Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 21:24:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2019 2:43:40 GMT
@fred
Trump would have won no matter who ran against the blob.
And if sanders or warren run... the blob will win again.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Nov 4, 2019 2:43:57 GMT
I'm voting for whoever ends up against trump, but I will not vote for someone in the primary who I believe is too far left and whose policies I either do not agree with or find destructive
|
|
TheOtherMeg
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,541
Jun 25, 2014 20:58:14 GMT
|
Post by TheOtherMeg on Nov 4, 2019 2:47:46 GMT
and when trump wins again, they can continue to post memes about it and complain while trump continues destroying the country and the world IKR Their "logic" escapes me, but, then, I'm of the "ok boomer" meme age-group, so what do I know.
|
|
moodyblue
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,172
Location: Western Illinois
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2014 21:07:23 GMT
|
Post by moodyblue on Nov 4, 2019 14:16:04 GMT
I have the same concern, and also about the Medicare for all. People have visceral reactions to proposals like these. And while I know that much of what candidates campaign on never gets done in that form, the platform they put forth gets people to vote for them or not. The biggest concern for me is that people will not turn out to vote for the Democratic candidate and Trump will win again because HIS people will turn out. I will vote for whomever gets the Dem nomination, but I’m worried that others just won’t vote if they are turned off by the platform. See, what I see/hear is that we're worried that wealthy, white people will be turned off and won't turn out. No one's giving a thought to all the progressive Obama voters and disaffected millennials who stayed home in 2016 because we nominated a centrist. I really wish we'd quit worrying so much about what the fraction-of-one-percent thinks. A lot of those people are going to vote for Trump anyway, whether they admit it or not. But the poor, working class and minority voters who stayed home in 2016 because they didn't see a candidate who represented their views - those folks are ripe for the taking. So are all the millennials who stayed home in 2016 - they're too busy trying to figure out how to pay off their student loans and make sure they have healthcare and an environment that won't kill their kids, and they didn't see anyone in 2016 who was committed to helping them with those problems. Nationwide poll numbers simply don't reflect the heebie-jeebies about Warren's progressive policies that I see floated here. With all due respect to everyone, we liberals on this board skew overwhelmingly white and relatively wealthy, and very middle-aged. What our friends in our various social bubbles think is only a tiny fraction of national opinion. Nominate Biden or someone like him, and I guarantee you the folks who stayed home in 2016 will stay home again. And we'll lose. Something I think everyone here forgets about Warren is that she's not stupid. She's not a wild-eyed ideologue like Bernie, either. She used to be a Republican and understands that "fiscally conservative" mindset very well. I guarantee you that her people have done their homework on these issues. No, I’m not talking about just the fraction-of-one-percent people here. You are assuming they are the only ones who would reject Warren's ideas and I think that is not true at all. I think, based on what I hear and read, that there are other people who are turned off by her wealth tax plans and Medicare for All. To some people, these things smack too much of that "socialism" label that Trump is going to attach to any and all Democratic candidates. And when she talks about her plans, including breaking up giant corporations, there are people who could see her tone as almost gleeful and that’s a turnoff - and I say that liking a lot about her. We can wish that people would vote based on the big picture of what’s good for the general "we the people" but that’s not always the case. There are lots of people, everyday people, working in the health insurance industry, who wonder what happens to them under Medicare for All. They too have reactions and they aren’t the super wealthy CEOs. Voter turnout is going to be key. Whichever candidate gets the nomination will need the other candidates to get behind them and help turn out their voters for the Democratic nominee. If Bernie had whole-heartedly urged his voters to turn out for Hillary, would that have made a difference? I don’t know, but I think it’s going to be an issue this time. We need to campaign on what the Democrats can do for people, but we have to be pragmatic and understand that it's also about Donald Trump and getting him out. Every vote is needed, and we have to get the broadest possible vote we can. Any candidate who doesn’t get behind the nominee contributes to the problem.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Nov 4, 2019 16:41:03 GMT
I don’t have a problem with it. Why would I worry myself silly if the billionaires don’t like it? Don’t like it, don’t vote for Warren or Sanders.
