Alexandria, The New Direction Of The Democrats

[TPS]

The point I was responding to is that socialism impoverishes countries. Are they poor? Are the  many countries with universal healthcare and higher tax rates than the US poor?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

4 minutes ago, TPS said:

The point I was responding to is that socialism impoverishes countries. Are they poor? Are the  many countries with universal healthcare and higher tax rates than the US poor?

 

Q:

 

Are any of them heterogeneous nations of 300 milliion-plus people that already have a national debt in the trillions of dollars?

 

Maybe socialism won't impoverish them. It would impoverish us.

 

[TPS]

52 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Which is why you can't socialize demand and leave the supply free-market.  If you do, costs skyrocket beyond what your socialized "insurance" can pay.  You can't manage only half the equation.

Would you describe current supply as free market?

to your point, like any market, you can’t create a ****-load of demand without consequences. I’m sure a system could be designed to phase it in over time. One example being pushed is to expand Medicare, lowering the eligible age e.g. 

[row_33]

i guess LBJ coulda put in a healthcare program, but McNamara's little charts showed how Vietnam was easily winnable the following week, and the one after that....

 

[TPS]

5 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Q:

 

Are any of them heterogeneous nations of 300 milliion-plus people that already have a national debt in the trillions of dollars?

 

Maybe socialism won't impoverish them. It would impoverish us.

 

As I started out with, we choose to spend trillions on endless war and dysfunctional advanced weaponry. We also currently spend more on healthcare than any other advanced country. It’s more a policy choice than a financial choice. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, TPS said:

As I started out with, we choose to spend trillions on endless war and dysfunctional advanced weaponry. We also currently spend more on healthcare than any other advanced country. It’s more a policy choice than a financial choice. 

 

And your fellow democrats would have us spend MORE on war and weaponry. Especially against Russia. How does that make you feel?

 

 

Edited July 19, 2018 by joesixpack

[TPS]

2 hours ago, joesixpack said:

 

And your fellow democrats would have us spend MORE on war and weaponry. Especially against Russia. How does that make you feel?

 

 

I'm an independent. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

4 minutes ago, TPS said:

I'm an independent. 

 

mhm.

 

[IDBillzFan]

5 minutes ago, TPS said:

I'm an independent. 

 

I think 'independent' is what liberals call themselves when they aren't quite ready to openly admit they love the DNC's new position of socialism for all.

 

 

Edited July 19, 2018 by LABillzFan

[row_33]

independent means liberal and can't admit it

 

conservatives say their are so, but they want some level of safety established to admit it

 

saying one is "neutral" is self-delusion, there no "baby's mystical ride on a third wave" out there

 

 

[DC Tom]

5 minutes ago, row_33 said:

independent means liberal and can't admit it

 

conservatives say their are so, but they want some level of safety established to admit it

 

saying one is "neutral" is self-delusion, there no "baby's mystical ride on a third wave" out there

 

 

 

I'm independent.  I'm certainly not liberal.

[row_33]

13 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I'm independent.  I'm certainly not liberal.

 

you are conservative....

 

 

[B-Man]

3 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

you are conservative....

 

 

 

 

 

.............Take Cover !!

 

.

[row_33]

10 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

.............Take Cover !!

 

.

 

it was high praise!!!!

 

 

[keepthefaith]

I think we need a party called The Math Party.  This party will simply run on and govern by the numbers.

[DC Tom]

13 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

you are conservative....

 

 

 

You haven't been here long enough.  I'm the worlds only Zionist Nazi Communist.  

6 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

I think we need a party called The Math Party.  This party will simply run on and govern by the numbers.

 

I've given serious thought to founding the "Rationality Party."  The platform would be "I don't care what you believe, I only care what you can prove."  Otherwise open to all, regardless of - or in addition to - other party affiliations.  

 

Membership via PGP-style signup: any member may sign up another member, but they are certifying that new member's ability to form and defend an opinion on a rational, fact-based basis.  Establishes a rationality certification chain all the way up to the root RCA - in this case, me.

