Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KJP

Socialism / Social Democracy

Recommended Posts

^ are there numbers to back up the claim a lot of people pay over 50% in taxes?  It's ok if it's just an anecdote, but I'd like to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of you seem to think there is only one kind of socialism -- Marxist socialism. Democratic socialism is nothing of the kind. The fears expressed here are ignorance based. There is no conformity of thought, no theft of resources or possessions, no fear of government. Residents of socialist countries are more innovative because they have the economic freedom to leave established employers to start their own businesses. They live longer and score higher on happiness ratings than the USA. Yes, there is a greater sense of community and more willingness to look out for others (sounds like a Christian value!), cost to use public facilities/parks/etc are externalized so anyone has the freedom to enjoy them (we do that with highways -- one of the most socialist features of the USA), more emphasis on rehabilitation and less on incarceration, etc. But don't take my word for it. Minds are like parachutes -- they only function when open...

 

What Would Democratic Socialism Mean for America?

The "European Nightmare" produces greater happiness than the "American Dream"

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-economy-happiness/201606/what-would-democratic-socialism-mean-america

 

After I Lived in Norway, America Felt Backward. Here’s Why.

A crash course in social democracy.

https://www.thenation.com/article/after-i-lived-in-norway-america-felt-backward-heres-why/

 

Social Democracy Is 100-Percent American

https://billmoyers.com/2015/07/03/social-democracy-is-100-american/

 

These were pretty good articles. Fair and to the point. I have noticed a commonality wherein honest attempts to breach the status quo, whether they be from the "right" or the "left," tend to get unfairly ridiculed by the major media outlets. God forbid our incompetent electorate make any real changes that will jeopardize their cadre of financiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By a lot of people. I mean high earners who live in the Coastal states. In NY, NY or CT for example it is not surprising for high earners to pay about 55-60% of their income in taxes when you factor in al taxes. Take the old Fed rate of 39.6% then add a state tax of say 4-8% in some of these states, add local taxes of an additional 6% in certain jurisdictions and you then compound that with high property taxes (the owner of a 200k home in CT for example will pay about $20k in property taxes a year, whereas in Ohio you are paying about $4-6k a year) and you get over 50% threshold. 

 

This almost certain nonsense. The highest state-city marginal rate combo I can find on the east coast is NYC, which is about 13% combined (pretty close to the top range of your own estimate), which added to old the top federal rate is less than 55%.  And since you're citing the old top federal marginal rate, you can also assume the full deductibility of SALT and  mortgage interest, so even counting property taxes on a very nice house, you'll never break 55%. And in any case, NYC has some of the lowest property tax rates in the country.

 

And please find us a $200K house in Connecticut with a $20K/year property tax bill.  A quick look at real estate listings in Darien shows $1.5M houses with property taxes less than $20K per year.  My hunch is that you're recycling anecdata from a couple decades ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ are there numbers to back up the claim a lot of people pay over 50% in taxes?  It's ok if it's just an anecdote, but I'd like to know.

 

I am sure there can be numbers out there. This was just an anecdote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some actual date, compiled by the Tax Policy Center (a centrist Brookings/UI project): https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/effective-tax-rate-size-income

 

In 2014, of the 6.2M tax returns showing at least some US income and >$200K in AGI, fewer than 4000 had effective federal rates over 40%. Fewer than 1000 had effective tax rates over 45%. The odds that SALT put more than a few of these people over 55% is minuscule. Even if you go down to 35% effective federal tax rate (of AGI), the share of high earners paying that or higher is still tiny.

 

[Edited for typos and corrected numbers]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We only have empty pockets when it comes to the morally right things to do, but when it comes to tax cuts for billionaires and when it comes to unlimited war we seem to be able to invent that money very easily," Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says. https://t.co/cgpyxY7z1g


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We only have empty pockets when it comes to the morally right things to do, but when it comes to tax cuts for billionaires and when it comes to unlimited war we seem to be able to invent that money very easily," Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says. https://t.co/cgpyxY7z1g

 

This, among other things, is why democratic socialists irk me so much. That's an easy talking point - common sense appeals to people, and I get that. But this is an extremely complex and nuanced matter. Common sense told us for hundreds of years that the earth was flat.

 

If she's going to make statements like that, I'd love to see her explain the mechanism through which she'll pay for it. Which she was seemingly unable to elaborate on Pod Save America.

 

If you're going to propose spending that much, she'd better have a plan to reduce the debt. But I know I know, EHRMAGHERED TRUMP EXPANDED DUH DEBT!!! Idc. Any candidate moving forward should be compelled to answer how they plan to reduce the debt.

