" lol.

3) Technically there is no concrete cost for any major plan like this, but obviously there is a good estimate. Obamacare ended up costing a little bit over 2x what it was estimated, because they had clearly undersold it by any stretch of the imagination. The world did not end. In comparison, M4A's cost estimates are high in some regards, low in others. Low estimation of savings for administrative cost, high expectation of how much current $ used can be re-allocated towards M4A, average estimation of revenue raised from 4% income tax and wealth tax on 32mill+.

Also, deficit hawks are the silliest people on the planet, China is not going to roll up to America nukes pointed ready to fire if at some random point in the near future we have a high deficit, nor will our economy bankrupt itself because we can print our own damn money  This is a talking point wealthy lobbyists created ("how do we pay for X") decades ago that we are still slaves to. We actually don't really need to know in order for things to pass.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/02/02/wealthy-are-victims-their-own-propaganda

 Any politician that makes the point "we dont know the exact $ cost!" is being disingenuous. They know how these things work because they work on these bills - they are trying to turn the public against the proposal for their own agenda, not because they care about the price tag or see it as being impossible.

4) Most polling showed Bernie beating Trump solidly compared to Hillary Clinton, and to this day he still beats him in a general matchup even when you call him a socialist. In fact, he does worse when you tell moderates that hes a "Democrat"  

Also, Trump himself (both blatantly and secretly) has confirmed he is scared about running against Bernie because he has a real following and movement behind him, and because Bernie is right about economic issues like trade, jobs, wages, entitlements, etc. (Things he ran on, but did not commit to fixing or made worse)

Nice how you just glossed over the cost of M4all. I don't need to ramble off alot of words to get my point across.

[Economy 53,144]

1 hour ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Do you just like... copy paste sentences that sound good to you in a row and hope a point sticks?

1) 4% on income offset by thousands in premium deductible co-pay out of pocket for M4A... saves money for likely 70%+ of Americans. Other plans tax the extremely wealthy and or institutions, not the middle class directly - Which is why when in polling if you stress the cost savings, its approval ratings go back up

2) Corporate Dems arent behind Sanders because they are funded by health insurance and pharma people, not because they don't know the plan is solid or dont know how to sell a message through media. We fought for Obamacare despite it being much much less popular than M4A, and to this day people are still bitter over things like "you can keep your doctors" lol.

3) Technically there is no concrete cost for any major plan like this, but obviously there is a good estimate. Obamacare ended up costing a little bit over 2x what it was estimated, because they had clearly undersold it by any stretch of the imagination. The world did not end. In comparison, M4A's cost estimates are high in some regards, low in others. Low estimation of savings for administrative cost, high expectation of how much current $ used can be re-allocated towards M4A, average estimation of revenue raised from 4% income tax and wealth tax on 32mill+.

Also, deficit hawks are the silliest people on the planet, China is not going to roll up to America nukes pointed ready to fire if at some random point in the near future we have a high deficit, nor will our economy bankrupt itself because we can print our own damn money  This is a talking point wealthy lobbyists created ("how do we pay for X") decades ago that we are still slaves to. We actually don't really need to know in order for things to pass.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/02/02/wealthy-are-victims-their-own-propaganda

 Any politician that makes the point "we dont know the exact $ cost!" is being disingenuous. They know how these things work because they work on these bills - they are trying to turn the public against the proposal for their own agenda, not because they care about the price tag or see it as being impossible.

4) Most polling showed Bernie beating Trump solidly compared to Hillary Clinton, and to this day he still beats him in a general matchup even when you call him a socialist. In fact, he does worse when you tell moderates that hes a "Democrat"  

Also, Trump himself (both blatantly and secretly) has confirmed he is scared about running against Bernie because he has a real following and movement behind him, and because Bernie is right about economic issues like trade, jobs, wages, entitlements, etc. (Things he ran on, but did not commit to fixing or made worse)

#1 not sure why China came into this

 

#2 u can't print wealth. If u print money u just get inflation. That is not a solution

 

Debt has consequences if not kept under control. The US may have a HIGHER TOLERANCE due to its reserve currency status but it's not unlimited. At some point u can't raise enough money by investors and institutions and yields surge to compensate (affecting cost of credit across all kinds of things). The US may not collapse with a debt load of 130% of GDP like Greece did but America too has its limits

 

Whether you print money, default, or rely on surging bond yields to manage, all 3 options have horrible concequences

 

I'm sorry but in my opinion anyone who thinks it's no big deal is being delusional and does not understand how currency or the bond market works.

 

If the deficit was reduced to a rate (say like 3% of GDP) where economic growth can keep up with it (real growth + nominal GDP growth from inflation) that's fine and sustainable and you never have to really reduce your debt

 

But the current 5% of GDP deficit is not sustainable indefinitely. Eventually it will cause a financial crisis if not dealt with.

