10th Democratic Primary Debate

[Economy 52,928]

11 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I thought I deleted your comment in my response, but I'll respond now: All economic systems have flaws ofc. I do think that the flaws of capitalism are more blatant and egregious and that we don't have enough evidence of actual "socialism" (which is a bit more complicated a term than capitalism as well tbh) to make the same conclusion. We have plenty of examples of authoritarianism running amuck in capitalistic and socialistic societies, but America and other western countries in the last 100+ years have certainly made it their life's mission to oppose any semblance of successful socialism via military coups, regime change, etc. Not denying that socialism has potential problems, but it seems to me that we don't fully know what they might be and more importantly how they stack against the fundamental flaws of capitalism  

A lot of it is theoretical but I believe still fairly predictable 

 

But again, on a net basis in terms of which whether it's positives or negatives that way eachother I thinks has like a million variables to influence that

 

#1 by far the biggest factor is probably Government competence. If you put more financial resources in the hands of the Government and u give them more power to regulate private sector as well, inevitably a big factor of how well it succeeds also has to do with how it's implemented. Not all investments are equal and a smart government would be careful to invest well and not waste too much on frivolous things (like military ) but even well intentioned projects that may not pay back their full cost

 

#2 what are the biggest needs at the time in the nation? Education? Business investment? Infrastructure? Innovation? Some the private sector is better at doing other the government is so this depends too

 

U could aruge in 1950 Capitalism and innovation worked great in business investment and economic growth. In 2020 when skills mismatch in our technical world is one of the biggest issues, education is a crutial thing right now

 

#3 in the globalized economy of the 21st century, to what degree does is affect competitiveness vs other nations?

 

#4 sustainability. Does the socialist programs have a sustainable funding system or plan in place that won't eroad on the financial health of the system or economic foundations over time????

 

These are just a few of many things that come to my mind... That's why I'm reluctant to say "socialism is good" or "it's bad"

 

In my mind it can be great, it can be terrible, it can be Soso depending on a lot of variables and a lot of these variables can also switch from net positive to bet negative if you crossed certain thresholds so even each factor could have a delicate balance

 

I think people are far too black and white about this and oversimplify it. I don't think it's quite that simple. At least that my opinion on it.

 

Edit: I'm gonna tag ppl I've had simmilar discussions with cuz maybe this makes my opinion on socialism or left wing politics more clear. Provided it's not taken to an extreme (which I think is always bad) I'm not against it or for it automatically. Depends on many factors @ItsTommyBitch @HorusRa2 @OG Gaga Stan @Woolfsmck @Whispering @Gagaloo92

[PartySick 173,157]

37 minutes ago, Musicisfreedom said:

I actually have a question about this. And it may sound stupid, bare with me.

How much of an increase on taxes would that be? And also, how much money do you have to make to even be affected by that? A lot of people group me and my family into the middle class even tho with three incomes we still live check to check and hardly have any free money. I'm leaning towards Bernie, but I want to fully understand everything. Sorry if I sound stupid.

I'm probably wrong but I feel like the bottom line was $29,000 or more a year and you see a tax increase. It's incremental too, make more money, you pay more taxes.

I could be mixing up his and Liz's plans though

Either way, it would be cheaper in the long run both individually and nationally.

Say your taxes raise by, idk, $300 a year. What would that actually get you currently? I know a 15 minute ride in an ambulance for my grandpa cost $9000 so  my current insurance requires a $300 copay for an ER visit.

Visit the doctor once in that year and you've probably already saved money tbh.

Edit: did some quick math. At $29,000 your taxes will be $1,160 a year (which is honestly what some people already pay for plans with sh*tty coverage that make them pay out of pocket for stuff anyway).

So going with that $9,000 15 minute ambulance ride, if you ride in one for two minutes in a year ($600 a minute) then you've already saved $40

[Franz Ferdinand 2,359]

5 minutes ago, Musicisfreedom said:

I actually have a question about this. And it may sound stupid, bare with me.