Generally speaking, proposals always have a combination of the good, the bad and the ugly. Some of the downsides can be ameliorated over time, and some cannot. Then we adjust. Way back when, people thought the personal income tax was too radical and would never succeed; now, everyone accepts it as a fact of life.
If we don’t start somewhere, then it’ll just be business as usual – dearth of funding for social programs, ever widening gap between the one-percenters and the rest of society, continued protection for the plutocrats at the expense of everyone else, etc, etc. If you don’t want meaningful change, you might as well vote Republican and keep kicking that inequality can down the road.
The only issues I would want to be tackled in addition to the wealth gap are tax avoidance and tax evasion. I want Congress to overhaul those portions of the tax code that make them possible.
If anyone thinks this wealth tax proposal is too radical, pause for a minute and think how harmful supply-side economics, which Republicans embrace and implement wholeheartedly, truly is. Giving the ultra-rich permanent tax breaks to enable them to grow their wealth even more at the expense of a festering and gross inequality in the mistaken belief that it “lifts all boats” has been tried and done for decades, and each and every time, it has proven to be a farce. You want more of supply-side, vote Republican. You want a fairer and egalitarian economy, vote Democrat.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 21:24:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2019 16:50:48 GMT
linktrump retweeted this article.. From the reason.. “Elizabeth Warren Wants To Pay for Medicare for All With a $9 Trillion Tax That Will Hit the Middle Class”“Warren says it’s not a tax. But what else would you call a requirement that employers send money to the federal government to finance a public program? For months, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D—Mass.) has hedged on the question of whether she would raise middle class taxes to pay for Medicare for All, the single-payer health care plan she says she supports. Warren has stuck with a talking point about total costs, saying that the middle class would pay less, while critics, political rivals, and even liberal economists friendly to single payer have argued that the enormous additional government spending required by such a plan would inevitably hit the middle class. Today, Warren released a plan to finance Medicare for All at a total price tag of nearly $52 trillion, including about $20 trillion of new government spending (an estimate that is probably low). Although her plan declares that no middle-class taxes will be necessary to finance the system, it includes what is effectively a new tax on employers that would undoubtedly hit middle-class Americans.Today, American health care is financed by a mix of public and private payers. Under a single-payer system—what Warren and rival presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) call Medicare for All—virtually all health care spending would instead run through the federal government. Right now, Warren's plan says, employers spend about $9 trillion a decade on health insurance coverage. Her plan aims to move the private spending onto the federal budget. Under her proposal, large employers who currently pay for health coverage would be required to pay a comparable amount (equivalent to 98 percent of what they pay now, adjusted for the number of workers they employ) in order to help finance Medicare for All. Warren shies away from calling this a tax, and she even claims "we don't need to raise taxes on the middle class by one penny to finance Medicare for All." Instead, she refers to it as an employer Medicare contribution, under which companies "would send payments to the federal government for Medicare." But there is a commonly accepted term for a plan that requires companies to send payments to the federal government in order to finance government programs. That word is tax. And that is essentially what this is—a nearly $9 trillion payroll tax (or, perhaps, a head tax with some small-business carve outs). It is thus hard to see this as anything other than a massive middle-class tax hike. That is the argument that former Vice President Joe Biden, another Democratic presidential hopeful, is already making, with a campaign staffer responding to the release of her plan by saying, "For months, Elizabeth Warren has refused to say if her health care plan would raise taxes on the middle class, and now we know why: because it does. Senator Warren would place a new tax of nearly $9 trillion that will fall on American workers." Warren and her defenders will likely try to shift the discussion back to total costs, but that's just a way of repeating the dodge that has dogged her campaign for much of the year. Warren will no doubt claim that costs would go down under her plan, but there are reasons to doubt this, including an analysis from health care economist Kenneth Thorpe finding that under a Sanders-style plan, more than 70 percent of people who currently have private insurance would see costs increase, as well as an Urban Institute analysis projecting that single-payer plans would raise national health care spending by $7 trillion over a decade. Nor is this the only problem with her plan. As The Washington Post reports, "some analysts have warned that companies would have strong incentives, in the years before such a law's enactment, to make it appear their health-care costs are low. Businesses