***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[junglejim]

Is Bernie really increasing the amount of democrat voters though? For whatever he brings in new democrat voters, it seems as if he loses more conservative leaning democrats/centrist republicans. There weren't more voters in 2016 than when Obama ran, and by all accounts initial polling is showing the same voter turnout in these democratic primaries as 2016 so I have a hard time believing that Bernie is bringing in huge numbers because it seems to net out in the end. It's part of the reason why Pete won Iowa. Bernie had the largest amount of initial voters, but Pete ended up getting a huge uptick in the remaining crowd that didn't want to go to Bernie. Bernie is extremely popular with the hardcore left but maybe I don't see him doing well with the center leaning americans versus Trump which I think ends up being a huge issue as well.

Like in the general election when Fox news and Trump starts hammering that Bernie is going to increase peoples taxes due to his healthcare proposals, do people really think Bernie isn't going to lose a ton of votes? He has had it pretty easy in these debates because no one is really pushing the subject because no one really wants to lay out how these things are going to get paid for other than saying tax the rich.

 

[IATT]

 

[-Red-]

Pretty much anything about any of his plans. Beside the vague generality of paying for a $95 Trillion dollar plan by making the rich pay their fair share, none of it really seems to do anything to really reduce costs. The "free healthcare" he is touting is an income based premium of 4%. Right now I pay about $2-3K in healthcare costs so the premium based payment will, at least for me, double my health insurance costs which counteracts his general points that it will be more efficient by eliminating the middle man, not to mention it doesnt really make sense to have a premium based on wages versus age. I'm sure as hell not going to need the same medical coverage as someone who is twice my age in the same income brackets.

Not to mention the cost of it is like $30 Trillion dollars so just the medicare portion of it will largely be paid for by making the rich pay their fair share. Plus the plan comes with an additional 7.5% tax paid by employers.

Like his own estimates of "making the rich pay for their fair share" only account for 1/10th of what is needed to pay for it over a 10 year window

And this is just for the health care proposal and he still hasn't come up with a plan on how to fund the rest of the $30T dollars. So all-in-all, for JUST healthcare there is a 4% income based premium on individuals, 7.5% new payroll tax for employers, a 15% increase in in the highest marginal tax rates, and an additional wealth tax and it still wont be enough to fund the plan so its going to need 60 votes in the senate which is going to be damn near impossible. Like one of his revenue raisers of a trillion dollars was taxing offshore profits which is what they did in 2017 to pay for a portion of the tax cuts so that option is gone now too.

Like how the hell is he going to pay for social security increases which are going to be just as costly? You can't really raise the tax rates more than the amounts proposed above or people will either engage in serious tax scams or re-domesticate. Some mentioned a proposed idea of doubling the payroll tax to 27% , so there would effectively be a payroll tax increase of 20% on just payroll alone when you factor in medicare and social security. I'm assuming at some point he raises the federal corporate rate back to 35% which is one of the highest rates in the world and would be an additional 14% tax increase. Corporations arent going to just sit back and pay an extra 34% tax than what they pay now. They are just going to offshore jobs and then import into the US.

And this is just for social security and health care. Nothing for his $17T green deal, nothing for college for all, nothing for his housing plans.

I'm 100% for all of these ideas, but it seems to me like his solution is dumping a **** load of money into programs that have proven over time that they do not work and it feels like it will set democrats back another decade. It's irresponsible to put all these ideas as the baseline of what he is going to do knowing damn well there is zero percent chance they all get passed.

But regardless, **** trump and im still voting straight down the line democrat in the election but Bernies plans are at best a pipe dream.

If you're 100% for the ideas, why do you characterizing the plans as simply doubling down on "programs that have proven over time they do not work"? Which of Medicare for All, free public college, the Green New Deal, or any of his other plans have we implemented and found that they "don't work"?

If corporations are going to simply skirt their tax obligations if they were raised, do you think they're not doing so already? They're going to do that regardless of what the tax laws are. Should we just accept this? Should it be the determining factor in how we shape our tax laws? On this note, I also have more faith in a Bernie DOJ to prosecute these tax-dodgers than I would any other candidate. In fact, outside of Warren, I don't think any of the other Democratic candidates would have the slightest interest in doing so.

