Bernies rightly tackles the healthcare system rather than blame lack of money, which is the right way to go.
If you throw more money, you'd be only making the healthcare providers rich.
From Bernies website.
Wealth & Income Inequality
- Thread starter Eboue
- Start date
If you throw more money, you'd be only making the healthcare providers rich.
From Bernies website.
Literally no one has ever said that Ed. Literally no one believes anything happens automatically ffs. This is a strawman bro. This is why we support Universal Health Care, Amendment to overturn Citizens United, raising minimum wage, strengthening regulations and never allowing the finance industry to sell the lie again that they are capable of self-regulating.
The default misconception is actually that trickle down economics is anything but debunked feel-good bullshit for greedy people. Voodoo economics.
Edgar if you really want top have an in-depth economics debate I am game. That goes for anyone out there that believes in the assumptions of neo-classical economics (Hayek, Friedman, Thomas Sowell types). Any one that believes neo-classical economics is welcome to tag me whenever.
I'm already getting mileage out @Cheesy last article
"The US economy was never as strong, nor its middle class as secure, as during the three decades when the real minimum wage and the overtime threshold and public subsidies for higher education were at their peak. Medicare for All wouldn’t burden employers; it would relieve them of their costliest employee benefit. And if we do need to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to rebuild the middle class, so what? There is simply no correlation between top tax rates and growth. "
Some of my fellow filthy-rich capitalists would like you to believe the middle class has actually benefited from having us gobbling up more and more of America’s annual income gains. After all, they claim, we “job creators” know best how to productively invest wealth: The more capital we get to control, the more economic growth we’ll be able to produce—and the benefits will trickle down!
Yeah, right. Contrary to popular wisdom, America hasn’t enjoyed drastically higher economic growth since 1980 than more egalitarian Western countries. And a moment’s glance at how the “job creators” are currently investing their windfall illustrates why: Right now, roughly 55 percent of corporate profits (about $1 trillion, or 5 percent GDP) is going into stock buybacks—the signal marker of corporate malfeasance and self-dealing—while an additional 37 percent goes to dividends. This means that 92 percent of the profits that American businesses make this year will be spent on enriching the small, elite fraction of the population that owns significant amounts of corporate stock. Meanwhile, at a time of so-called “full employment,” inflation-adjusted wages for the bottom 80 percent of American workers are actually declining.
And don’t you dare think for a moment that you somehow know better than voters what’s good for them, because “Econ 101!” or something. Econ 101 is bullshit—at least in the way that it’s been relentlessly misapplied to public policy these past 40 years. And as for trickle-down economics—“a rising tide lifts all boats” and all that—well, that’s a demonstrable con: Tax cuts for the rich don’t create growth (if they did, Trump’s $1.5 trillion tax giveaway wouldn’t have resulted in declining wages and record stock buybacks). A higher minimum wage doesn’t kill jobs (if it did, the job market wouldn’t be booming in Seattle and San Francisco and New York and in every other city or state that has recently hiked its local wage floor). Deregulation isn’t a magical potion of market efficiency (unless if, by “efficient,” you mean efficiently wiping out the savings of millions of working- and middle-class families through a predatory lending and derivative-fueled economic collapse)."
https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...reclaim-the-center-by-moving-hard-left-219354
oh FFS. This sounds as in-touch as Let Them Eat Cake.
Are you actually defending Trump and Bush's tax cuts to the rich as good for the economy? We can already see the lies of the people that sold the tax cuts.
@oneniltothearsenal the mistake you're making is thinking he's actually interested in any kind of debate, he's just a boring right wing troll.
Are you even being serious with this?
Literally no progressive ever believed that a plan based on a 1989 Heritage Foundation conservative plan would be anything but a privatized disaster. It was a fecking social conservative/corporation written health care plan with a single provision (can't deny pre-existing conditions) tagged onto thousands of pages of HMO/Pharmaceutical company written rules just to sell it to the people.
We were clamoring for a public option 2008-2010 and getting fecking ignored by our representatives.
Jesus h Christ Edgar no one but the corporate Democrat establishment ever thought Heritage Foundation Care would do anything positive.
he's a stupid troll, dont give him your time
I can understand why it seems that way but I think Edgar is probably just repeating things his co-workers say.
Next up, online poll if the US population should divide Bezos’ wealth. No prizes for guessing what the outcome will be.Online polls as support for economic policies, ffs
Carry on.
Maybe, but either way he's a troll, he does what he does on purpose for the reaction. He does it all over the site.
But it was a ridiculous poll to cite.