may be encouraged to split off into two entities, one of which might be able to avoid the required health-care contributions because it had none the year before the program kicked off." At minimum, the incentives and feedback effects of Warren's plan would be complex and difficult to predict. Warren's plan includes other new taxes as well: a six percent tax on billionaires beyond the wealth tax she has already proposed, an increased tax on capital gains, and a 35 percent tax on corporate earnings earned overseas. She also proposes raising trillions in tax revenue through increased enforcement—far exceeding what mainstream experts have suggested is possible. Indeed, much of Warren's plan is based on unlikely, and at times outright fantastical, assumptions about what sort of additional revenue could be raised, what health care costs could be contained, and what might be politically feasible. Among other things, she proposes raising $400 billion by passing comprehensive immigration reform, which, given the politics of immigration policy, is only a little more realistic than planning to pay off your mortgage by winning the lottery. The Washington Examiner's Philip Klein has published a useful roundup of Warren's less plausible ideas; the takeaway is that even if Warren somehow managed to raise the enormous amounts of tax she proposes, it probably would still not be anywhere close to enough to finance her plan. (More on this in a future post.) In some ways, Warren's plan amounts to a list of technically sophisticated magic asterisks. It is as much an attempt to obscure the economic and political feasibility of passing and implementing a single-payer health care plan as a good-faith attempt to describe what it would practically require. Yet in another way, it reveals something about both Warren and the economic reality of single-payer: Despite running a campaign based on wonky academic credentials and detail-oriented policy chops, Warren has, until now, repeatedly refused to directly answer questions about precisely how she would finance Medicare for All and whether she would foist new taxes on the middle class. Turns out she didn't dodge the question because the answer was complex or hard to explain. She dodged it because the answer was so simple it could be expressed in a single word: yes.” No matter what is in this article, what the trump supporters are going to “see” is Elizabeth Warren is taxing the middle class.
|
|
tincin
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,368
Jul 25, 2014 4:55:32 GMT
|
Post by tincin on Nov 4, 2019 17:20:24 GMT
I don't like it. I don't like it looking like they are punishing the wealthy. I'd rather they look at closing the loopholes that are used to get out of paying their taxes Were you okay with us rewarding the wealthy with huge tax cuts?
|
|
tincin
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,368
Jul 25, 2014 4:55:32 GMT
|
Post by tincin on Nov 4, 2019 17:24:23 GMT
This will come as a shock to no one, but if you’ve got over 50 million in assets and are upset because someone may want to use a tiny fraction of that to fund the socially liberal policies you claim to support, I say boo fucking hoo. I am so tired of people calling themselves socially liberal/fiscally whatever, when what they really mean is, I don’t want to look like a total asshole, but hands off my inherited wealth and what I’ve managed to grow from it in a system that is tailor-made to make it easy for people like me to make more money. I’m going to say exactly what I think Compwalla would say about that: Fuck. That. Noise. Contribute your fair share or admit the only reason you aren’t supporting Trump is because you’re afraid of the social stigma. How dare you make tens of millions of dollars on the backs of other people and then sit there and feel like you shouldn’t have to contribute? How dare you. People with over 50 million in assets are a tiny fraction of the electorate. No, I’m not too worried about losing that vote. Let people show themselves as what they really are. I think some Democrats should be more concerned about losing the votes of middle class moms who struggle to pay for their kids to go to state colleges - or whose kids take out tens of thousands in loans, or who skip college because they can't afford it - while the poor, poor rich folks send their kids to whatever $60K/year private school their heart desires without batting an eye (and sometimes throw a hefty donation at the school to make sure junior gets in). I think some Democrats should look to the millions currently uninsured or underinsured and drowning in medical debt. I think some Democrats need to look beyond their own interests, to be very honest. There are far more people hurting right now who could be an easy catch for the Democratic nominee, but not if they feel like the nominee's primary interest is in not alienating people with more than $50 million in assets. I mean, really? Do you all hear yourselves? Thank you, I couldn’t have said it better. Since less than 1% of this country controls more assets that the bottom 50% I think it’s damned time they pay their share. Why should I pay 28% and they pay far less, even nothing in some cases. It’s bull shit.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 21:24:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2019 18:32:27 GMT
First let me say that I don’t have any problem reasonably taxing the rich and absolutely the loopholes need to be closed. There is no excuse that corporations like Amazon don’t pay taxes. That is ridiculous.