[TPS]

51 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

I think 'independent' is what liberals call themselves when they aren't quite ready to openly admit they love the DNC's new position of socialism for all.

 

 

As I started with, had this been a white male, then the DNC would've ignored it. What does "socialism for all" mean?  

[keepthefaith]

1 minute ago, TPS said:

As I started with, had this been a white male, then the DNC would've ignored it. What does "socialism for all" mean?  

 

It means free smart phones for all with dating, rideshare, zuckerface, safe space, UBI and rescue dog apps included. 

[TPS]

54 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

mhm.

 

As I told you before, the DNC and HRC are not "liberals." Bernie and Ocasio represent the liberal left, which is my territory....

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

35 minutes ago, TPS said:

As I told you before, the DNC and HRC are not "liberals." Bernie and Ocasio represent the liberal left, which is my territory....

 

on that at least we can agree.

 

[GG]

18 hours ago, TPS said:

In the richest country in the world, the so-called "socialists" are people who push policies in support of the poor and working class. In the current system, the wealthiest have used their influence to push policies in support of their interests.

 

Universal healthcare, cheap tuition, childcare, job guarantee, etc. are not radical ideas, and they are no less doable economically than endless ME conflicts, 800 overseas military bases, the F-35, and on and on....

 

I'm sure that 3% of GDP that's spent on DoD (2/3 of which is personnel costs) really has an effect whether to nationalize healthcare

[B-Man]

 

 

More on "She Guavera"

 

 

........Lib response.......so what ?

 

 

[billsfan89]

4 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Which is why you can't socialize demand and leave the supply free-market.  If you do, costs skyrocket beyond what your socialized "insurance" can pay.  You can't manage only half the equation.

 

But you aren't socializing demand. The demand for healthcare exists as inherent to human nature because everyone will need it to some degree. Socializing demand would be only allowing people to access X amount regardless of need (Equality of outcome.) In a single payer system you are allowing the healthcare providers the ability to assess access to care based off of need and not economics. Right now we let insurance bureaucrats decide the level of care that is needed, I would rather put those decisions in the hands of doctors.

 

You are making the payment of it through taxes as opposed to private insurance. The question is what is the best method to pay for the care? The demand for care remains static no matter which system you are using, yes you would open up access to care by making the payment public. But once again I would argue that the costs and manpower saved by billing and the access to preventative care would far exceed the risk of rationing care (Which we already are rationing care along economic lines.) I don’t see any private model that reduces billing and addresses the need for preventative care. Then there is the economic issues of healthcare being a tremendous advantage for larger business (who can group their plans together for increased savings) and the issues of freelancers and the self-employed being underinsured or uninsured making people going into business for themselves much harder.

 

My mom came from Iron Curtain Poland, she said everything in America was simply vastly better than Poland back then with the one exception being healthcare. She says that the healthcare system in Poland back then was actually better in how they treated people and she felt like American’s were so scared to see doctors because of costs. She always says that what good is great expensive medicine if no one knows how to access it. That should tell you that the privatized system is just inherently flawed.

[B-Man]

Quote

 

Slate‏Verified account @Slate

FollowFollow @Slate

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s gaffe is minor compared with the usual lies and ignorance in Congress: https://slate.trib.al/poljt7P 

 

 

 

Identical excuse used by Trump supporters.

[row_33]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

 

But you aren't socializing demand. The demand for healthcare exists as inherent to human nature because everyone will need it to some degree. Socializing demand would be only allowing people to access X amount regardless of need (Equality of outcome.) In a single payer system you are allowing the healthcare providers the ability to assess access to care based off of need and not economics. Right now we let insurance bureaucrats decide the level of care that is needed, I would rather put those decisions in the hands of doctors.