Sure, at this point none of these proposals have the support in Congress to get passed. But guess what? Neither do any of the other watered-down proposals from any of the other Democratic candidates. Nothing they're talking about is going to win in the Senate, so why should we care so much about that at this point?

 

[RustyShackleford]

If you're 100% for the ideas, why do you characterizing the plans as simply doubling down on "programs that have proven over time they do not work"? Which of Medicare for All, free public college, the Green New Deal, or any of his other plans have we implemented and found that they "don't work"?

If corporations are going to simply skirt their tax obligations if they were raised, do you think they're not doing so already? They're going to do that regardless of what the tax laws are. Should we just accept this? Should it be the determining factor in how we shape our tax laws? On this note, I also have more faith in a Bernie DOJ to prosecute these tax-dodgers than I would any other candidate. In fact, outside of Warren, I don't think any of the other Democratic candidates would have the slightest interest in doing so.

Sure, at this point none of these proposals have the support in Congress to get passed. But guess what? Neither do any of the other watered-down proposals from any of the other Democratic candidates. Nothing they're talking about is going to win in the Senate, so why should we care so much about that at this point?

So let me ask. If the Dems do get the Senate, at it is reconciliation time. You really want Sanders to try to push M4A instead of a ACA fix?

 

[dwalk31]

Is Bernie really increasing the amount of democrat voters though? For whatever he brings in new democrat voters, it seems as if he loses more conservative leaning democrats/centrist republicans. There weren't more voters in 2016 than when Obama ran, and by all accounts initial polling is showing the same voter turnout in these democratic primaries as 2016 so I have a hard time believing that Bernie is bringing in huge numbers because it seems to net out in the end. It's part of the reason why Pete won Iowa. Bernie had the largest amount of initial voters, but Pete ended up getting a huge uptick in the remaining crowd that didn't want to go to Bernie. Bernie is extremely popular with the hardcore left but maybe I don't see him doing well with the center leaning americans versus Trump which I think ends up being a huge issue as well.

Like in the general election when Fox news and Trump starts hammering that Bernie is going to increase peoples taxes due to his healthcare proposals, do people really think Bernie isn't going to lose a ton of votes? He has had it pretty easy in these debates because no one is really pushing the subject because no one really wants to lay out how these things are going to get paid for other than saying tax the rich.

The difference is that most democrats would vote for Bernie over Trump. But if Bernie doesn’t win the nomination, then a lot of his supporters might protest and not vote. I think that happened a good bit last time.

So, in that way, Bernie has the best shot at unifying the left to get rid of Trump.

 

[RustyShackleford]

BTW, the ACA was the most progressive healthcare plan that Obama could have gotten passed at the time.

Clinton tried to take over the healthcare industry. He didn't get anywhere close to Obama, and he failed spectacularly.

Dems turned to a hybrid fix with subsidized private plans because they had a long history of failing to past universal single payer.

Some of my friends love to peddle this alternative history where Obama sold out people to health insurance companies to block single payer. I just call them low information to their face after the spit dem delusional bars.

 

[junglejim]

If you're 100% for the ideas, why do you characterizing the plans as simply doubling down on "programs that have proven over time they do not work"? Which of Medicare for All, free public college, the Green New Deal, or any of his other plans have we implemented and found that they "don't work"?

If corporations are going to simply skirt their tax obligations if they were raised, do you think they're not doing so already? They're going to do that regardless of what the tax laws are. Should we just accept this? Should it be the determining factor in how we shape our tax laws? On this note, I also have more faith in a Bernie DOJ to prosecute these tax-dodgers than I would any other candidate. In fact, outside of Warren, I don't think any of the other Democratic candidates would have the slightest interest in doing so.

Sure, at this point none of these proposals have the support in Congress to get passed. But guess what? Neither do any of the other watered-down proposals from any of the other Democratic candidates. Nothing they're talking about is going to win in the Senate, so why should we care so much about that at this point?