I’m saying this because what I’m about to say is surly going to piss off some of the progressives on this board.
What I’m seeing is a bunch of people who look at the wealthy and think they shouldn’t have that money. That shouldn’t be allowed to buy whatever the rich spend their money on. Therefore, we should take their money, as much as we can. to pay for all these social programs. I think Sanders’s goal is to cut the number of billionaires in this country by half within the next 10 years. It smacks of jealousy.
I fully support social programs.
But we have Elizabeth “I have a plan “ Warren
Health care ? No problem we’ll do Medicare for all and the rich will pay for it.
Want four years of free college? No problem, the rich will pay for it.
Find those student loans burdensome? No problem, we’ll forgive those loans and the rich will pay for it.
Fight against climate change? No problem, the rich will pay for it.
Infrastructure? No problem, the rich will pay for it.
And, the middle class isn’t going to have to pay for any of this because we’ll get all the money we need from taxing the rich. Never mind the debt. Never mind Social Security. Never mind the programs that are currently helping people that thr trump administration has been cutting.
Oh yes, in these perilous times in the world cutting military spending by 5% is not only dumb but irresponsible.
My point is this, there are a lot of things that need to be fixed that cost a lot of money. And in my opinion I don’t think we should short shrift other programs for Medicare for All and it is irresponsible to think one can tax the wealthy and corporations enough to pay for all the programs that need to be addressed.
What is going to have to be done is compromise and looking at all options so we can take care of what needs to be taken care of without relying on a questionable revenue stream. And yes, thinking you can tax enough money from the wealthy to pay for all these programs that Warren and Sanders are promising is rather naive and irresponsible.
|
|
tincin
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,368
Jul 25, 2014 4:55:32 GMT
|
Post by tincin on Nov 4, 2019 18:36:56 GMT
Taxing the wealthy is not the only way to pay for these things, military cuts and giving money to other countries will also be used.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 21:24:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2019 18:54:28 GMT
Taxing the wealthy is not the only way to pay for these things, military cuts and giving money to other countries will also be used. A stable world benefits the United States. Thanks to trump there is a lot more instability in the world. Russia is on the move and I don’t even want to think about the mess trump is making in the Middle East. Where the United States had an edge with our military, both Russia and China are updating theirs rather rapidly. Neither of these countries are our friends. While I have questioned military spending in the past I’m no longer doing it. Both a strong military and foreign aid go a long way in keeping the world stable and protecting our interests.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 4, 2019 19:03:02 GMT
First let me say that I don’t have any problem reasonably taxing the rich and absolutely the loopholes need to be closed. There is no excuse that corporations like Amazon don’t pay taxes. That is ridiculous. I’m saying this because what I’m about to say is surly going to piss off some of the progressives on this board. What I’m seeing is a bunch of people who look at the wealthy and think they shouldn’t have that money. That shouldn’t be allowed to buy whatever the rich spend their money on. Therefore, we should take their money, as much as we can. to pay for all these social programs. I think Sanders’s goal is to cut the number of billionaires in this country by half within the next 10 years. It smacks of jealousy. I fully support social programs. But we have Elizabeth “I have a plan “ Warren Health care ? No problem we’ll do Medicare for all and the rich will pay for it. Want four years of free college? No problem, the rich will pay for it. Find those student loans burdensome? No problem, we’ll forgive those loans and the rich will pay for it. Fight against climate change? No problem, the rich will pay for it. Infrastructure? No problem, the rich will pay for it. And, the