How much of an increase on taxes would that be? And also, how much money do you have to make to even be affected by that? A lot of people group me and my family into the middle class even tho with three incomes we still live check to check and hardly have any free money. I'm leaning towards Bernie, but I want to fully understand everything. Sorry if I sound stupid.

That would depend on what tax bracket you’re in. Bernie’s plan so far accounts for a 4% premium on incomes above 29k. Meaning if you earn less than that, you’re exempt from paying this, otherwise it is 4% of your gross income. This is enough to raise 4 trillion, while the rest would come from employers getting taxed more and re-arranging and redirecting other funds. Currently, for instance, a LOT of what we pay in taxes (24%!!!) goes straight to the military, of which half goes to private military contractors so not even troops. So there is a need to re-arrange the way tax money is distributed, because it is really not going where we want it to go. Regardless, the increase in tax to pay for universal healthcare would be fairly small, the bulk of it will come from redistributing money that is already collected. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

2 minutes ago, Musicisfreedom said:

I actually have a question about this. And it may sound stupid, bare with me.

How much of an increase on taxes would that be? And also, how much money do you have to make to even be affected by that? A lot of people group me and my family into the middle class even tho with three incomes we still live check to check and hardly have any free money. I'm leaning towards Bernie, but I want to fully understand everything. Sorry if I sound stupid.

I know you didn't quote me, but I'll respond a bit  

His biggest proposals - Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, Cancelling Student Debt,  will not impact middle class Americans for the most part.

Medicare for All has a 4% tax on incomes above $29,000, but at the offset of no longer having to pay for premiums, co-payments, deductibles, and out of pocket expenses. It also puts an annual cap on prescription drug costs at $200/yr. I do not know how much your family earns and spends on health care and insurance a year, but an average family of 4 pays around $10,000 a year but it can be as high as $20-30,000 as well on health insurance. That means that that 4% tax on income would leave you saving thousands of dollars a year up until you reach an income around $250,000 or more, at which point you would begin to pay slightly more, but at the benefit of having fully comprehensive coverage + no bureaucracy of dealing with paperwork, surprise billings, etc. It would still be free at the point of purchase

(That # would be lower if you were a single healthy person with no children or dependents and a very successful career and the highest quality of insurance from your employer. Then it would balance out around $125,000 ish, last I checked)

The Green New Deal is funded by a combination of taxes and fees and the elimination of subsidies. on the fossil fuel industry and revenue from an emerging market. It also reallocates money that is currently spent on scaling back our militaries protection and monitoring of the global oil supply. It also projects savings based on reducing the need of some social safety programs under a more robust unionized system with a federal jobs guarantee and taxes on corporations. None of this affects the vast majority of Americans in their actual taxes they see at the end of the year and out of their paychecks.

Cancelling Student Debt is paid for by a 0.05% tax on wall street speculation. Some people believe that this will hurt the average American, but the Average American does not own stocks, and I have seen just as much pushback from economists and stock people who argue that the effects of a 0.05% tax on this is not enough to significantly even be noticeably in how it affects mainstreet things like pensions etc. While it is true that a slight majority (like 50-55%) of Americans own some stake in the stock market, the vast majority of those holdings are accountable to the top 10% financial bracket, and it is even more stratified as you look at the tops of the top percentiles (So effectively, the people hurt by this will be wealthy and self-trading people)

[PartySick 173,157]

26 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I do think that the flaws of capitalism are more blatant and egregious

Yes X1000

Far too many people are allowed to slip through the cracks in capitalist states. Every man for himself means a lot of people left behind.