 

I suspect her answer will be "Corporations need to pay more taxes" and "DO YOU KNOW THAT THE TOP 1% OF AMERICANS CONTROL 98% OF THE WEALTH!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We only have empty pockets when it comes to the morally right things to do, but when it comes to tax cuts for billionaires and when it comes to unlimited war we seem to be able to invent that money very easily," Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says. https://t.co/cgpyxY7z1g

 

This, among other things, is why democratic socialists irk me so much. That's an easy talking point - common sense appeals to people, and I get that. But this is an extremely complex and nuanced matter. Common sense told us for hundreds of years that the earth was flat.

 

If she's going to make statements like that, I'd love to see her explain the mechanism through which she'll pay for it. Which she was seemingly unable to elaborate on Pod Save America.

 

If you're going to propose spending that much, she'd better have a plan to reduce the debt. But I know I know, EHRMAGHERED TRUMP EXPANDED DUH DEBT!!! Idc. Any candidate moving forward should be compelled to answer how they plan to reduce the debt.

 

I suspect her answer will be "Corporations need to pay more taxes" and "DO YOU KNOW THAT THE TOP 1% OF AMERICANS CONTROL 98% OF THE WEALTH!?

 

It is a legitimate issue though that Democratic proposals are created to be deficit neutral while GOP ones are not.  Perhaps if the fiscally responsible party exhibited more restraint we'd be able to fund for the health care of our citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We only have empty pockets when it comes to the morally right things to do, but when it comes to tax cuts for billionaires and when it comes to unlimited war we seem to be able to invent that money very easily," Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says. https://t.co/cgpyxY7z1g

 

This, among other things, is why democratic socialists irk me so much. That's an easy talking point - common sense appeals to people, and I get that. But this is an extremely complex and nuanced matter. Common sense told us for hundreds of years that the earth was flat.

 

If she's going to make statements like that, I'd love to see her explain the mechanism through which she'll pay for it. Which she was seemingly unable to elaborate on Pod Save America.

 

If you're going to propose spending that much, she'd better have a plan to reduce the debt. But I know I know, EHRMAGHERED TRUMP EXPANDED DUH DEBT!!! Idc. Any candidate moving forward should be compelled to answer how they plan to reduce the debt.

 

I suspect her answer will be "Corporations need to pay more taxes" and "DO YOU KNOW THAT THE TOP 1% OF AMERICANS CONTROL 98% OF THE WEALTH!?

 

It is a legitimate issue though that Democratic proposals are created to be deficit neutral while GOP ones are not.  Perhaps if the fiscally responsible party exhibited more restraint we'd be able to fund for the health care of our citizens.

 

Like I said, you won't get an argument from me that the GOP has proven to be full of it with regards to fiscal responsibility. But that's not my point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We only have empty pockets when it comes to the morally right things to do, but when it comes to tax cuts for billionaires and when it comes to unlimited war we seem to be able to invent that money very easily," Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says. https://t.co/cgpyxY7z1g

 

This, among other things, is why democratic socialists irk me so much. That's an easy talking point - common sense appeals to people, and I get that. But this is an extremely complex and nuanced matter. Common sense told us for hundreds of years that the earth was flat.

 

If she's going to make statements like that, I'd love to see her explain the mechanism through which she'll pay for it. Which she was seemingly unable to elaborate on Pod Save America.

 

If you're going to propose spending that much, she'd better have a plan to reduce the debt. But I know I know, EHRMAGHERED TRUMP EXPANDED DUH DEBT!!! Idc. Any candidate moving forward should be compelled to answer how they plan to reduce the debt.

 

I suspect her answer will be "Corporations need to pay more taxes" and "DO YOU KNOW THAT THE TOP 1% OF AMERICANS CONTROL 98% OF THE WEALTH!?

 

It is a legitimate issue though that Democratic proposals are created to be deficit neutral while GOP ones are not.  Perhaps if the fiscally responsible party exhibited more restraint we'd be able to fund for the health care of our citizens.

 

Like I said, you won't get an argument from me that the GOP has proven to be full of it with regards to fiscal responsibility. But that's not my point

 

The fact that the GOP grows deficits is specifically the problem.  They take the fiscal responsibility of the Dems and then blow it up.  This leaves no room for Dem programs.  This is the feature not the bug of GOP policy.  The solution is for GOP to practice what they preach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^LOL. I know man.