 

The US may have a bit of an edge to other Nations due to its position but mathematically it's bond trading and currency valuations is calculated exactly the same way as every other Nation.

 

The consequences of Nations that let debt explode (some chose to print other not) like Greece, Venezuela, Zimbabwe would happen to the US just the same. The only difference is the debt would have to go higher to trigger a financial meltdown but eventually it would occur just the same

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

17 minutes ago, Economy said:

#1 not sure why China came into this

 

#2 u can't print wealth. If u print money u just get inflation. That is not a solution

 

Debt has consequences if not kept under control. The US may have a HIGHER TOLERANCE due to its reserve currency status but it's not unlimited. At some point u can't raise enough money by investors and institutions and yields surge to compensate (affecting cost of credit across all kinds of things). The US may not collapse with a debt load of 130% of GDP like Greece did but America too has its limits

Whether you print money, default, or rely on surging bond yields to manage, all 3 options have horrible conveniences

I'm sorry but in my opinion anyone who thinks it's no big deal is being delusional and does not understand how currency or the bond market works.

If the deficit was reduced to a rate (say like 3% of GDP) where economic growth can keep up with it (real growth + nominal GDP growth from inflation) that's fine and sustainable and you never have to really reduce your debt

But the current 5% of GDP deficit is not sustainable indefinitely. Eventually it will cause a financial crisis if not dealt with.

The US may have a bit of an edge to other Nations due to its position but mathematically it's bond trading and currency valuations is calculated exactly the same way as every other Nation.

The consequences of Nations that let debt explode (some chose to print other not) like Greece, Venezuela, Zimbabwe would happen to the US just the same. The only difference is the debt would have to go higher to trigger a financial meltdown but eventually it would occur just the same

Deficit hawks usually extrapolate their worries into a conflation with our national debt in the public sphere, so China is brought up as a hyperbolic example, as if deficit spending = national debt, or that "leaving future generations in debt" is the end of the world  (In reality, America owns most of its own debt, but many people think China owns it for some reason)

The average american doesn't know **** about bonds or anything like that, so this line of rhetoric is usually effective on very conservative people.

I want to assume you know what "MMT" is? That would save me a hell of a lot of time, but the argument is not that we can infinitely print money and no inflation will ever occur, its that we, America, can currently afford to do much more deficit spending than we do as long as we account for sustainable amounts of inflation in the process beforehand. Recenter the focus on the risk of inflation and not the debt itself.

[POP2 4,206]

1 hour ago, Bae said:

Don’t tell me i’m wrong with nothing to show for it. Now go on and gather your evidence. Thanks. <3 https://www.google.com/amp/s/nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2018/10/poll-a-majority-of-republicans-support-medicare-for-all.html

This article explains how hard it is to define the term “Medicare for all” and how the poll may be flawed. The polls failed to specify Medicare for all meant Single Payer. 
 

I can guarantee 52% of Republicans don’t support socialized medicine or Medicare for all with mandated government insurance. That is simply ludicrous. 
 

If you want to be rude and petty, fine. Here’s a non partisan article which explains polling in regards to Medicare for all and a single payer system. https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate.com/business/2019/10/medicare-for-all-is-getting-less-popular.amp

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

38 minutes ago, Democrats 2020 said:

Nice how you just glossed over the cost of M4all. I don't need to ramble off alot of words to get my point across.

It obviously has estimates, they are in the neighborhood of 30 Trillion  

Read point #2 again  

[Economy 53,144]

21 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Deficit hawks usually extrapolate their worries into a conflation with our national debt in the public sphere, so China is brought up as a hyperbolic example, as if deficit spending = national debt, or that "leaving future generations in debt" is the end of the world  (In reality, America owns most of its own debt, but many people think China owns it for some reason)

The average american doesn't know **** about bonds or anything like that, so this line of rhetoric is usually effective on very conservative people.

I want to assume you know what "MMT" is? That would save me a hell of a lot of time, but the argument is not that we can infinitely print money and no inflation will ever occur, its that we, America, can currently afford to do much more deficit spending than we do as long as we account for sustainable amounts of inflation in the process beforehand. Recenter the focus on the risk of inflation and not the debt itself.

Oh gotcha. I was wondering why China considering they are like 20% of US debt holders or less (don't remember exact amount) plus US never defaulted so I didn't get the nukes

 

I have a lot of issues with the MMT theory. The printing until full employment, use of taxes etc to try to manage...