Most people do not have 100m, so most people strongly taxing people who do, it’s the most obvious result ever.
You may as well poll if people like to be given gifts
It wouldn't matter if it was online or an actual scientific poll. 80% of the US population live paycheck to paycheck so it's inevitable that they will support policies that spread the wealth better.
Well yes, but the point is that at the moment a lot of Americans in spite of supporting such moves either don't vote for parties with said proposals, or don't get the chance to do so.
Obviously people are going to be less keen on things like single payer when costs are factored in, but it's not some radical proposal - it's suggesting they adopt a system similar to most advanced first-world countries. If you're not right-wing and are into politics then you should be arguing as to why those higher taxes are necessary for the long-term benefits that will be reaped. If you don't agree with that then there's a somewhat decent chance you're a Republican economically.
You are the target audience of the article I just linked. Read those paragraphs I quoted in reply to Pillow
Wow. Is that for real?
Yes it is. I just saw that statistic this week as well.
As people say, the US gutted its "middle class" over the past 40 years under both parties to enrich the top .1%
Most people have never murdered anyone so most people strongly support laws against murder, it's the most obvious result ever.
As the great Carlin put it
"The upper class: keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class: pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there...just to scare the shit out of the middle class."
It's not unlikely. Americans on average are very unprepared for retirement. Whether many live above their means or simply don't have enough to put away after bills etc. it is unlikely that most Americans have much, if any, left over from their average paycheque. Which I suppose would qualify one as living paycheque to paycheque.
What a way to dismiss people's opinions.
It's important to remember that working and middle classes having more money/income is good for the economy. Those cohorts tend to spend more and pay more in taxes (proportionally). Aggregate spend will go up at a higher rate on lower income brackets (rather than diversification of capital out of the country). Everyone benefits.
Trickle down economics at work, great work Republicans. Again.
You've gotta hand it to him. Trump's tax cuts worked exactly as he planned.
Indeed. If you want the economy to do well then you need people to spend money. If people aren't well-off then they don't have money to spend which means the economy suffers.
It's the sort of logic that often tends to be ignored by people say that those who don't earn a lot squander their money on unnecessary luxury goods. Even if that is the case, the moment those people stop spending you're going to see businesses suffer...because capitalist enterprises rely on people, you know, actually buying their goods.
Historically a lot of right-wingers were opposed to FDR's New Deal reforms in spite of the fact that those reforms ironically ended up helping them in the long run. But then greed tends to prevail over long-term planning as to what's best.
Yep, the only way they were ever going to go.
It has less to do with living above their means and more to do with the fact that all protections and many opportunities for the middle class have been stripped away in the last 40 years which leaves people very vulnerable to any negative event - from any sort of unforeseen medical emergency to what happen in the Great Recession. Their opportunities like Overtime laws have been stripped to massively favor the employers and weaken employee rights which lessons their ability to build savings and leaves the bottom 80% much more exposed to risk.
4 million households lost their homes meanwhile Wall Street got bailed out, all the bad actors that caused the crisis to begin with got to keep their millions or in some cases billions yet meanwhile its the regular average homeowners that footed the bill by having their home foreclosed.
This simply doesn't have to happen that way. A far more fair and balanced bailout from Obama would have been to bail out from the bottom-up not the fecking top-down. So bail out the 4 million homeowners with the government. Then, that would allow the homeowners top pay off their loans.
Policy needs to be the exact opposite of this trickle-down bullshit we have been sold since the 1980s.
Policies should focus on wealth floating up because that works unlike the lie of trickle down.
My point is not about the fact it was an online poll, but the question itself. Most people do not have 100m so it's logical to support taxing those who do, it doesn't affect them at all and the government gets more money.
It's just like those people advocating capping EPL player wages.
I'm not against the principle of higher marginal tax at the top, but the idea that poll makes any case at all is rather ridiculous.
Do you really need a poll to tell you people who are miles away from having 100m support taxing those who do?
I have said many times I'm not against a higher marginal tax rate at the top, just the idea that the poll is even worth the bandwidth it wasted.
Anyone could have told you people will strongly agree taxing the ultra rich.
78% actually...but close enough
http://press.careerbuilder.com/2017...Workers-According-to-New-CareerBuilder-Survey
Probably because the establishment Democrats can't even wipe their own arse without taking a poll first
@Edgar Allan Pillow - Is your idea of Nirvana a world that sees an entire populace above the poverty line, if it sees you having a little less... Or some people being below that, but you get to always have more?
You do seem to pick some odd fights and die on the most bewilderingly pointless hills.