1.) I was talking medicare and social security which are both currently poorly funded programs which are going to be the biggest cost drivers of his programs. I think that was pretty apparent since that was the only portion of his plans that he has an actual proposal to pay for.

The net benefit I will likely get from social security (if its there when I retire) is likely close to what I actually pay into social security over a 30 year span. Last year I paid $6,000 in social security tax. Extrapolate that over 30 years and that roughly $180K. The average benefit from social security is anywhere from $150K-300K depending on an individuals average lifespan. All-in-all there is a good possibility that I pay more into social security than the benefit I receive, and its definitely far less than I would receive had that income just been invested into an individual retirement account. By all accounts, just investing that same amount of money into an IRA would have given me 10 times the retirement benefit, but our government doesn't know how to use its greatest asset which is time. If we put a one time payment of $4K into an IRA account for every newborn in the nation, that amount would grow to anywhere from $170K-$300k by 65 based on a 4-7% rate of return which is similar to what the current social security benefit it. Based on 4M newborns that are born a year, that would cost $16B a year to do. We could fund the next 60 years worth of retirements in the country doing that for the cost of what we spend in a single year because our government is too inefficient to not just run a gigantic ponzi scheme. Medicare is largely the same issue and is rampant with fraud.

The reason most insurance companies make a profit is because they proactively invest premiums to payout claims in the future which is far more efficient than taking tax dollars in the current year to pay for claims in the current year. For the most part, insurance companies are just as much investment entities as they are insurance providers and facilitators. Bernie says we are going to increase efficiency by getting rid of the profits from the middle-man insurance companies, but most of those profits are just the investment of premiums which exceed claims. All we are doing is getting rid of more efficient entities for less efficient entities without actually tackling the problem which is the cost of healthcare providers and drug prescriptions. Unless they are putting a massive cap on what hospitals can charge and making a standardized cost structure which current medicare does not do then this system isn't going to be any more efficient.

For this reason I say we are just doubling down on inefficient programs, but please tell me what you think is great about the current medicare and social security system.

2.) We started to see this during the Obama and Bush administration, but many corporations were starting to do corporate inversions meaning they would merge into a foreign corporations and re-domicile in a lower taxing jurisdiction. If you increase the tax rate back to 35% and increase the payroll tax by 20%, corporations are going to start doing that again in droves. Right now the corporate rate is one of the lowest rates in the developed world so its happening much less frequently now than previously (still **** Trump and everything he stands for). There is absolutely nothing illegal about doing this so there is absolutely nothing you can prosecute them for absent any laws that say you can no longer do corporate mergers. Plus if you start taxing the **** out of payroll, what incentive does that give for business to pay for payroll in the US? Wages are already higher in the US than other countries, but if we make them even more expensive then it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what the future outcome is going to be.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I gonna be interesting if Sanders is running promising to pass M4A, but Senate candidates and swing House candidates are running on ACA public options.

 

[elpablo21]

 

[-Red-]

Ok

I generally agree with you it is just that I don't think his appeal in the places you outlined it that strong. Also, I think his appeal to marginal white voters is not strictly his economics.

Also, just like Trump's base can't elect him, Bernie's can't either. So that gives me zero comfort.

I mean, we can disagree on the strength of these arguments and/or how much impact we think they might have on the election. I was just piggybacking on your post in presenting arguments in favor of a Sanders candidacy.

And of course no candidate's base alone can elect them. My point was that Bernie has a larger base of incredibly committed, zealous supporters who will work tirelessly to get him elected than any other candidate. Biden is basically the antithesis of this. I mean, even Deuce, Biden's most vocal support in here, is offended at the notion that he might be excited by a Biden candidacy

 

[-Red-]

So let me ask. If the Dems do get the Senate, at it is reconciliation time. You really want Sanders to try to push M4A instead of a ACA fix?

That's a tough call.

If the option on the table was the one with automatic "public option" enrollment that is only superseded by opting out, I might lean toward compromise.

If the option was what I understand to be a more traditional buy-in public option, I would rather hold out.

