Democratic 2020 Presidential Primary Thread

[3rdnlng]

10 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

To me, this is just the position of a frightened hermit.

 

Change isn't something that's ever fluid or easy.  It naturally comes with hiccups.  If you think I'm of the opinion that this would be easy, you're wrong.

 

Just because it's not easy doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

 

It amazes me sometimes people's (Republicans particularly) perspectives on what they'll pay for.  

 

Get rid of Social Security because it costs to much--from the retired dude already getting Social Security.

 

Don't tax me for public education!  I don't have kids! --from the 40 year old who'll live to see that crop of young people become his/her law enforcement officers, legislatures, senators, Presidents... etc.

 

Don't tax me for military spending!  --oh wait, that seems to be the one thing Republicans are good with getting taxed on.... along with the VA.

 

Highways/roads/bridges, law enforcement, fire departments, museums, prisons, salting and plowing our roads in winter, street lights, Amtrak, public parks, state and national monuments, Secret Service (and all those damn Golf outings and trips to Mara Largo by the President)...

 

 

I mean, seriously?  You think we have the perfect taxation system and it's at its saturation point right now?  You think we have our taxes perfectly allocated to all those publicly funded things that you're paying for?  Or you think you'd want to get rid of some or all of them?

 

 

What better way to spend a little more money in taxes than on the planet we have to leave in place for our children and their children?

 

Stop being such a cotton headed ninny muggins.

The Green New Deal would cause somewhere around a 300% increase in taxes. Do you think the poor, middle class or rich can bear that burden?

[snafu]

3 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

To me, this is just the position of a frightened hermit.

 

Change isn't something that's ever fluid or easy.  It naturally comes with hiccups.  If you think I'm of the opinion that this would be easy, you're wrong.

 

Just because it's not easy doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

 

It amazes me sometimes people's (Republicans particularly) perspectives on what they'll pay for.  

 

Get rid of Social Security because it costs to much--from the retired dude already getting Social Security.

 

Don't tax me for public education!  I don't have kids! --from the 40 year old who'll live to see that crop of young people become his/her law enforcement officers, legislatures, senators, Presidents... etc.

 

Don't tax me for military spending!  --oh wait, that seems to be the one thing Republicans are good with getting taxed on.... along with the VA.

 

Highways/roads/bridges, law enforcement, fire departments, museums, prisons, salting and plowing our roads in winter, street lights, Amtrak, public parks, state and national monuments, Secret Service (and all those damn Golf outings and trips to Mara Largo by the President)...

 

 

I mean, seriously?  You think we have the perfect taxation system and it's at its saturation point right now?  You think we have our taxes perfectly allocated to all those publicly funded things that you're paying for?  Or you think you'd want to get rid of some or all of them?

 

 

What better way to spend a little more money in taxes than on the planet we have to leave in place for our children and their children?

 

Stop being such a cotton headed ninny muggins.

 

 

Wow,

You didn't answer one of the questions I asked.

Instead, you accuse me of practicing every stereotype you clearly abhor.  You breezed in here two days ago and complained that nobody talks about issues.  Then, when an issue is discussed, you refuse to further the conversation. Nice.

 

I didn't say change was easy.  I didn't say that I was against change.  In a roundabout, but pretty easy to understand way, I answered your question about "hard working middle class and lower class Americans".  It isn't just about taxes, is it?  I just asked you who you expect to pay for the change.

 

The "Green New Deal" that most (if not all) D Presidential candidates have praised has absolutely NO details.  But you want to hold it up as a plan for something.  Great.  Your ideas about it are as valid as anyone else's, I suppose.

 

Unless you want to answer my questions, I'm through with you, bro.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GG]

11 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

I’ll happily take that as an admission that you were wrong, thank you. I do not believe in socialistic solutions to climate change. 

It also proves that you have a reading comprehension problem. 

[BeginnersMind]

11 minutes ago, GG said:

It also proves that you have a reading comprehension problem. 

 

“Funny how someone who claims to hate socialism has no problems with uber socialistic solutions that the global warming alarmists are offering.”

 

Anything I don't critique, I have no problems with. That's solid logic. I'm active in a few threads, and not others. I'm sure the right-wing boyz have those threads under control. Do I need to be the 998th person to fight with Tibs and EII? No thanks. 

 

Welcome to the world of people who can't post 1000x a day. 

Edited April 11, 2019 by BeginnersMind

[Foxx]

18 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

 

Wow,

You didn't answer one of the questions I asked.