 

Point being, AOC is proposing this stuff NOW. Not in a vacuum. So these questions still deserve answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ The answer should be that the program will pay for itself. 

 

I'll try that line at Butcher and Brewer this weekend when they close my tab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ The answer should be that the program will pay for itself. 

 

I'll try that line at Butcher and Brewer this weekend when they close my tab

 

It's good enough for tax cuts then it's good enough for health care. That's the point. Run up the deficit and let the GOP fix it next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ The answer should be that the program will pay for itself. 

 

I'll try that line at Butcher and Brewer this weekend when they close my tab

 

It's good enough for tax cuts then it's good enough for health care. That's the point. Run up the deficit and let the GOP fix it next time.

 

Christ.

 

You're going to make me head to the bar now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ The answer should be that the program will pay for itself. 

 

I'll try that line at Butcher and Brewer this weekend when they close my tab

 

It's good enough for tax cuts then it's good enough for health care. That's the point. Run up the deficit and let the GOP fix it next time.

 

Christ.

 

You're going to make me head to the bar now.

 

nobody seems to take the GOP to task about their programs like they do for Democrats.  Perhaps the liberal media can get on it.  But anyway the obvious answer is that you reverse all of the tom foolery that the GOP did as a start to get deficits to a democratic administration level.  They we can have a better starting point. 

 

When we remove the insurance requirement from the employer they can pay their employees more money.  Employees can afford a tax with that money which covers their insurance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, just charge companies in taxes a percentage of the amount they no longer have to pay into medical insurance for their employees into the program.  This would have a double benefit of taxing companies that were previously either making their employees pay a fortune in premiums or that didn't cover insurance for their employees.  The rest would come as payroll taxes that replace medical premium costs that individuals now pay.  Am I just being dense or is it really that complicated?


"Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago." - Warren Buffett 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: very high income individuals can't utilize IRA accounts. But they can easily afford 18K in their 401K

 

High income individuals just utilize a backdoor Roth IRA.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cortez just sounds like a trainwreck whenever she opens her mouth. If I were the GOP, I would run ads of her moronic statements, like "everyone is working 2 jobs which is why unemployment is too low" and "the upper middle class no longer exists" and "I am not very knowledgeable on Middle Eastern relations but I blame Israel"  as the face of the democratic party.

 

The more this girl talks the more you realize what a disgrace she is and that she should go back to tending bar instead of trying to run for Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^She's no worse than the median congressman, most of whom sound like total idiots when they say anything off script.

 

 

Except that she holds herself out as an expert on economic issues. She feels this is her strong suit yet when she opens her mouth she just sounds like a dumb girl who should be mixing drinks behind the bar.

 

She reminds me a lot of the liberal version of Christine O'Donnell from a few years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cortez just sounds like a trainwreck whenever she opens her mouth. If I were the GOP, I would run ads of her moronic statements, like "everyone is working 2 jobs which is why unemployment is too low" and "the upper middle class no longer exists" and "I am not very knowledgeable on Middle Eastern relations but I blame Israel"  as the face of the democratic party.

 

The more this girl talks the more you realize what a disgrace she is and that she should go back to tending bar instead of trying to run for Congress.

 

The first one she was factually wrong. The second one was in a conversation about income inequality and the increasing percentage of very rich and very poor in the country. She was a bit inarticulate but it was off the cuff and conservative media took it way out of context. The third one is not true at all. She said she believes in a two-state solution and Israel has the right to exist but there are some very real problems with Israeli settlements. It's basically the same position as most Rs and Ds.

 

But I like how Donny says ridiculous, inarticulate, factually incorrect things on a daily basis and he's a strong leader. She has a couple inarticulate comments and she is a "disgrace" and "should go back to tending bar." Do you actually believe the things you type? It's like a caricature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cortez just sounds like a trainwreck whenever she opens her mouth. If I were the GOP, I would run ads of her moronic statements, like "everyone is working 2 jobs which is why unemployment is too low" and "the upper middle class no longer exists" and "I am not very knowledgeable on Middle Eastern relations but I blame Israel"  as the face of the democratic party.

 

The more this girl talks the more you realize what a disgrace she is and that she should go back to tending bar instead of trying to run for Congress.

 

I don't think she's a "disgrace", per se.

 

I just think she's too young. She's my age. I have a law degree and a privacy certification, I have worked on 3 different campaigns and municipal, county, and state level, and I am still VASTLY underqualified to be running for office. She doesn't know what she's talking about just yet, but she'll get better at it.