 

You are making the payment of it through taxes as opposed to private insurance. The question is what is the best method to pay for the care? The demand for care remains static no matter which system you are using, yes you would open up access to care by making the payment public. But once again I would argue that the costs and manpower saved by billing and the access to preventative care would far exceed the risk of rationing care (Which we already are rationing care along economic lines.) I don’t see any private model that reduces billing and addresses the need for preventative care. Then there is the economic issues of healthcare being a tremendous advantage for larger business (who can group their plans together for increased savings) and the issues of freelancers and the self-employed being underinsured or uninsured making people going into business for themselves much harder.

 

My mom came from Iron Curtain Poland, she said everything in America was simply vastly better than Poland back then with the one exception being healthcare. She says that the healthcare system in Poland back then was actually better in how they treated people and she felt like American’s were so scared to see doctors because of costs. She always says that what good is great expensive medicine if no one knows how to access it. That should tell you that the privatized system is just inherently flawed.

 

 

the demand isn't as fixed as you might think, people do not necessarily want a health care package

 

single payer would be best (I'm Canadian) but it's 60 years too late for putting that into the US

 

 

[DC Tom]

56 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

 

the demand isn't as fixed as you might think, people do not necessarily want a health care package

 

single payer would be best (I'm Canadian) but it's 60 years too late for putting that into the US

 

 

 

The demand for health care resources is determined by ability to pay.  

 

I'll admit, "socialize demand" was a poor choice of words on my part - I chose it specifically to highlight that you can't successfully implement half a socialist system.  But Jesus...people honestly don't understand that demand for health care isn't dictated by people wanting to be healthy, but people being able to afford to consume health care?  And if you make it so everyone can afford it but still have to bid on limited exclusive-use resources in a market system, the entire system collapses under the imbalance of pressure?  Didn't work for Soviet grain, didn't work for German steel, won't work for American health care.  You cannot control only half the supply-demand equation.  That is, and will continue to be, the problem with every "single payer" system promoted.

[row_33]

6 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

The demand for health care resources is determined by ability to pay.  

 

I'll admit, "socialize demand" was a poor choice of words on my part - I chose it specifically to highlight that you can't successfully implement half a socialist system.  But Jesus...people honestly don't understand that demand for health care isn't dictated by people wanting to be healthy, but people being able to afford to consume health care?  And if you make it so everyone can afford it but still have to bid on limited exclusive-use resources in a market system, the entire system collapses under the imbalance of pressure?  Didn't work for Soviet grain, didn't work for German steel, won't work for American health care.  You cannot control only half the supply-demand equation.  That is, and will continue to be, the problem with every "single payer" system promoted.

 

Yup, not gonna happen

[billsfan89]

8 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

 

the demand isn't as fixed as you might think, people do not necessarily want a health care package

 

single payer would be best (I'm Canadian) but it's 60 years too late for putting that into the US

 

 

 

The demand might not be static but everyone at some point with little exception will need access to healthcare. I think that most people would want at the very least a "catastrophic" health care package if they could afford it, no one wants to risk something like cancer and not being able to afford it and have it bankrupt themselves. 

I hear what you are saying about it being 60 years too late, the current healthcare system is deeply entrenched and very powerful. But I think that the dissatisfaction with the US system for the insane amount of money we put into it and the rather mediocre outcomes will only grow. There is only so much dissatisfaction you can tolerate. 

[row_33]

7 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The demand might not be static but everyone at some point with little exception will need access to healthcare. I think that most people would want at the very least a "catastrophic" health care package if they could afford it, no one wants to risk something like cancer and not being able to afford it and have it bankrupt themselves. 

I hear what you are saying about it being 60 years too late, the current healthcare system is deeply entrenched and very powerful. But I think that the dissatisfaction with the US system for the insane amount of money we put into it and the rather mediocre outcomes will only grow. There is only so much dissatisfaction you can tolerate. 

 

It’s like totally like mental, but a pocket of people don’t want health insurance.