[Musicisfreedom 5,837]

@PartySick @ItsTommyBitch @Franz Ferdinand thanks so much for replying and not making me feel stupid. I appreciate it so much. Your answers were so helpful

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

49 minutes ago, Franz Ferdinand said:

Of course you'll have to increase taxes. But that is the whole point of taxes: you give money to the State, which it uses to pay for state-given benefits (aka healthcare, education, social security, unemployment aid, etc.). Would the amount of taxes people need to pay increase? Yes, of course. Not that of the lower bracket, but for intermediate and higher brackets then, it MUST increase in order to bring in an extra 30 trillion through the next decade. But the overall benefits of these social programs contribute to 1) a stronger job market (less people sick, more people with access to education, overall a strengthened workforce), 2) a long-term narrowing of the wealth gap. How do we know these things? Because quite literally every other MEDC that has switched to a universal healthcare system has seen these overall benefits. There's a precedent. So why the US would be any different? Y'all ain't special.

Lol ...

So everyone who is on board with Bernie has no problem reducing their income for 'Medicare for all'

Meaning...

by this explination...

Everyone who is trying to get ahead and save for the future now has less money because the lower income can't afford health care ...

….

And the uneducated get a boost in coverage ..

The rich will add extra cost and reduce expenses to their business .. so lower wages for middle class...

Rich stay rich … po get health coverage … middle class disappear ...

 

Good Plan ...

 

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

1 minute ago, PartySick said:

Yes X1000

Far too many people are allowed to slip through the cracks in capitalist states. Every man for himself means a lot of people left behind.

I think a lot of people are really just culturally afraid of socialism, which I mean makes sense given the way our culture raises people to fear it and tries to stamp it out all over the world + red scare stuff in the U.S. + west,... but we already know that Capitalism is fundamentally, as in, inherent to the way that it operates, a system that according to this basic definition "...an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." has no interest in human prosperity  
 Capitalism can only work without consistent massive social upheaval and discord by either having strong regulations or by being authoritarian and or non consensual. Reducing those regulations quite directly does result in social unrest and inequality, because a free market capitalist economy's "competition" must be about exclusion. The concept of an employer creating a market or industry by specifically undervaluing their workers and paying them less than the work they provide (that's "profit") is unsustainable at its core. Intentional or not, capitalism is thus incredibly conducive to institutions like racism, classism, sexism, etc. In fact, in America the bulk of our wealth, power and our institutions were built quite literally because of us stealing free labor from slaves at our founding. I would say that American capitalism is explicitly and inherently racist because of this, and we can not address class in America without addressing race, or vice versa. It is no accident that white families are worth over 10x what black families are. It's not about individuals, its about our system and what it was set up to do (which is why Reparations is important, its a direct way of addressing this root inequality that has never been set straight despite failed promises by the American government to the tunes of TRILLIONS of dollars of wealth and land at a modern valuation that has been deprived of from Black people

 Btw, THIS is in the spirit of what Kimberle-Crenshaw had in mind when she coined the "Intersectionality" term that so so many people misuse these days  

[Franz Ferdinand 2,359]

1 minute ago, Woolfsmck said:

Lol ...

So everyone who is on board with Bernie has no problem reducing their income for 'Medicare for all'

Meaning...

by this explination...

Everyone who is trying to get ahead and save for the future now has less money because the lower income can't afford health care ...

….

And the uneducated get a boost in coverage ..

The rich will add extra cost and reduce expenses to their business .. so lower wages for middle class...

Rich stay rich … po get health coverage … middle class disappear ...

 

Good Plan ...

 

 

Yeah, it's called living as part of a society and levelling the playing field, sweets.

