The legacy of Bernie Bros will be…

Tagged: 

This topic contains 90 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  Andrew 4 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 91 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #38252

    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Nobody has gone far left in the 40 plus years since Third Way and New Democrat organisations have controlled the party.

    Had there been even moderate left representation, meaningful to labor, the now 140 million at or below poverty level, there would not be 1000 seats down, and the ACA, with a public insurer available, would have played out very differently than it has.

    We currently rank the worst among all developed nations in cost, life expectancy, metrics, 2x the cost of the second most expensive systems out there, including ones that do include markets.

    Herb, your vision of consumer choice and better rates, “get the dealz on your heart attack” is proven successful exactly nowhere.

    Where markets are employed, they are regulated much like we used to regulate banks, and better differentiate investment banking.

    It has recently been observed consistent pricing could work to improve the success and cost of some health care, though it really is not an answer for primary, like without it people just die, type care.

    The GOP has none of that on the table.

    #38253

    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Finally, the D party leadership is no where near flirting with peak socialist,

    Getting that is fundemental to understanding the state of the left, as it exists right now.

    #38254

    Herb
    Participant

    In general, I like ‘user pay’ systems. If you don’t hike, then you shouldn’t have to pay hiking fees. That’s what fishing and hunting licenses are based on. Makes total sense.

    If there is one other thing I think we are in relatively good agreement about is that a healthy middle class is a good thing.

    This is due in part to the middle class paying much of the way, whether it’s property taxes, income taxes. Its also a group with significant charitable giving.

    Drilling down on that brings this observation:

    “A strong pattern that makes some commentators uneasy is the fact that, as Brooks put it, “the electoral map and the charity map are remarkably similar.” Or to quote the Chronicle of Philanthropy’s 2012 summary of its giving research, ‘the eight states that ranked highest voted for John McCain in the last presidential contest…while the seven lowest-ranking states supported Barack Obama.’”

    In addition to the middle class being integral to a healthy nation, this helps us to mitigate bashing the rich:

    “The very wealthy…give away a much larger chunk of their earnings than others.”

    https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/who-gives

    That all said, growing a larger, vibrant and inclusive middle class is a serious goal to work toward.

    #38255

    Vitalogy
    Participant

    Looks to me like religious donations skew the results. Let’s strip all money given to religious institutions and we would see the “true” charity numbers. Giving to a church isn’t charity, it’s forced extortion.

    #38256

    Herb
    Participant

    No, you have church giving confused with a political agenda-driven IRS.

    People give to churches for largely noble causes, i.e., help the poor and advance the Great Commission.

    It’s a wayward IRS that enforces payment and disallows tax exempt status at the barrel of a gun. Unless one’s politics are PC, kind of like a Mafia enforcer. And you don’t find that frightening?

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-unresolved-irs-scandal-1525905500

    Were the shoe on the other foot, the left would be howling. Selective outrage.

    #38260

    Vitalogy
    Participant

    Sorry, but there’s a distinction between donating to your church vs an actual charitable contribution to a non-profit. Why else would Utah be #1?

    #38261

    Andrew
    Participant

    Herb: “Can you guys start to see how hewing consistently far left hasn’t been the best strategy? The public doesn’t seem to be with you”

    As I said in another thread, Hillary got 2.7 million more popular votes than Trump. Only a partisan fool would look at that and conclude, “The public doesn’t seem to be with you!”

    #38262

    Andrew
    Participant

    Herb: “Fewer illegal aliens means all working class people (of whom I count myself) are safer from crime. This translates to lower costs for courts, insurance and law enforcement.”

    No – most immigrants aren’t criminals. There are plenty of white, “legal” criminals too. There are criminals in any population. We’d have “less crime” if we kept out legal, white immigrants too. Should we keep them out also to reduce the cost of law enforcement?

    If more immigrants were allowed to come to the US and work, legally, they would pay a sh*tload of taxes, including into Social Security and Medicaid, which will help keep those programs solvent for years longer.

    #38263

    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Did they have to vote for her, or did they want to vote for her, or did they need to?

    “With her” means very different things in all three scenarios.

    Works about the same way that less worse, may or may not mean actually better off, or good.

    And frankly, she was a really terrible candidate. Trump should have been laughed off the stage.

    #38264

    Andrew
    Participant

    Herb: “On top of that, the un-affordable ACA is being dismantled, with now a real opportunity looking forward of consumer choice and lower rates. I’m no fan of health insurance companies and many working class citizens were priced out of health insurance due to Obamacare.”

    I got to see my brother today. He’s healthy now, but a few years ago, he had life-saving surgery thanks ONLY to Obamacare. He had been going to the ER for years as his primary care doctor, to be treated for his symptoms, but without health insurance, he could not get a surgeon to operate on him. Only the Medicaid expansion of Obamacare let him get insurance so he could get the life-saving surgery. I’m glad I got to see him today, thanks to President Obama and the Democratic Congress of 2009-2010, instead of going to visit his grave site.

    Thousands of others are similarly alive today thanks to Obamacare. Republicans did NOTHING to help them for all the years they were in power – and it looks like they want to go back to letting people like my brother die early (or just go into bankruptcy) due to lack of health insurance. I guess you can all have a nice Christian prayer about how unfortunate it was God chose to let them die early and somehow feel good about yourselves. Hallelujah!

    #38265

    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Rather than discussing immigrants subsidizing Social Security, while getting no benefit, maybe we should talk about actually raising the cap so the programs are properly funded. It’s not like the people who didn’t get nearly all of the gains for the last 40 years can’t fucking afford it can they?

    The only reason Social Security is even a discussion, is we drop way too many bombs.

    Affording those things isn’t an issue, it’s a priority Problem.

    #38266

    Andrew
    Participant

    Missing: “Did they have to vote for her, or did they want to vote for her, or did they need to?”

    If they didn’t want to see the Supreme Court swing sharply to the right for 30 years, rendering many more anti-union and pro-corporate decisions. they needed to vote for her.

    If they didn’t want to see income inequality made even worse with huge deficit-busting tax cuts mostly for the rich, they needed to vote for her.

    If they didn’t want to see refugee kids put in cages at the border, taken away from their families, they needed to vote for her.

    Pretty damn simple, isn’t it?

    #38267

    Andrew
    Participant

    Missing: “Rather than discussing immigrants subsidizing Social Security, while getting no benefit, maybe we should talk about actually raising the cap so the programs are properly funded.”

    Why can’t we do both? How about a path to citizenship for workers who work for a while and pay into Social Security and Medicare, so eventually they too can benefit from these programs?

    We have a long tradition in America of bringing in young immigrant workers to do this – not exactly a new concept.

    #38268

    missing_kskd
    Participant

    If you intend for them to be citizens, sure, but that’s no basis for Social Security. In otherwords the vitality the program should not be predicated on something like that.

    The people that took all the wealth to keep can sure as fuck pay for the people that labored to get it.

    #38270

    missing_kskd
    Participant

    My question stands Andrew, not wanting to see the Supreme Court turned a certain way, is not connected to whether or not someone believes in Clinton.

    That’s the whole positive politics attract the vote thing. What you’re speaking of is raw entitlement and it’s dangerous.

    It’s dangerous, because of the numbers game I mentioned earlier. Irresponsible to ignore too.

    All reasons why she is one of the worst candidates we’ve seen in a very very long time.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 91 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.