Democratic 2020 Presidential Primary Thread

[Foxx]

10 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

... Thanks Republicans for my $2700 negative swing in my federal returns and advertising it as the biggest tax cut in history and a boon for the middle-class 

that's some real world maths right there.

?

[Foxx]

6 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

And there are still a number of schools here still without it.

i'm guessing you're not an English teacher.

[4merper4mer]

2 hours ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

There’s a million page thread here mocking climate change science. This board has it all figured out already. 

Ok commie.  

 

If if the USA disappeared from the face of the Earth at noon today would global warming be solved?  How about if just the Republicans disappeared?

 

Communizing world economies, as is quite clearly the goal of many charlatans screaming for climate change, would not solve global warming any better than it has solved anything else.  US Rebuplicans are among the last bogeymen available. In truth, more capitalism is the proper path.

[BeginnersMind]

33 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Ok commie.  

 

If if the USA disappeared from the face of the Earth at noon today would global warming be solved?  How about if just the Republicans disappeared?

 

Communizing world economies, as is quite clearly the goal of many charlatans screaming for climate change, would not solve global warming any better than it has solved anything else.  US Rebuplicans are among the last bogeymen available. In truth, more capitalism is the proper path.

 

Who are you arguing with? 

 

 

[GG]

3 hours ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

There’s a million page thread here mocking climate change science. This board has it all figured out already. 

 

The vast majority of the posts in the million page thread are not mocking science, but the pseudo scientific solutions offered to combat warming. 

 

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

[RochesterRob]

11 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Ridiculous hyperbole 

 

(other than living in 87 degrees during the Summer. I live in that without AC a huge chunk of the year living in the tropics.)

 

And I thought you guys were all about serious and thoughtful discussion over here in PPP.

  Not hyperbole.  People being forced to pay dramatically increased taxes will create hardship.  Most of America is not highly affluent.  Americans if forced to shoulder such an initiative will have to make personal cuts that will be painful.  You offer nothing as a counter point to what I stated but yet you claim people are not serious about discussing how a 100 trillion dollar initiative over 10 years will be paid for.

[DC Tom]

5 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Not hyperbole.  People being forced to pay dramatically increased taxes will create hardship.  Most of America is not highly affluent.  Americans if forced to shoulder such an initiative will have to make personal cuts that will be painful.  You offer nothing as a counter point to what I stated but yet you claim people are not serious about discussing how a 100 trillion dollar initiative over 10 years will be paid for.

 

Don't ask how to pay for it.  Ask what we'll do with our new-found prosperity.

[3rdnlng]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/most-polluted-countries-in-the-world/ss-BBTyP8Y?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=HPDHP17#image=51

 

For what it's worth, this article claims that dust storms and the burning of wood for fueling cookstoves, etc. is a major carbon polluter in many of these countries.

Edited April 11, 2019 by 3rdnlng

[Buffalo_Gal]

So when I walked into the hairdresser this morning, my stylist started sniffing my hair. When I asked him what he was doing, he said, "I'm Joe Biden!" ... and then he started rubbing my shoulders.   '
 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

16 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

So when I walked into the hairdresser this morning, my stylist started sniffing my hair. When I asked him what he was doing, he said, "I'm Joe Biden!" ... and then he started rubbing my shoulders.   '
 

 

 

From your emojis it would appear that things worked out in the end.

[transplantbillsfan]

3 hours ago, RochesterRob said:

  Not hyperbole.  People being forced to pay dramatically increased taxes will create hardship.  Most of America is not highly affluent.  Americans if forced to shoulder such an initiative will have to make personal cuts that will be painful.  You offer nothing as a counter point to what I stated but yet you claim people are not serious about discussing how a 100 trillion dollar initiative over 10 years will be paid for.

 

Why do you assume taxes on hard working middle class and lower America would have to be the ones forced to pay the bulk of this?

 

Think long and hard about this one.

[BeginnersMind]

5 hours ago, GG said:

 

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

 

I invite you to back up that bit of fiction. I’ll be right here. 

[snafu]

58 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Why do you assume taxes on hard working middle class and lower America would have to be the ones forced to pay the bulk of this?

 

Think long and hard about this one.

 

I will ask the obvious question:  Who do YOU assume is going to shoulder the load?

It isn't just taxes.  If utility companies have to switch to entirely green measures to generate electricity, then aren't their bills going to go up to finance the changeover? If auto companies switch to electric-only cars, what do people do with their obsolete fossil fuel burners?  Gotta buy a new lawnmower.  Gotta change over all gas users to electric.  Who pays for that?  Any small business owner who relies on gasoline or natural gas for their livelihood.  Who pays for their switchover (whatever that entails)?

 

If you say "the rich" then who's left to make investments to keep the economy moving?  Who improves unimproved real property if there's no one who can afford to take the risk of loss?  People who have money to LOSE are the ones who innovate and take the risk of improving our society.  They are the risk-takers.  When the government decides that it wants to take money from private citizens, do you think they take risks which grow the economy?  I strongly believe that the answer is no.

 

 

 

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

From your emojis it would appear that things worked out in the end.

Yeah, my hair looks beautiful. And smells nice too.  

[snafu]

7 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Yeah, my hair looks beautiful. And smells nice too.  

 

 

I'll be the judge of that!

 

[GG]

1 hour ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

I invite you to back up that bit of fiction. I’ll be right here. 

 

There's a very lengthy thread still on the first page of PPP along with the Green New Deal thread.   Plenty of laughter at the proposed solutions, and not as much talk about the US being the primary cause of climate change.

[transplantbillsfan]

50 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

I will ask the obvious question:  Who do YOU assume is going to shoulder the load?

It isn't just taxes.  If utility companies have to switch to entirely green measures to generate electricity, then aren't their bills going to go up to finance the changeover? If auto companies switch to electric-only cars, what do people do with their obsolete fossil fuel burners?  Gotta buy a new lawnmower.  Gotta change over all gas users to electric.  Who pays for that?  Any small business owner who relies on gasoline or natural gas for their livelihood.  Who pays for their switchover (whatever that entails)?

 

If you say "the rich" then who's left to make investments to keep the economy moving?  Who improves unimproved real property if there's no one who can afford to take the risk of loss?  People who have money to LOSE are the ones who innovate and take the risk of improving our society.  They are the risk-takers.  When the government decides that it wants to take money from private citizens, do you think they take risks which grow the economy?  I strongly believe that the answer is no.

 

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.

[BeginnersMind]

2 minutes ago, GG said:

 

There's a very lengthy thread still on the first page of PPP along with the Green New Deal thread.   Plenty of laughter at the proposed solutions, and not as much talk about the US being the primary cause of climate change.

 

You could just apologize and admit you were wrong about what you think I believe. 

[GG]

Just now, BeginnersMind said:

 

You could just apologize and admit you were wrong about what you think I believe. 

 

Considering that the only consistent thing about your posting history is lack of consistency, you are right.  Nobody knows what you believe, except to be a troll

[BeginnersMind]

1 minute ago, GG said:

 

Considering that the only consistent thing about your posting history is lack of consistency, you are right.  Nobody knows what you believe, except to be a troll

 

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

Edited April 11, 2019 by BeginnersMind

[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.