 

That doesn't mean I'll ever support her policy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^She's no worse than the median congressman, most of whom sound like total idiots when they say anything off script.

 

 

Except that she holds herself out as an expert on economic issues. She feels this is her strong suit yet when she opens her mouth she just sounds like a dumb girl who should be mixing drinks behind the bar.

 

She reminds me a lot of the liberal version of Christine O'Donnell from a few years ago.

 

There ya go. Again, Donny says things that are a million times more ridiculous daily. I sense a bit of sexism at play here. Or is Donny also just a "dumb boy" who should go back to making reality tv shows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right on cue...fiscal conservatives start raising hell about social programs that would disproportionately benefit the poor, minorities, etc.  Cue the "BUT HOW WILL YOU PAY FOR IT??"

 

They must not have been paying attention to Republicans running up the deficit for lower taxes for millionaires and corporations, unending wars, a military budget that is, what, greater than the next five countries combined?


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ not completely, taxes go to fund the common good that cant be handled on an individual level.

 

Roads, police, military spending, schools, hospital spending, Schools, etc. are used for the benefit of rich and poor and taxes help efficiently fund those.

 

It is still a redistribution. You just approve of who is on the receiving end of the distribution.

 

This is a really salient point, and I think needs to be common ground to get anywhere with the type of discussion happening here. Unless you're willing to go off the deep-end with libertarianism, it's contradictory to use ideological arguments against taxes. Everyone here appears to believe in state control of some services and even social programs. Given that premise, all arguments for more or less taxes, regulations, government services, etc. should be pragmatic rather than ideological.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cortez just sounds like a trainwreck whenever she opens her mouth. If I were the GOP, I would run ads of her moronic statements, like "everyone is working 2 jobs which is why unemployment is too low" and "the upper middle class no longer exists" and "I am not very knowledgeable on Middle Eastern relations but I blame Israel"  as the face of the democratic party.

 

The more this girl talks the more you realize what a disgrace she is and that she should go back to tending bar instead of trying to run for Congress.

 

I don't think she's a "disgrace", per se.

 

I just think she's too young. She's my age. I have a law degree and a privacy certification, I have worked on 3 different campaigns and municipal, county, and state level, and I am still VASTLY underqualified to be running for office. She doesn't know what she's talking about just yet, but she'll get better at it.

 

That doesn't mean I'll ever support her policy

 

I don't think you're unqualified by any means. I wish more conservatives like you would run, even if I disagree with you politically, because you're wayyyyy more qualified than the bozos they actually run. I'm confident you would surround yourself with advisers that have more experience in areas where you lack knowledge and I'm confident she will too. She's new to this but she's a thoughtful person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I appreciate  that, but I think I need more experience before I'd serve anyone well.

 

Secondly, guys... I get it...

 

The GOP is so full of sh** their eyes are brown with regards to fiscal responsibility. They have lost any capital they had on the topic. However, that doesn't change the fact that "how will we pay for it?" is a damn good question, regardless of if the person or party asking the question is a heaping pile of hypocritical dog sh**. And "tax the top 1%" and "tax corporations" might get the emotions flowing, but its not an effective or sustainable answer.

 

This is my gripe with populism as a whole, whether its AOC or Sanders on the Left, or Trump on the right. It offers vulnerable people seemingly simplistic solutions to complex problems, and rationalizes the behavior of the "other side" as its moral rationale for achieving its agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^She's no worse than the median congressman, most of whom sound like total idiots when they say anything off script.

 

 

Except that she holds herself out as an expert on economic issues. She feels this is her strong suit yet when she opens her mouth she just sounds like a dumb girl who should be mixing drinks behind the bar.

 

She reminds me a lot of the liberal version of Christine O'Donnell from a few years ago.

 

And Paul Ryan, who holds himself out as some Very Serious policy person? Or Newt Gingrich? These people are often described as the wonks or intellectuals of the GOP, and they are a pretty toxic combination of mendacious and delusional.  You will find all kinds of inaccuracies in what any of these guys are saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GUYS - WE GET IT. The GOP is full of it.

 

But if you're sitting here and all you can do is roast the GOP for hypocrisy instead of defending these policies on their merit, then you're no different.

 

Tell me why this stuff will work, how it can be sustainable, and through what mechanism we can pay for this while reducing the debt. I already know Newt Gingrich is an ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GUYS - WE GET IT. The GOP is full of it.

 

But if you're sitting here and all you can do is roast the GOP for hypocrisy instead of defending these policies on their merit, then you're no different.