 

young people decline it at work, some see it as a conspiracy, some don’t want to pay into it

 

If single and healthy with a strong family tree, I can sorta see this, but also people with kids...

 

almost like voluntary unemployment when you should be working

 

 

 

[row_33]

—————-

 

A pay check is hit for a good chunk on pension and healthcare which you can honestly argue is most likely worthless to you, that the extra gross income would be way more valuable to you.

 

 

 

[GG]

On 7/19/2018 at 12:05 AM, billsfan89 said:

Yes, everyone who works pays a payroll tax which funds Social Security and Medicare, the working poor also pay a sales tax on almost everything they buy as most states have some sort of sales taxes. Toss in fees and other state and local taxes like tolls, gas taxes and vice taxes and you will see that even that 40-45% that isn't paying federal income tax is paying a significant portion of their income towards taxes. Is what they get out greater than what they put in? In some cases, yes, but to say they are putting in 0 taxes and getting a lot out is inaccurate.

 

Which means they don't pay seven separate taxes, but a payroll tax.  And if they don't qualify for federal income tax payments, they very likely won't be paying any state income taxes either.

 

That's why you have an unsustainable fiscal model where 20% of the population pays nearly 90% of the income tax burden (and that share has been growing).  That's why it's a folly to always throw in Scandinavia as an example, because even though they have much higher tax rates, the tax burden is more evenly spread.  This is another aspect of the homogeneous society's shared history contributes to its "successful" socialism.   That has almost zero parallels to the US

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

6 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Which means they don't pay seven separate taxes, but a payroll tax.  And if they don't qualify for federal income tax payments, they very likely won't be paying any state income taxes either.

 

That's why you have an unsustainable fiscal model where 20% of the population pays nearly 90% of the income tax burden (and that share has been growing).  That's why it's a folly to always throw in Scandinavia as an example, because even though they have much higher tax rates, the tax burden is more evenly spread.  This is another aspect of the homogeneous society's shared history contributes to its "successful" socialism.   That has almost zero parallels to the US

 

 

Everyone pays the VAT in Europe.

 

 

[Nanker]

4 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Everyone pays the VAT in Europe.

 

 

25%. And their employers pay 38% Social Security taxes on their GROSS pay. Of course, it’s the American consumer who is actually paying that tax when they purchase their new Volvo. 

[GG]

11 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Everyone pays the VAT in Europe.

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Nanker said:

25%. And their employers pay 38% Social Security taxes on their GROSS pay. Of course, it’s the American consumer who is actually paying that tax when they purchase their new Volvo. 

And that is why EU is a perpetual economic basket case

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, GG said:

 

And that is why EU is a perpetual economic basket case

Compared to what? That's just stupid

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

14 minutes ago, Nanker said:

25%. And their employers pay 38% Social Security taxes on their GROSS pay. Of course, it’s the American consumer who is actually paying that tax when they purchase their new Volvo. 

 

Which is why I say over and over that trade with Europe is far more beneficial to them than it is to us.

 

[row_33]

each place has it's own geography and problems to deal with, and hopefully they figure out what course of action is best for them

 

and if they haven't figured out their own situation, don't bother telling us about ours....

 

[billsfan89]

1 hour ago, GG said:

 

Which means they don't pay seven separate taxes, but a payroll tax.  And if they don't qualify for federal income tax payments, they very likely won't be paying any state income taxes either.

 

That's why you have an unsustainable fiscal model where 20% of the population pays nearly 90% of the income tax burden (and that share has been growing).  That's why it's a folly to always throw in Scandinavia as an example, because even though they have much higher tax rates, the tax burden is more evenly spread.  This is another aspect of the homogeneous society's shared history contributes to its "successful" socialism.   That has almost zero parallels to the US

 

 

The reason 20% of the population pays 87% of the income tax burden is because they take in 52% of the total income. You could argue that the middle class could be taxed more but then there is the issue of making a tough economy even tougher for a shrinking middle class. The distribution of tax to income is thrown off a bell curve because of the middle class and not the working poor.