middle class isn’t going to have to pay for any of this because we’ll get all the money we need from taxing the rich. Never mind the debt. Never mind Social Security. Never mind the programs that are currently helping people that thr trump administration has been cutting. Oh yes, in these perilous times in the world cutting military spending by 5% is not only dumb but irresponsible. My point is this, there are a lot of things that need to be fixed that cost a lot of money. And in my opinion I don’t think we should short shrift other programs for Medicare for All and it is irresponsible to think one can tax the wealthy and corporations enough to pay for all the programs that need to be addressed. What is going to have to be done is compromise and looking at all options so we can take care of what needs to be taken care of without relying on a questionable revenue stream. And yes, thinking you can tax enough money from the wealthy to pay for all these programs that Warren and Sanders are promising is rather naive and irresponsible. Did you actually read her plan? "Tax the wealthy" is only part of it. There's quite a bit of compromise involved. I don't think the wealthy shouldn't have their money. I do think it's obscene that we have a system of laws that is designed to allow the rich to easily get richer and also allow them to avoid paying taxes on much of that wealth, while at the same time we have people dying for lack of necessary health care. I dislike the false narrative that says that people who are extremely wealthy got that way solely through their own hard work, because it gives them an 'out' in saying that if the poor want to be better off, they simply need to work harder, and the wealthy shouldn't have to give up their money. That is, the money that they made in a system designed solely for their financial benefit. What I think is naive and irresponsible is thinking that the poor and disenfranchised in this country aren't going to eventually come calling for their part of the American dream. The system is set up to benefit the wealthy and screw the poor and middle class. How long do the wealthy think that folks are going to continue to sit quietly and take that? The American dream is becoming a joke for most Americans and the wealthy don't even realize it. I don't think it's jealousy to point out that the vast majority of billionaires don't get there solely through their own merit, and that the system that has been set up to make the rich richer is hugely unfair. GenX is getting screwed hard by this system as we approach retirement age without hope of Social Security, and Millennials and those younger are wondering if they will even be able to retire, if they will be able to afford health care, and if the air will be safe to breathe. But by all means, let's worry about the billionaires. They really need our concern. (We can talk all day about what people believe and what they perceive as socialism, but here's facts: nothing that is being proposed by any major candidate is true socialism. It just isn't. That's a scare word being used by Republicans, and ignorant moderates are falling right in line believing it. Democrats can cater to that false belief, or we can be the party of facts that we like to think we are, and educate people. Socialism means that the government controls the means of production. Taking the middle man out of health insurance isn't remotely related to that. Privately owned healthcare facilities will still be privately owned. Doctors in private practice will still be there. All that changes is that less money goes into profit for private health insurance, and more is directed to actually providing healthcare. That's not socialism. That's good economic sense. If you know people who believe that single-payer means socialism, take a moment to educate them instead of throwing up your hands and saying that we'll never elect someone with socialist ideas. Please stop doing the RNC's job for it.)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 21:24:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2019 19:17:03 GMT
Taxing the wealthy is not the only way to pay for these things, military cuts and giving money to other countries will also be used. Why tax the wealthy?!?! THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY IS!The Top 10% of the wealthy SIT ON 76% of wealth!