Principle Question: Do you believe that you could (and would) write a Social/Economic Manifesto that would see your country fare better right now?
Because most people here believe that they could. Most americans here could probably do it in about 15 minutes.
You do seem to pick some odd fights and die on the most bewilderingly pointless hills.
Principle Question: Do you believe that you could (and would) write a Social/Economic Manifesto that would see your country fare better right now?
Because most people here believe that they could. Most americans here could probably do it in about 15 minutes.
Oh man, you've really got this whole politics thing figured out, haven't you?
Edger is not a troll.
He is simply clueless.
He is simply clueless.
Stop arguing detail and discuss the root of the problem and the role of government.
When we see wealth being constantly concentrated upwards as we do now - 26 individuals owning as much as 50% of the world's population - we know we have a problem.
We also need to decide if we want a society where being poor isn't constantly punished. That doesn't mean some soviet era communism, it is a question of how we want to live morally, socially and economically.
Once you decide then you look at solutions rather than engage in whataboutisms and strawman arguments based on political ideology.
Few people object to the profit motive and a well regulated free market but unfettered captalism has obvious flaws for society - fundamentally few people disagree with that but then the arguing starts.
How to create a fair and equal society where individuals can thrive, a proper social net including free health care and education is a given, where business can succeed but big business and the super wealthy pay their fair share is a harder thing to achieve.
When we see wealth being constantly concentrated upwards as we do now - 26 individuals owning as much as 50% of the world's population - we know we have a problem.
We also need to decide if we want a society where being poor isn't constantly punished. That doesn't mean some soviet era communism, it is a question of how we want to live morally, socially and economically.
Once you decide then you look at solutions rather than engage in whataboutisms and strawman arguments based on political ideology.
Few people object to the profit motive and a well regulated free market but unfettered captalism has obvious flaws for society - fundamentally few people disagree with that but then the arguing starts.
How to create a fair and equal society where individuals can thrive, a proper social net including free health care and education is a given, where business can succeed but big business and the super wealthy pay their fair share is a harder thing to achieve.
I believe the Super Rich do understand that wealth creation works when workers are paid properly and their basic needs like Health Care/Education and Housing are affordable. They will have excess money to spend, creating demand.
But it is easier to take the short cut by brainwashing people with Trickle Down Economics BS, scapegoating and plain ol bribery of politicians and judges.
But it is easier to take the short cut by brainwashing people with Trickle Down Economics BS, scapegoating and plain ol bribery of politicians and judges.
How relevant are these practically? Is Trump, GOP, Dems or Bernie following any of these types? I'm not interested into turning this into a full on textbook debate with no immediate practical consideration. My posting was more on actual policy intentions by politicians on both sides and how they both are wrong.
As to my post, it was a direct reply to the post with Warren tweet, where she mentions taxing rich to improve college education. Or Raoul post to tax rich to improve Healthcare. Such a linear cause and effect expectation from people who should ideally know better still surprises me.
Of course they do. The GOP has been selling the same debunked trickle-down ideas that are 100% based on the assumptions of people like Hayek and Friedman with a good dose of that hypocritical hack Ayn Rand. The Democrats are neo-liberals who try to soften their elite-centric economics by focusing on free trade lifting all boats but all Clinton and Obama policy is based on the assumption of neo-classical economics.
Really you should read that article. It has nothing to do with "textbook debate". It has to do with the failed policies of the last 40 years for the middle class that you are either intentionally or unintentionally defending that you really seem to not understand at all (which is why people think you are just trolling).
I honestly don't know. But if I had a choice, I'd ban all 'For Profit' healthcare and most 'for profit' education organizations. Maybe leave a few but with high quality controls imposed. US Healthcare companies are all that's wrong with the system.
Not sure how practical or absurd this seems, but I've been thinking of what would happen if society subsidises the minimum wage (which should be more than unemployment benefit) instead of paying unemployment long term. Employers pay $10 and Govt pays an additional $10 provided the person is employed. Perhaps this would add incentive to seek employment than try living on benefits. This obviously doesn't apply for disabled who get full protection. Will this help or be a addition cost I don't know.
Link me to imthe article again. Have to kill time at airport, so will read that.
My peeve has always been implementation. No point getting extra tax money, if its going to go down the drain of building a wall. Or to healthcare when it'll only serve to make the providers richer.
More money seems to be the standard solution for everything!
It has very little to do with politics, more like simple logic.
One would think so, right? I haven't been to the States in quite some time now but i'd be very surprised if wealth redistribution suddenly became very popular, would be a pleasant surprise though!