 

There is a flawed idea that the 45% of people that don't pay federal income tax could "pay their fair share" and contribute more. I remember seeing a study done around the time Obama was considering repealing the Bush tax cut for the top bracket that said that if you taxed the bottom 45% of earners a 100% tax rate it would only be about 10 billion dollars more than the tax revenue that the top earners got from the Bush tax cuts top bracket rate cut.

 

So I think if you are to take an honest look at evening out the distribution you have to look at middle-income people because the poor simply don't have a whole lot to contribute to the tax pool. 

 

As far as comparing the USA to Sweeden/Scandanivan nations, I think that there is a bit of a flawed and rather racist or at best racially biased talking point of it being a homogenous country. The USA has a very homogenous culture, we assimilate people so insanely well. I don't buy that as being any significant factor in why the USA can't adopt similar policies. 

 

Now I do think that the USA can not completely adopt the same level of social programs as those nations have is mainly due to the massive amount of military spending the US does as a percentage of GDP and the USA's military presence around the world lowering the burden on those nations for defense. I also think the USA's political system is completely owned and bought by special interests legally bribing pols. We can't get anything done that is at the expense of a large corporate entity because the influence will not get it. Not saying other nations do not have corruption but rather the level of corruption in the US is just at an insane level. 

Personally, I don't want to see the US adopt some of the more out there policies of the far left (The jobs guarantee being the biggest example) but we desperately need Universal Healthcare and some of the other more realistic policy prescriptions that come from the more populist left. We have been letting right wing nuts and corporate democrats !@#$ this nation over for too long. It just isn't sustainable. 

[row_33]

9 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The reason 20% of the population pays 87% of the income tax burden is because they take in 52% of the total income. You could argue that the middle class could be taxed more but then there is the issue of making a tough economy even tougher for a shrinking middle class. The distribution of tax to income is thrown off a bell curve because of the middle class and not the working poor.

 

There is a flawed idea that the 45% of people that don't pay federal income tax could "pay their fair share" and contribute more. I remember seeing a study done around the time Obama was considering repealing the Bush tax cut for the top bracket that said that if you taxed the bottom 45% of earners a 100% tax rate it would only be about 10 billion dollars more than the tax revenue that the top earners got from the Bush tax cuts top bracket rate cut.

 

So I think if you are to take an honest look at evening out the distribution you have to look at middle-income people because the poor simply don't have a whole lot to contribute to the tax pool. 

 

As far as comparing the USA to Sweeden/Scandanivan nations, I think that there is a bit of a flawed and rather racist or at best racially biased talking point of it being a homogenous country. The USA has a very homogenous culture, we assimilate people so insanely well. I don't buy that as being any significant factor in why the USA can't adopt similar policies. 

 

Now I do think that the USA can not completely adopt the same level of social programs as those nations have is mainly due to the massive amount of military spending the US does as a percentage of GDP and the USA's military presence around the world lowering the burden on those nations for defense. I also think the USA's political system is completely owned and bought by special interests legally bribing pols. We can't get anything done that is at the expense of a large corporate entity because the influence will not get it. Not saying other nations do not have corruption but rather the level of corruption in the US is just at an insane level. 

Personally, I don't want to see the US adopt some of the more out there policies of the far left (The jobs guarantee being the biggest example) but we desperately need Universal Healthcare and some of the other more realistic policy prescriptions that come from the more populist left. We have been letting right wing nuts and corporate democrats !@#$ this nation over for too long. It just isn't sustainable. 

 

don't give GG more than 30 seconds typing, not worth it.... trust this...

 

[billsfan89]

2 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

don't give GG more than 30 seconds typing, not worth it.... trust this...

 

 

As long as someone is not too insanely fargone I always enjoy seeing how others think. From what he has been replying I think he is reasonable enough (even if I vastly disagree) where there is actually something useful that could come from the conversation.