Instead, you accuse me of practicing every stereotype you clearly abhor.  You breezed in here two days ago and complained that nobody talks about issues.  Then, when an issue is discussed, you refuse to further the conversation. Nice.

 

I didn't say change was easy.  I didn't say that I was against change.  In a roundabout, but pretty easy to understand way, I answered your question about "hard working middle class and lower class Americans".  It isn't just about taxes, is it?  I just asked you who you expect to pay for the change.

 

The "Green New Deal" that most (if not all) D Presidential candidates have praised has absolutely NO details.  But you want to hold it up as a plan for something.  Great.  Your ideas about it are as valid as anyone else's, I suppose.

 

Unless you want to answer my questions, I'm through with you, bro.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sorry you had to learn the hard way, snafu.

[transplantbillsfan]

24 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

The Green New Deal would cause somewhere around a 300% increase in taxes. Do you think the poor, middle class or rich can bear that burden?

 

Before I respond, link?

[transplantbillsfan]

40 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

 

Wow,

You didn't answer one of the questions I asked.

Instead, you accuse me of practicing every stereotype you clearly abhor.  You breezed in here two days ago and complained that nobody talks about issues.  Then, when an issue is discussed, you refuse to further the conversation. Nice.

 

I didn't say change was easy.  I didn't say that I was against change.  In a roundabout, but pretty easy to understand way, I answered your question about "hard working middle class and lower class Americans".  It isn't just about taxes, is it?  I just asked you who you expect to pay for the change.

 

The "Green New Deal" that most (if not all) D Presidential candidates have praised has absolutely NO details.  But you want to hold it up as a plan for something.  Great.  Your ideas about it are as valid as anyone else's, I suppose.

 

Unless you want to answer my questions, I'm through with you, bro.

 

Answering your questions is pointless because you're letting perfect be the enemy of the good.

[BuffaloHokie13]

14 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Before I respond, link?

The 10 year cost has been estimated at $51-93 Trillion. You can go ahead and compare that to the annual budget figures. Tax amounts would vary, of course, since the bill also calls for reparations for past, current, and future injustice. The deal spends more time discussing identity based socialist policy than environmental policy. It was a pointless waste of taxpayer money and in the end not a single congressperson voted for it. Backing it is a moronic stance. Even the people who wrote it ultimately didn't back it.

[row_33]

transplant can be the 2020 version of the "Ardent McGovern-in-72" member of the PPP, but even three times as clueless

 

 

 

 

[BeginnersMind]

Just now, BuffaloHokie13 said:

The 10 year cost has been estimated at $51-93 Trillion. You can go ahead and compare that to the annual budget figures. Tax amounts would vary, of course, since the bill also calls for reparations for past, current, and future injustice. The deal spends more time discussing identity based socialist policy than environmental policy. It was a pointless waste of taxpayer money and in the end not a single congressperson voted for it. Backing it is a moronic stance. Even the people who wrote it ultimately didn't back it.

 

It was political theater like build the wall. The next phase will strip out the least palatable of it but trust me, like athlete’s foot, it’s coming back baby. 

[BuffaloHokie13]

2 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

It was political theater like build the wall. The next phase will strip out the least palatable of it but trust me, like athlete’s foot, it’s coming back baby. 

They should start with the parts that are demonstrably false. "A large racial wealth divide amounting to a difference of 20 times more wealth between the average white family and the average black family" for instance. It also cites the ever-popular gender earnings gap - which I won't get into.

[transplantbillsfan]

10 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

The 10 year cost has been estimated at $51-93 Trillion. You can go ahead and compare that to the annual budget figures. Tax amounts would vary, of course, since the bill also calls for reparations for past, current, and future injustice. The deal spends more time discussing identity based socialist policy than environmental policy. It was a pointless waste of taxpayer money and in the end not a single congressperson voted for it. Backing it is a moronic stance. Even the people who wrote it ultimately didn't back it.

 

So is he just assuming that this would be just added on to what we spend annually rather than helping to pay for it by cutting our spending from other things, like the proposed cut in half of our military spending?

[BuffaloHokie13]

6 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

So is he just assuming that this would be just added on to what we spend annually rather than helping to pay for it by cutting our spending from other things, like the proposed cut in half of our military spending?

Kind of like how you're assuming that we can cut half of our military spending safely?

 

I've gotta ask. Have you read the actual language in the bill?