 

[handullz]

BTW, the ACA was the most progressive healthcare plan that Obama could have gotten passed at the time.

Clinton tried to take over the healthcare industry. He didn't get anywhere close to Obama, and he failed spectacularly.

Dems turned to a hybrid fix with subsidized private plans because they had a long history of failing to past universal single payer.

Some of my friends love to peddle this alternative history where Obama sold out people to health insurance companies to block single payer. I just call them low information to their face after the spit dem delusional bars.

Obamacare was Romneycare, first. It’s a republican created structure.

and yet

Obamacare overview

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

Literally NO senate republicans voted for it

The Affordable Care Act passed the Senate 60-39 along party lines on December 24, 2009

I’m genuinely curious: why fix the ACA to accommodate republicans when they won’t even vote on THEIR OWN IDEA?

why try to work w/ the “other side” when they clearly don’t give af about working with you?

dead *** wanna know

 

[-Red-]

1.) I was talking medicare and social security which are both currently poorly funded programs which are going to be the biggest cost drivers of his programs. I think that was pretty apparent since that was the only portion of his plans that he has an actual proposal to pay for.

The net benefit I will likely get from social security (if its there when I retire) is likely close to what I actually pay into social security over a 30 year span. Last year I paid $6,000 in social security tax. Extrapolate that over 30 years and that roughly $180K. The average benefit from social security is anywhere from $150K-300K depending on an individuals average lifespan. All-in-all there is a good possibility that I pay more into social security than the benefit I receive, and its definitely far less than I would receive had that income just been invested into an individual retirement account. By all accounts, just investing that same amount of money into an IRA would have given me 10 times the retirement benefit, but our government doesn't know how to use its greatest asset which is time. If we put a one time payment of $4K into an IRA account for every newborn in the nation, that amount would grow to anywhere from $170K-$300k by 65 based on a 4-7% rate of return which is similar to what the current social security benefit it. Based on 4M newborns that are born a year, that would cost $16B a year to do. We could fund the next 60 years worth of retirements in the country doing that for the cost of what we spend in a single year because our government is too inefficient to not just run a gigantic ponzi scheme. Medicare is largely the same issue and is rampant with fraud.

The reason most insurance companies make a profit is because they proactively invest premiums to payout claims in the future which is far more efficient than taking tax dollars in the current year to pay for claims in the current year. For the most part, insurance companies are just as much investment entities as they are insurance providers and facilitators. Bernie says we are going to increase efficiency by getting rid of the profits from the middle-man insurance companies, but most of those profits are just the investment of premiums which exceed claims. All we are doing is getting rid of more efficient entities for less efficient entities without actually tackling the problem which is the cost of healthcare providers and drug prescriptions. Unless they are putting a massive cap on what hospitals can charge and making a standardized cost structure which current medicare does not do then this system isn't going to be any more efficient.

For this reason I say we are just doubling down on inefficient programs, but please tell me what you think is great about the current medicare and social security system.

2.) We started to see this during the Obama and Bush administration, but many corporations were starting to do corporate inversions meaning they would merge into a foreign corporations and re-domicile in a lower taxing jurisdiction. If you increase the tax rate back to 35% and increase the payroll tax by 20%, corporations are going to start doing that again in droves. Right now the corporate rate is one of the lowest rates in the developed world so its happening much less frequently now than previously (still **** Trump and everything he stands for). There is absolutely nothing illegal about doing this so there is absolutely nothing you can prosecute them for absent any laws that say you can no longer do corporate mergers. Plus if you start taxing the **** out of payroll, what incentive does that give for business to pay for payroll in the US? Wages are already higher in the US than other countries, but if we make them even more expensive then it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what the future outcome is going to be.

Well, Social Security is probably the most successful social welfare programs in the history of the country. It has saved tens, perhaps even hundreds, of millions of people from abject poverty and starvation. So that's what I think is so great about Social Security.

Medicare has played a similar role with older adults with respect to healthcare. And Medicare for All would be exponentially more comprehensive than current Medicare coverage.