 

It would be an extremely complicated balancing act to prevent overshooting or undershooting... And inflation often has a lag between policy and it showing up so u don't see in real time how much inflation something that creates inflationary pressures creates until later and then it's hard to control

 

That has happened before with simpler monetary policy like low interest rates... When the economy strengthens and inflationary pressures rise the inflation doesnt always manifest immediately the Central bank has to make assumptions of how much inflation will rise and when they raise rates too slow and get too much inflation later sometimes it forces them after to surge them. I believe that happened in 2005-2007  in the US when rates were lowered to nearly 1% after 2001 recession and left low for a while but then had to raise it quickly to fight inflation and it was tough on things like mortgages and credit lines who suddenly had to pay so much more interest

 

MMT ideas would be even more complicated and potentially chaotic. Not to mention some ideas like raising taxes when liquidity became excessive could also be potentially politically problematic and not happen

 

I don't trust any Government to be competent enough to pull off that kind of monetary policy ideas when they already struggle with the current much simpler monetary system as it is 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

18 minutes ago, Economy said:

Oh gotcha. I was wondering why China considering they are like 20% of US debt holders or less (don't remember exact amount) plus US never defaulted so I didn't get the nukes

 

I have a lot of issues with the MMT theory. The printing until full employment, use of taxes etc to try to manage...

 

It would be an extremely complicated balancing act to prevent overshooting or undershooting... And inflation often has a lag between policy and it showing up so u don't see in real time how much inflation something that creates inflationary pressures creates until later and then it's hard to control

 

That has happened before with simpler monetary policy like low interest rates... When the economy strengthens and inflationary pressures rise the inflation doesnt always manifest immediately the Central bank has to make assumptions of how much inflation will rise and when they raise rates too slow and get too much inflation later sometimes it forces them after to surge them. I believe that happened in 2005-2007  in the US when rates were lowered to nearly 1% after 2001 recession and left low for a while but then had to raise it quickly to fight inflation and it was tough on things like mortgages and credit lines who suddenly had to pay so much more interest

 

MMT ideas would be even more complicated and potentially chaotic. Not to mention some ideas like raising taxes when liquidity became excessive could also be potentially politically problematic and not happen

 

I don't trust any Government to be competent enough to pull off that kind of monetary policy ideas when they already struggle with the current much simpler monetary system as it is 

MMT isn't for everyone

Even Bernie isn't all in for it, same with Warren.

Stephanie Kelton (who is an amazing woman ugh, I've seen her speak before) is Bernie's economic advisor and was the Chief Economist on the U.S Senate Budget Committee. She actually disagrees with Bernie on some of the ways his plans would be inacted, not because they would bankrupt the economy or anything, but she thinks that we should tax the wealthy as a separate means of revenue in order to do things like M4A, Eliminate student debt/free college, but she understands that its part of his political branding.

I'm somewhere in the middle. I play devil's advocate like 60% of the time on here  

[Married the Night 3,955]

I can see why. Sorry, but it’s true. 

[Economy 53,144]

1 hour ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

MMT isn't for everyone

Even Bernie isn't all in for it, same with Warren.

Stephanie Kelton (who is an amazing woman ugh, I've seen her speak before) is Bernie's economic advisor and was the Chief Economist on the U.S Senate Budget Committee. She actually disagrees with Bernie on some of the ways his plans would be inacted, not because they would bankrupt the economy or anything, but she thinks that we should tax the wealthy as a separate means of revenue in order to do things like M4A, Eliminate student debt/free college, but she understands that its part of his political branding.

I'm somewhere in the middle. I play devil's advocate like 60% of the time on here  

I don't think it's for pretty much anyone tbh. If I understand the theory of MMT correctly it would require a level of competence governments just don't have. Even worse relationships between central banks and actual government would have to be also collaborative to a level I never see between Government's.

 

I'm not saying it's impossible to pull off in theory or mathematically. I'm saying our governemnts can't do it

 

Also MMT monetary theory since it involves also removing liquidity during full employment, it still wouldn't fix a debt problem long term because to avoid a lot of inflation u could not endlessly print at all times so, there would still be a big restriction there 

[Twitter 14]

I honestly don’t see him getting nominated or becoming president at all.

[Shaney 5,515]

20 hours ago, Halsey said:

Maybe in the Bronx. Try winning Pittsburgh though on that message. Never gonna happen.

Yeah. Establishment Democrats also said Trump becoming President was never gonna happen. I call bs.

[Whispering 18,865]

49 minutes ago, Bae said:

Yeah. Establishment Democrats also said Trump becoming President was never gonna happen. I call bs.

It wasn’t just “Establishment Democrats”. Independents didn’t think it could happen either. Even the Republican Party believed he wouldn’t be nominated. 

Everyone missed that Trump was going to motivate all the racists and bigots to come pouring out of the woodwork on Election Day.