 

Tell me why this stuff will work, how it can be sustainable, and through what mechanism we can pay for this while reducing the debt. I already know Newt Gingrich is an ass.

 

Was my example of how to pay for it too naive or simple?  What's wrong with pivoting from individuals and companies paying premiums to paying taxes instead?


"Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago." - Warren Buffett 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Raising taxes" is a simple and valid answer to how things will get paid for.  Just like "cutting spending" is for the other side.  Budgets aren't complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GUYS - WE GET IT. The GOP is full of it.

 

But if you're sitting here and all you can do is roast the GOP for hypocrisy instead of defending these policies on their merit, then you're no different.

 

Tell me why this stuff will work, how it can be sustainable, and through what mechanism we can pay for this while reducing the debt. I already know Newt Gingrich is an ass.

 

Was my example of how to pay for it too naive or simple?  What's wrong with pivoting from individuals and companies paying premiums to paying taxes instead?

 

Sorry! Actually didn't see it. Interesting take, though a little too concentrated for my taste.

 

I wonder how "premiums" would handle Constitutional scrutiny as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^With constant reminders that the employees and employers will be simultaneously be spared from a big out of pocket expense, so will mostly be made whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't understand the argument that universal healthcare would be too expensive or be too difficult to structure ways to pay for it.  Universal Healthcare just costs less full stop.  Having businesses/individuals pay a percentage of what they pay now in the overly complicated insurance schemes into a tax funded government program instead seems if anything simpler.  Not sure about Constitutional arguments though.


"Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago." - Warren Buffett 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't understand the argument that universal healthcare would be too expensive or be too difficult to structure ways to pay for it.  Universal Healthcare just costs less full stop.  Having businesses/individuals pay a percentage of what they pay now in the overly complicated insurance schemes into a tax funded government program instead seems if anything simpler.  Not sure about Constitutional arguments though.

 

I think y'all know where I stand on universal healthcare.

 

But I do think the states are the great incubators of democracy. That's where trial and error for these programs should happen.

 

Utah and California would certainly offer different routes to achieve this - and I think these ideas would be useful, as I think we can all agree that it's a travesty that the wealthiest country in the history of earth cannot ensure health care for its citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I'm addressing a very specific (and sexist in its articulation) insinuation that this particular candidate is uniquely in over her head. 

 

There is nothing sexist about my statement about her focusing on tending bar as that is what she has proven she is best at. I said nothing about her being a woman or questioning her race. You are looking for things that are not there.

 

Listen, she is vastly unqualified for the position and besides her positions being flatly wrong, she is very poor at articulating them. She is taking a position as an authority on many matters where she really has little knowledge on and is no different than many of the stiffs she serves at the bar where she works.  Now some of that is age and inexperience, but if she wants to play on the prime time stage, she has to subject herself to prime time criticism.  It is very fair and accurate to criticize her like this. The more she opens her mouth, the worse she looks.

 

And for the record, you never see me defending things your buddy Donny says either.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I'm addressing a very specific (and sexist in its articulation) insinuation that this particular candidate is uniquely in over her head. 

 

It is very fair and accurate to criticize her like this. The more she opens her mouth, the worse she looks.

 

 

 

Yeah, I don't think Brutus_buckeye[/member] was being sexist - hyperbolic, sure. But sexist, no.

 

While my stance against her is not THIS strong, I could not agree more with the sentences I've quoted from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't understand the argument that universal healthcare would be too expensive or be too difficult to structure ways to pay for it.  Universal Healthcare just costs less full stop.  Having businesses/individuals pay a percentage of what they pay now in the overly complicated insurance schemes into a tax funded government program instead seems if anything simpler.  Not sure about Constitutional arguments though.

 

The other thing to consider is that we don't live in a world where this is just a hypothetical. Other countries have it and they pay for it. They're not going bankrupt.

 

Nobody is wringing their hands about our $681 billion military budget and how we would pay for it. The answer is that right now we don't! We just keep running up the deficit. So I'm all for finding ways to pay for the stuff we have and the stuff we want but the emphasis is very selective and usually placed on stuff that conservatives don't want. Universal healthcare IS cheaper, though we'll probably have to pay more taxes instead of the current premiums and out of pocket costs we pay. That's fine. We can also start by rolling back the Trump tax cuts and not implementing his new tax proposals that will primarily benefit the extremely wealthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't understand the argument that universal healthcare would be too expensive or be too difficult to structure ways to pay for it.  Universal Healthcare just costs less full stop.  Having businesses/individuals pay a percentage of what they pay now in the overly complicated insurance schemes into a tax funded government program instead seems if anything simpler.  Not sure about Constitutional arguments though.