[Franz Ferdinand 2,359]

1 minute ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I think a lot of people are really just culturally afraid of socialism, which I mean makes sense given the way our culture raises people to fear it and tries to stamp it out all over the world + red scare stuff in the U.S. + west,... but we already know that Capitalism is fundamentally, as in, inherent to the way that it operates, a system that according to this basic definition "...an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." has no interest in human prosperity  
 Capitalism can only work without consistent massive social upheaval and discord by either having strong regulations or by being authoritarian and or non consensual. Reducing those regulations quite directly does result in social unrest and inequality, because a free market capitalist economy's "competition" must be about exclusion. The concept of an employer creating a market or industry by specifically undervaluing their workers and paying them less than the work they provide (that's "profit") is unsustainable at its core. Intentional or not, capitalism is thus incredibly conducive to institutions like racism, classism, sexism, etc. In fact, in America the bulk of our wealth, power and our institutions were built quite literally because of us stealing free labor from slaves at our founding. I would say that American capitalism is explicitly and inherently racist because of this, and we can not address class in America without addressing race, or vice versa. It is no accident that white families are worth over 10x what black families are. It's not about individuals, its about our system and what it was set up to do (which is why Reparations is important, its a direct way of addressing this root inequality that has never been set straight despite failed promises by the American government to the tunes of TRILLIONS of dollars of wealth and land at a modern valuation that has been deprived of from Black people

 Btw, THIS is in the spirit of what Kimberle-Crenshaw had in mind when she coined the "Intersectionality" term that so so many people misuse these days  

Go off, sis. 

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

23 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

None of this affects the vast majority of Americans in their actual taxes they see at the end of the year and out of their paychecks

This is the biggest flaw in Bernie's plan ...

Everyone who earns a paycheck and pays taxes will be impacted .. 

this little tax here , fee there , expense is added into the total economy … 

its a domino effect .. 

Rich getting taxed means they raise prices on their products, and lower expenses...i.e wages … 

 

Luckily the vast majority of moderate economists see this and Bernie getting the nom, means 4 more years of  Trump ..

the fact is no moderate dem or even half way progress will vote for anything this far left...

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

3 minutes ago, Woolfsmck said:

Lol ...

So everyone who is on board with Bernie has no problem reducing their income for 'Medicare for all'

Meaning...

by this explination...

Everyone who is trying to get ahead and save for the future now has less money because the lower income can't afford health care ...

….

And the uneducated get a boost in coverage ..

The rich will add extra cost and reduce expenses to their business .. so lower wages for middle class...

Rich stay rich … po get health coverage … middle class disappear ...

 

Good Plan ...

 

 

My minimum wage job I just got will pay me ~ $30,000 after taxes. I have a somewhat failing kidney and take medication for hypertension that my parents have been paying for until I had to get off their health care plan. I also have student loans to pay for that are $300 a month and I'm about to go to grad school and get even more loans.

And you bet your ass I would pay $40 a year for universal health care not only for myself but for every single resident in this country, regardless of their job, their income, their social standing, their family, etc  

 

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

5 minutes ago, Franz Ferdinand said:

Yeah, it's called living as part of a society and levelling the playing field, sweets.

The lack of educated economist views here is shocking to me..

this will widen the gap .. much like California and New York … 

You have people donating millions of dollars to millionaire charities right next to 'middle' income people who can't save a dime … 

and the po stay po ..

People are exiting California in large number 'because' of pure liberal dominated policies … and still the supports blame conservative capitalism ...

 

its shocking to me. 

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

8 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

My minimum wage job I just got will pay me ~ $30,000 after taxes. I have a somewhat failing kidney and take medication for hypertension that my parents have been paying for until I had to get off their health care plan. I also have student loans to pay for that are $300 a month and I'm about to go to grad school and get even more loans.

And you bet your ass I would pay $40 a year for universal health care not only for myself but for every single resident in this country, regardless of their job, their income, their social standing, their family, etc  

 

I can see why you would benefit... 

the larger picture is much less accomidating .. 

Purely healthy people will see a reduction in their living standard to support this however ...

I haven't needed a doctor for anything other than a mandatory check up for my commercial driving status..

When I was injured , 'insurance' paid 40k to get be back to health … I haven't needed anything since ...

and the millions like me are wondering why we need to lower ourselves to support those who aren't when the current system is so corrupt and drained by abuse....

Spend more time on how the current system is used , and not one extra tax need be increased,  those in need will  get better served , and everyone gets a piece ..