If your second point is that capital has a poisonous stranglehold on the U.S. and global economies that will be difficult to mount even a nominal challenge to, I agree with you. Where I disagree is with the notion that our response should be to acquiesce and accept that reality as inevitable.

But if you're pitching privatizing Social Security, I'm gonna guess we're probably pretty far apart in our political visions. Maybe not, though.

 

[RustyShackleford]

That's a tough call.

If the option on the table was the one with automatic "public option" enrollment that is only superseded by opting out, I might lean toward compromise.

If the option was what I understand to be a more traditional buy-in public option, I would rather hold out.

This illuminates a serious concern I have about M4A advocates. So Sanders holds out for a better deal. And if the reconciliation period ends with not deal we will have to accept the collateral damage for a no deal. And roll the dice on John Roberts not striking down the entire law.

Because if the ACA is not constitutional at the time of reconciliation, you will now need 60 votes to get anything done. Including reestablishing the ACA with a mandate.

I just hope M4A advocates got a plan if that happens. Besides calls for some politicial revolution.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Obamacare was Romneycare, first. It’s a republican created structure.

and yet

Obamacare overview

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

Literally NO senate republicans voted for it



I’m genuinely curious: why fix the ACA to accommodate republicans when they won’t even vote on THEIR OWN IDEA?

why try to work w/ the “other side” when they clearly don’t give af about working with you?

dead *** wanna know

Romneycare was not Mitt Romney's plan. It got that nickname because he was Governor when the bill was passed. The Dems had a supermajority in the Massachusetts Congress. Mitt thought the supermajority would break but it didn't. The Dem hired Jonathan Gruber to write the plan, they passed it, Romney vetoed parts of it, the Dems overturned the vetoes.

Obama started tying the plan to Romney to expose the GOP's hypocrisy to compromise. Romney touted him being able to compromise in his 2008 run. In 2012 Mitt ran on destroying the ACA.

If it is Republican plan, show me the red states that passed similar plans before the ACA?

McCain had a healthcare reform plan that was way different than the ACA.

The ACA was not a Republican plan.

And who the **** said anything about working with the other side? Whether the Dems have 51 or 60 votes in the Senate, the votes are not there for M4A. So it is about compromising with people within your own party.

 

[Belgium]

 

[junglejim]

Well, Social Security is probably the most successful social welfare programs in the history of the country. It has saved tens, perhaps even hundreds, of millions of people from abject poverty and starvation. So that's what I think is so great about Social Security.

Medicare has played a similar role with older adults with respect to healthcare. And Medicare for All would be exponentially more comprehensive than current Medicare coverage.

If your second point is that capital has a poisonous stranglehold on the U.S. and global economies that will be difficult to mount even a nominal challenge to, I agree with you. Where I disagree is with the notion that our response should be to acquiesce and accept that reality as inevitable.

But if you're pitching privatizing Social Security, I'm gonna guess we're probably pretty far apart in our political visions. Maybe not, though.

I agree that social security is a great program for the people who don't invest their own money, but its poorly run and will likely run out by 2040. I also disagree that social security is saving millions of people from poverty. By all accounts most people currently on social security are living in poverty wages because the social security benefit rarely gets increased beyond a cost of living increase.

I don't even care if its government run, but investing something for 65 years will always be more efficient and better off than taking a dollar today to pay for a dollar today. Hell, have the government invest individual accounts in treasury bonds, I don't give a damn, but no one is going to convince me that doing nothing with the money is going to be a better option than being proactive with it. Its a similar concept as life insurance. You can buy an extremely cheap life insurance policy that pays out a million dollars at age 20 for like $15 bucks a month. If you try to do the same thing at age 65 its going to cost exponentially more because you have lost that investing power. Right now the social security trust fund is earning approximately the same interest as a bank account which is pretty much nothing.

To your point of not acquiescing to corporations, then what's the alternative? If we raise taxes at an exponential rate and good jobs leave, then what has that really done for us? Corporations will always do what's in their best interests and if its a choice between a competitive tax rate and the highest rate in the developed world then corporations are more often than not going to choose the competitive rate which is just going to offset the additional proposed revenue of these plans. It's not illegal to do what's in your best interest so I'm not really sure what the alternative is other than hoping that corporations will suddenly become good corporate stewards.