 

The other thing to consider is that we don't live in a world where this is just a hypothetical. Other countries have it and they pay for it. They're not going bankrupt.

 

Nobody is wringing their hands about our $681 billion military budget and how we would pay for it. The answer is that right now we don't! We just keep running up the deficit. So I'm all for finding ways to pay for the stuff we have and the stuff we want but the emphasis is very selective and usually placed on stuff that conservatives don't want. Universal healthcare IS cheaper, though we'll probably have to pay more taxes instead of the current premiums and out of pocket costs we pay. That's fine. We can also start by rolling back the Trump tax cuts and not implementing his new tax proposals that will primarily benefit the extremely wealthy.

 

With all due respect, Scandinavian countries face significantly less threats from attack as we do - so the defense spending is kind of apples to oranges.

 

But your point is well taken - we seemingly have the resources in front of us to make it work. I do believe that we cannot scale the Scandinavian model to 345,000,000 people, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more she opens her mouth, the worse she looks.

 

The worse she sounds, you mean.

 

 

No, looks was the right word in this case. (and it was not referring to her physical looks for those who try and find offense where none exists).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I'm addressing a very specific (and sexist in its articulation) insinuation that this particular candidate is uniquely in over her head. 

 

There is nothing sexist about my statement about her focusing on tending bar as that is what she has proven she is best at. I said nothing about her being a woman or questioning her race. You are looking for things that are not there.

 

Listen, she is vastly unqualified for the position and besides her positions being flatly wrong, she is very poor at articulating them. She is taking a position as an authority on many matters where she really has little knowledge on and is no different than many of the stiffs she serves at the bar where she works.  Now some of that is age and inexperience, but if she wants to play on the prime time stage, she has to subject herself to prime time criticism.  It is very fair and accurate to criticize her like this. The more she opens her mouth, the worse she looks.

 

And for the record, you never see me defending things your buddy Donny says either.

 

You're leaving out context. Women are often attacked in this way, while men are not. And you referred to her as a "dumb girl." She is a woman who graduated cum laude with a degree in economics and international relations from Boston University. She made some inarticulate comments and you immediately jumped on them. You may not go out of your way to defend Donny but you don't jump on his stupid comments and you certainly don't call him "dumb boy."

 

Context matters. I don't know if you're sexist but your comments suggest it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more she opens her mouth, the worse she looks.

 

The worse she sounds, you mean.

 

 

No, looks was the right word in this case. (and it was not referring to her physical looks for those who try and find offense where none exists).

 

this-microaggression-will-7ngdzm.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I'm addressing a very specific (and sexist in its articulation) insinuation that this particular candidate is uniquely in over her head. 

 

There is nothing sexist about my statement about her focusing on tending bar as that is what she has proven she is best at.

 

Ah, there's that patented Conservative ambition!  (I'm also surprised you know her so well that you can say the thing she's "best" at is tending bar.  Very pompous of you.  But hey, we can't all know Congressional candidates as well as you!)


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't understand the argument that universal healthcare would be too expensive or be too difficult to structure ways to pay for it.  Universal Healthcare just costs less full stop.  Having businesses/individuals pay a percentage of what they pay now in the overly complicated insurance schemes into a tax funded government program instead seems if anything simpler.  Not sure about Constitutional arguments though.

 

The other thing to consider is that we don't live in a world where this is just a hypothetical. Other countries have it and they pay for it. They're not going bankrupt.

 

Nobody is wringing their hands about our $681 billion military budget and how we would pay for it. The answer is that right now we don't! We just keep running up the deficit. So I'm all for finding ways to pay for the stuff we have and the stuff we want but the emphasis is very selective and usually placed on stuff that conservatives don't want. Universal healthcare IS cheaper, though we'll probably have to pay more taxes instead of the current premiums and out of pocket costs we pay. That's fine. We can also start by rolling back the Trump tax cuts and not implementing his new tax proposals that will primarily benefit the extremely wealthy.

 

With all due respect, Scandinavian countries face significantly less threats from attack as we do - so the defense spending is kind of apples to oranges.

 

But your point is well taken - we seemingly have the resources in front of us to make it work. I do believe that we cannot scale the Scandinavian model to 345,000,000 people, though.

 

These are fair points, but I'm glad you acknowledge the bigger issue--which is that we find ways to pay for the things we think are important. And I think the scale issue is a legitimate one so I'll acknowledge that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...