***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[junglejim]

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

I think we are saying the same thing here. The trust only earned 0.25% rate of return last year (and generally a rate far less than 1% for the last two decades).. That **** is being grossly mismanaged by just sitting there. Midas well just take that money and ******* burn it.

I agree with eliminating the cap, but there needs to be some sort of exclusion for small businesses.

 

[R9theGOAT]

 

[-Red-]

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.

But you do understand that the vast majority of people don't invest their own money, right? That they don't have money to invest? It sounds like you're in a great financial position, but most people are not. Social Security is literally saving millions of people from poverty every year, though I certainly agree it would be even better if benefits were expanded. I understand what you're saying about returns-on-investment, but there are many reasons why privatizing Social Security would be a very bad thing. One of those reasons is that it further empowers the capital class which you are already admitting is so powerful that any discussion of economic policy must consider whether this rather tiny number of people will be pleased or not and, if not, whether they might take actions that could potentially tank the economy. Do you really want to give them more power? On top of that, there are many things we could do to reform the program within the current policy framework, like uncapping contributions via payroll taxes.

As for what we can do about corporate power, that is the ultimate question and the conundrum in which we find ourselves. I think the most important thing is to offer public alternatives to the private market that enriches and empowers the capital class. That is a huge part of why things like Medicare for All, a federal jobs guarantee, the creation of public banking via post offices, free public higher education, and the revitalization of public housing and its expansion as non-means-tested "social housing" would be so monumental. But you're also right that successfully challenging capital is going to require the building of global solidarity, likely via transnational unions, the rewriting of trade policies to center the interests of workers and ecological considerations, etc.

 

[RustyShackleford]

This tweet is wrong, on many fronts.

It is worrying to me that the same alt-facts I had to correct right wingers like Ninja on 5 years ago, are not be brought up by the left.

I am worried the "Obama had a supermajority for two years" nonsense gonna pop off next.

 

[junglejim]

But you do understand that the vast majority of people don't invest their own money, right? That they don't have money to invest? It sounds like you're in a great financial position, but most people are not. Social Security is literally saving millions of people from poverty every year, though I certainly agree it would be even better if benefits were expanded. I understand what you're saying about returns-on-investment, but there are many reasons why privatizing Social Security would be a very bad thing. One of those reasons is that it further empowers the capital class which you are already admitting is so powerful that any discussion of economic policy must consider whether this rather tiny number of people will be pleased or not and, if not, whether they might take actions that could potentially tank the economy. Do you really want to give them more power? On top of that, there are many things we could do to reform the program within the current policy framework, like uncapping contributions via payroll taxes.

Again, im not saying to get rid of social security or privatize it. People paid into it their entire working lives. Its not an entitlement that the republicans like to consistently call it. All I'm saying is it would be easier to re-invest an excess reserve of cash currently earning nothing than it would be to raise taxes. Whether that comes in the form of the government employees to invest that cash and actual do something with it or contracting it out I dont really care. The solution to everything doesn't have to be to tax the **** out of people.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Biden really get screwed over by Bloomberg.

Joey must have smashed Mikey/'s chick back in the day.

 

[Nike Jordan]

It might be a wrap for Biden.

 

[junglejim]

It might be a wrap for Biden.

Yeah Biden is done. If he gets fourth in the primary tomorrow he should seriously consider dropping out.

It's kind of surprising to see Bloomberg up there though. Didn't he institute a stop and frisk policy in New York that was discriminatory as hell?

 

[dwalk31]

It might be a wrap for Biden.

Lol @ Bloomberg

 

[RustyShackleford]

It might be a wrap for Biden.

Steyer (in SC) and Bloomberg both been focusing on attracting black voters. Biden wrote them off as his firewall.

Bernie might have been right, he didn't need to increase his black support that much if it spits enough that it won't hurt him.

Btw, This is why Bloomberg is needed on the debate stage, dude's record is buried because no one has had a chance to call him out.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Yeah Biden is done. If he gets fourth in the primary tomorrow he should seriously consider dropping out.

It's kind of surprising to see Bloomberg up there though. Didn't he institute a stop and frisk policy in New York that was discriminatory as hell?

Yeah, but this might not be common knowledge to many voters. There has been very few attacks in Bloomberg, and he has not been on the debate stage.

 

[RustyShackleford]

It might be a wrap for Biden.

Pete at 4% with black folk...

 

[Nike Jordan]

Ironic that Goonberg not being in the debates has only elevated him...that and bombarding ads.

 

[youngogjosh]

Yeah, but this might not be common knowledge to many voters. There has been very few attacks in Bloomberg, and he has not been on the debate stage.

He's a smart devious ************ to enter the nomination process like he did.

 

[junglejim]

Ironic that Goonberg not being in the debates has only elevated him...that and bombarding ads.

I was thinking this too. People are roasting Mayo Pete for his South Bend policies and being backed by billionaires, but Bloomberg had some **** that was likely far worse and is a billionaire and is partially running because he thinks Warren and Bernie are too far left.

Bloomberg Defended Stop-and-Frisk for Years. He's Sorry? Give Me a Break

I clerked for the federal judge who ultimately found stop-and-frisk unconstitutional, and Bloomberg excoriated the ruling. There's no doubt in my mind his apology is insincere.

www.newsweek.com

Dude literally ran for Mayor as a republican, switched to an independent, and is now a democrat

 

[-Red-]

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.

I mean, I'm very concerned about a lot of things about the status quo and about what could happen in the future. The possibilities you're describing are by no means unique in that respect. I'm not saying you're wrong to be concerned, I'm just saying a world in which out healthcare system remains roughly the same with the exception that we have a buy-in public option is a world about which I would remain very concerned anyway. And the perils of conservative judges destroying that public option and any other mildly progressive victory remain, regardless.