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

25 minutes ago, Woolfsmck said:

I can see why you would benefit... 

the larger picture is much less accomidating .. 

Purely healthy people will see a reduction in their living standard to support this however ...

I haven't needed a doctor for anything other than a mandatory check up for my commercial driving status..

When I was injured , 'insurance' paid 40k to get be back to health … I haven't needed anything since ...

and the millions like me are wondering why we need to lower ourselves to support those who aren't when the current system is so corrupt and drained by abuse....

Spend more time on how the current system is used , and not one extra tax need be increased,  those in need will  get better served , and everyone gets a piece ..

No. They won't because you have to be making a substantial income AND currently spend almost nothing on healthcare to actually begin to pay more than you would in our current system   If you make $150,000-$200,000 year and have no dependents, I'm sorry, but to say that your living standard will go down because you're paying a few hundred or even a modest thousand more than what you do now at the end of the year is ABSURD. People that make that much money have disposable income in the vast majority of instances. When they do not, it is because of paying off of substantial loans and debts (take Doctors paying off student debt for an example) or terrible terrible management of income vs rent/living payments and they have the money to hire someone to help them do their taxes to save them thousands a year. I'll gladly recommend you one if that's your situation  

 Most people in America are making from $30-80,000 a year, not even $100k, and that puts them in a tax bracket where their average health care expenditures a year are in the realms of several thousand, regardless of their health and would likely save thousands or hundreds under M4A for better, more comprehensive coverage and health care.

But let's take what you said for a minute - even if you never go to the doctor, a single payer health care system would promote general health because preventative care in America is so woefully underutilized BECAUSE of our fear around the costs of healthcare. 

Let's take coronavirus and a great example someone made to me earlier. A young man who just came back from China thought he caught coronavirus, so he got himself tested. I do not remember if he did or he did not have it afterall, but he ended up being billed $3,000 just for the check ups. That is 6x the amount that the majority of americans have saved up in case of any type of financial emergency. I would be CRIPPLED by that bill coming out of nowhere, and most people would too. This person did the right thing by getting checked for it, the smart thing for his health and for society at large, and he is being punished for it financially. Most people in America have avoided going to the doctor when sick because of costs, its really a culturally uniting experience. When I am in school, I don't take sick days, I just fight through it, I never skipped class because of it in 8 years. Sometimes it got worse, sometimes it got better. I should have gone to the doctor every single time because I didn't know how it would turn out. For people who do not have insurance, this fear and gambling situation leads to death. Literally tens of thousands of deaths a year. Under M4A, people will no longer be disincentivized to visit the doctor for preventative care, and even healthy people will benefit.

Also.. privilege, it can't not come up. "Why should the more fortunate lower ourselves to help out the less fortunate" is IMO a really telling perspective to take. I can't really tell you that you must care about other people, only explain that the vast majority of Americans do NOT have that perspective, which is why Bernie is doing so well. Health care is consistently the #1 issue brought up by people in this election cycle, and the majority of people so far have supported this system in the way they have voted  Furthermore, M4A is not government run healthcare if you are trying to imply that it will become the VA or insert perceived ineffective government program here.

A public option would be a government program that is subject to underfunding, administrative oversight issues, and inefficiency.  Medicare for All however only shifts who is paying for their care your doctor provides from your insurance provider to the government. It is not government run, created, produced, etc. the same way that your doctors are not currently employees of Aetna, United Health, etc. - they are employees of their hospitals and clinics etc.. It is not socialized medicine, the government will not be running or producing anything.

And despite the rhetoric uttered by people like Pete Buttigieg, there is not a way to 1) substantially lower costs of health care and 2) guarantee health care to every American without getting rid of the private health insurance industry whose sole purpose is to profit off of human suffering. It is quite literally the *only* way. If you want to be Warren and say that the way we transition to single payer is variable, I'll accept that framing, but Pete's plan does no such thing.