 

[mplsdunk]

I want to see Bernie win just to see everyone lose their god damn minds.

I feel like his heart is in the right place, who knows what he could really change but the trump snowflakes tears would be flowing for sure.

Bernie is old as hell but he’s quick witted and doesn’t seem senile like Biden.

 

[junglejim]

I want to see Bernie win just to see everyone lose their god damn minds.

I feel like his heart is in the right place, who knows what he could really change but the trump snowflakes tears would be flowing for sure.

Bernie is old as hell but he’s quick witted and doesn’t seem senile like Biden.

Literally anything is better than trump. Y'all can elect the ******* border wall he is building for president and it would still be an upgrade.

 

[mplsdunk]

Literally anything is better than trump. Y'all can elect the ****ing border wall he is building for president and it would still be an upgrade.

idk about that though. Yeah he’s a corrupt POS for sure but I think we could still do worse.

like bible thumping pence.

border wall is a hoax, it’s getting blown over and used to scrap metal.

trump probably is using cheap scab labor instead of union.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Social Security is not a savings account for seniors, it is a basic income program that we pay as we go.

Social Security is facing a mayor benefit cut if it doesn't get more revenue. It is not facing insolvency.

It is saving many from poverty.

Social Security should not be privatized.

When can debate not expanding it, but cutting it ain't really the move unless you do it in a smart way. No one ever talking about doing it a smart way.

There is a lot of space between taxing corporations to death and letting them continue to plunder at will. It is not a binary choice.

 

[RustyShackleford]

My word, who could have ever saw this coming.

 

[junglejim]

Social Security is not a savings account for seniors, it is a basic income program that we pay as we go.

Social Security is facing a mayor benefit cut if it doesn't get more revenue. It is not facing insolvency.

It is saving many from poverty.

Social Security should not be privatized.

When can debate not expanding it, but cutting it ain't really the move unless you do it in a smart way. No one ever talking about doing it a smart way.

There is a lot of space between taxing corporations to death and letting them continue to plunder at will. It is not a binary choice.

Im not saying to privatize it or get rid of it. I'm merely talking about taking excess cash and investing it proactively. I couldn't care less whether its done by employees hired by the government or contracted out. Either will be far more efficient than taking it and not doing a damn thing to make the balance grow. Its a great program, but absent any future legislation the trust fund reserves will deplete by 2032. At that point there will be no excess cash to pay claims and the current year payments will be solely based on amounts received by the government in the current year which is likely result in drastic cuts to current year benefits.

Just because a program has been run inefficiently for 80 years doesn't mean it needs to keep being run inefficiently because that's that way its always been done.

 

[ajiiiplatinum]

I'm genuinely curious, what's the appeal of Bernie Sanders?

One word:
INTEGRITY

 

[RustyShackleford]

Im not saying to privatize it or get rid of it. I'm merely talking about taking excess cash and investing it proactively. I couldn't care less whether its done by employees hired by the government or contracted out. Either will be far more efficient than taking it and not doing a damn thing to make the balance grow. Its a great program, but absent any future legislation the trust fund reserves will deplete by 2032. At that point there will be no excess cash to pay claims and the current year payments will be solely based on amounts received by the government in the current year which is likely result in drastic cuts to current year benefits.

Just because a program has been run inefficiently for 80 years doesn't mean it needs to keep being run inefficiently because that's that way its always been done.

The problem is not really the social security system itself. It has been because Presidents, especially Republican presidents, have been dipping into the funds to pay for **** that has nothing to do with Social Security.

From my understanding it was monstly a pay-as-you-go system until Reagan pushed for tax hikes to create a trust for when baby boomers would retire. Then we started dipping into the fund for other **** (To my understanding we dipped into it beforehand too)

Anyway, if we want to avoid the benefit cut, we can just uncap the payroll tax. That also gives an opportunity to make the tax code more progressive.

Imo, the structure of Social Security doesn't need reforming. The management of it does.