 

[-Red-]

Again, im not saying to get rid of social security or privatize it. People paid into it their entire working lives. Its not an entitlement that the republicans like to consistently call it. All I'm saying is it would be easier to re-invest an excess reserve of cash currently earning nothing than it would be to raise taxes. Whether that comes in the form of the government employees to invest that cash and actual do something with it or contracting it out I dont really care. The solution to everything doesn't have to be to tax the **** out of people.

I hear you. I'm saying that investing the money in the market just further empowers capital. It also leaves people's retirement security to the boom-and-bust nature of the market. These are just not things that I'm comfortable with. But I understand your point.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I mean, I'm very concerned about a lot of things about the status quo and about what could happen in the future. The possibilities you're describing are by no means unique in that respect. I'm not saying you're wrong to be concerned, I'm just saying a world in which out healthcare system remains roughly the same with the exception that we have a buy-in public option is a world about which I would remain very concerned anyway. And the perils of conservative judges destroying that public option and any other mildly progressive victory remain, regardless.

I understand your concern about the long term prospects of healthcare reform. I share them. I don't think an ACA fix will be the last end of things. It is just that I don't view the different states America can be in without say M4A as roughly the same. Hell even M4A is not a panacea.

I think what I am describing is unique because it might very well be the reality we are facing come this time next year. Amend the ACA, or lose all of it. A pre-ACA word is a way worst state of affairs that the status quo right now. .

 

[-Red-]

I think what I am describing is unique because it might very well be the reality we are facing come this time next year. Amend the ACA, or lose all of it. A pre-ACA word is a way worst state of affairs that the status quo right now. .

I agree with that, but why would Bernie pushing M4A be the thing to kill off the ACA entirely?

 

[RustyShackleford]

I agree with that, but why would Bernie pushing M4A be the thing to kill off the ACA entirely?

Sooner of later the Supreme Court is gonna rule on the legal question regarding the ACA mandate, maybe as soon as 2021. So the fate of the law will be in John Roberts hands. If Sanders goes hold out, and walks away from the table, then he might be rolling the dice on Roberts doing the right thing.

And I don't trust John Roberts on doing the right thing.

So concerned is also because maintaining the status quo is not the only thing on the table. We could regress back into a even worst situation.

 

[junglejim]

I agree with that, but why would Bernie pushing M4A be the thing to kill off the ACA entirely?

The ACA was largely funded by a 3.6% tax on passive income in excess of $250K. I believe that was set to be repealed effective 2021 as part of the republican's budget cuts which largely guts funding to the ACA. To re-instate the ACA, they would likely create more than a $1.5T deficit over a 10 year span. As a result, they wouldn't be able to push through a funding bill by getting a simple majority vote in the senate, but would need 60 votes in the senate to make it pass. I think its called the Byrd rule and its pretty much how the republicans passed the tax cuts in 2017. Its also the reason why the individual tax cuts are set to sunset in 2026 because they needed to cut spending to get below the $1.5T 10-year deficit window so they could pass with a simple majority.

I could be wrong on whether that was what he was referring to though

 

[Wargames]

Lol @ Bloomberg

Jesus I had Bloomberg as a mayor...... you think Trump is a Oligarch and forces his will on people. Wait until you see 3 term Bloomberg in power.......

Jeez

 

[RustyShackleford]

The ACA was largely funded by a 3.6% tax on passive income in excess of $250K. I believe that was set to be repealed effective 2021 as part of the republican's budget cuts which largely guts funding to the ACA. To re-instate the ACA, they would likely create more than a $1.5T deficit over a 10 year span. As a result, they wouldn't be able to push through a funding bill by getting a simple majority vote in the senate, but would need 60 votes in the senate to make it pass. I think its called the Byrd rule and its pretty much how the republicans passed the tax cuts in 2017. Its also the reason why the individual tax cuts are set to sunset in 2026 because they needed to cut spending to get below the $1.5T 10-year deficit window so they could pass with a simple majority.

I could be wrong on whether that was what he was referring to though

I didn't hear about the Medicare tax being repealed. I know the mandate was put to zero with the tax cuts. So it was calculated I to the loss of revenue there

The Cadillac tax, health insurance tax, and medical devices tax got repealed in a bipartisan spending bill that got over 60 votes. So now budget restrictions there.

So in all I don't think the Dems are on the hook to refund all of the ACA, or it is voided. I mean they definitely will putting funding back in place, and funded it through taxes, but from my understanding whatever shortfalls the ACA has, deficit spending has to cover it.

 

[junglejim]

I didn't hear about the Medicare tax being repealed. I know the mandate was put to zero with the tax cuts. So it was calculated I to the loss of revenue there

The Cadillac tax, health insurance tax, and medical devices tax got repealed in a bipartisan spending bill that got over 60 votes. So now budget restrictions there.

So in all I don't think the Dems are on the hook to refund all of the ACA, or it is voided. I mean they definitely will putting funding back in place, and funded it through taxes, but from my understanding whatever shortfalls the ACA has, deficit spending has to cover it.

Yeah you are right. I misread it and thought the health insurance tax repeal was the repeal of the Net Investment Income tax.

 

[debso]

um, i'm interested in socialism and a revolution and am already aware that my ppl don't fit into this country (never have and never will), so...
I need Carville to stop listening to his wife on this one and I need him to remember that he is not black and that he does not and never will speak for black ppl. thanks.

the audacity to think and feel like he knows what black ppl want and that he could speak for black ppl is appalling. the idea that black ppl don't want the things progressives in the party want is ridiculous. the idea that a lot of young black ppl aren't far left is ridiculous.

tldr: ok, boomer.