 

Okay, final edit. Let's go ahead and say we can cut 50% of the military budget ($600B total, $300B towards GND). Let's also take the most conservative estimate for the annual cost of the GND ($51T over 10 years is $5.1T). So now the cost to the american people is $4.5T. You can use that number instead if you want. It's still a 250% increase over the estimated individual income tax in 2020.

Edited April 11, 2019 by BuffaloHokie13

[3rdnlng]

27 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Before I respond, link?

There's been estimates all over the news saying that the GND plus Medicare for all would cost approximately 93 trillion over the next 10 years. This does not include present spending. The feds projected income for 2020 is 3.6 trillion of which 1.8 trillion is individual income tax. My estimate of tripling the taxes for your NGD was quite conservative but read for yourself.

 

https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762

[reddogblitz]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

The Green New Deal would cause somewhere around a 300% increase in taxes. Do you think the poor, middle class or rich can bear that burden?

 

A Carbon Tax has been put on the ballot via citizen's initiative twice in my state (Washington, one of the greenest) but has been voted down twice due to the tax increase.

 

In order to do the New Green Deal, it would require everyone buying in and taking it in the shorts in the interest of future generations.  This is why I think it has no chance.  You can't get everyone to buy into ANYTHING, mush less something that won't even help them much if any.  And then there's the politics involved.

 

@transplantbillsfan - What do you think about using geo engineering to help this?  I think this is a direction that has a better chance of success than everyone cutting back on things and paying higher taxes.

Edited April 11, 2019 by reddogblitz

[BeginnersMind]

4 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

@transplantbillsfan - What do you think about using geo engineering to help this?  I think this is a direction that has a better chance of success than everyone cutting back on things and paying higher taxes.

 

I have faith in mankind's ability to solve problems just a little faster than we create them. Hopefully we keep up. 

 

That said, I follow a lot of this technology and much like the promise of "thinking" AI, it's not as "there" yet as some talk up. 

 

[Foxx]

nanobots.

coming soon to a climate change nightmare near you

[BeginnersMind]

Just now, Foxx said:

nanobots.

coming soon to a climate change nightmare near you

 

I want to swim in the grey goo. 

[transplantbillsfan]

1 hour ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Kind of like how you're assuming that we can cut half of our military spending safely?

 

I've gotta ask. Have you read the actual language in the bill?

 

Okay, final edit. Let's go ahead and say we can cut 50% of the military budget ($600B total, $300B towards GND). Let's also take the most conservative estimate for the annual cost of the GND ($51T over 10 years is $5.1T). So now the cost to the american people is $4.5T. You can use that number instead if you want. It's still a 250% increase over the estimated individual income tax in 2020.

 

I've read it, but I also think viewing that as a final bill is foolish.  I view it as an idealistic initiative more than anything else. 

 

Interesting that this shifted automatically to the Green New Deal as binding language rather than Global Warming, which is what I brought up.

 

I view the Green New Deal as a kind of goal and acknowledgment of the necessity to shift priorities to the environment, which is what I was initially talking about and the conversation shifted.

 

And maybe the reason the conversation shifted is because of the prevalence in the Green New Deal in the narrative today.  I'd counter that the idealistic Green New Deal is more a counter to the extreme negligence and irresponsibility of the Industrialized world over the last century and, in the US, the Republican Party at large over the last few decades.

 

The Green New Deal will never go in place exactly as it is.  It just can't in the polarized society we live in.  What it serves as (or should serve as) is a starting point for a serious conversation/negotiation/discussion.

Edited April 11, 2019 by transplantbillsfan

[BuffaloHokie13]

16 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

I've read it, but I also think viewing that as a final bill is foolish.  I view it as an idealistic initiative more than anything else. 

 

Interesting that this shifted automatically to the Green New Deal as binding language rather than Global Warming, which is what I brought up.

 

I view the Green New Deal as a kind of goal and acknowledgment of the necessity to shift priorities to the environment, which is what I was initially talking about and the conversation shifted.

 

And maybe the reason the conversation shifted is because of the prevalence in the Green New Deal in the narrative today.  I'd counter that the idealistic Green New Deal is more a counter to the extreme negligence and irresponsibility of the Industrialized world over the last century and, in the US, the Republican Party at large over the last few decades.

 

The Green New Deal will never go in place exactly as it is.  It just can't in the polarized society we live in.  What it serves as (or should serve as) is a starting point for a serious conversation/negotiation/discussion.

If they wanted a serious discussion on the environment and climate change they wouldn't have shoe-horned in all of the social inequity and policy that has no relation to environmental policy. It was never about a serious discussion, it was about numbing the American people to socialist policies based on race and gender.