You can't wring blood from a turnip. money.cnn.com/2016/08/18/pf/wealth-inequality/
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Nov 4, 2019 20:53:54 GMT
I'm voting for whoever ends up against trump, but I will not vote for someone in the primary who I believe is too far left and whose policies I either do not agree with or find destructive I agree. Ultimately, I want the nominee to be someone who will beat Trump. That is my #1 objective. But I also am not going to be bullied into voting for someone who is not in line with my values. It seems that "we" need to watch out for everyone else's feelings or opinions--the Progressives who would rather vote for Trump than a moderate (WTF is that); the wealthy; the poor; every group of people. It drives me crazy that the Democrats are expected to put up this perfect candidate that will make everyone happy in every single way--or else it is Trump. I personally am not crazy about Bernie or Warren. They both seem to pie in the sky for me, and honestly I am scared that their ideas will leave us in worse shape than we currently are financially. It could be that I am wrong, but in general I am not a risk taker so the idea of making such drastic changes so quickly is uncomfortable for me.
|
|
|
Post by peasapie on Nov 4, 2019 20:57:25 GMT
Haven't read all responses, but I think she is shooting herself in the foot with this. No way is this country ready for what she is serving up.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 4, 2019 21:16:16 GMT
I'm voting for whoever ends up against trump, but I will not vote for someone in the primary who I believe is too far left and whose policies I either do not agree with or find destructive I agree. Ultimately, I want the nominee to be someone who will beat Trump. That is my #1 objective. But I also am not going to be bullied into voting for someone who is not in line with my values. It seems that "we" need to watch out for everyone else's feelings or opinions-- the Progressives who would rather vote for Trump than a moderate (WTF is that); the wealthy; the poor; every group of people. It drives me crazy that the Democrats are expected to put up this perfect candidate that will make everyone happy in every single way--or else it is Trump. I personally am not crazy about Bernie or Warren. They both seem to pie in the sky for me, and honestly I am scared that their ideas will leave us in worse shape than we currently are financially. It could be that I am wrong, but in general I am not a risk taker so the idea of making such drastic changes so quickly is uncomfortable for me. I haven't seen any progressive say they would rather vote for Trump than a moderate. I have seen quite a few people warn that their supposedly moderate friends would vote for Trump before a progressive. I don't intend to bully anyone. I do, however, intend to continue to correct misinformation. Polling numbers do not currently support the idea that "the country" isn't ready for a progressive. Nothing being proposed by any of the mainstream candidates can be correctly defined as socialism, nor is it "pie in the sky" if you consider that most developed countries already operate this way. I personally think we should quit buying into the narrative that the primary people we need to worry about are the wealthy. WTH does that come from anyway. We've done far too much worrying about the wealthy and have precious little to show for it. So yes, I think it's wise to worry about some of the groups who have been ignored and disenfranchised for decades. I'm not looking for one who is perfect; I'm looking for one who isn't already bought and paid for by corporate PACs and wealthy super donors.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Nov 4, 2019 21:27:39 GMT
I agree. Ultimately, I want the nominee to be someone who will beat Trump. That is my #1 objective. But I also am not going to be bullied into voting for someone who is not in line with my values. It seems that "we" need to watch out for everyone else's feelings or opinions-- the Progressives who would rather vote for Trump than a moderate (WTF is that); the wealthy; the poor; every group of people. It drives me crazy that the Democrats are expected to put up this perfect candidate that will make everyone happy in every single way--or else it is Trump. I personally am not crazy about Bernie or Warren. They both seem to pie in the sky for me, and honestly I am scared that their ideas will leave us in worse shape than we currently are financially. It could be that I am wrong, but in general I am not a risk taker so the idea of making such drastic changes so quickly is uncomfortable for me. I haven't seen any progressive say they would rather vote for Trump than a moderate. I have seen quite a few people warn that their supposedly moderate friends would vote for Trump before a progressive. I don't intend to bully anyone. I do, however, intend to continue to correct misinformation. Polling numbers do not currently support the idea that "the country" isn't ready for a progressive. Nothing being proposed by any of the mainstream candidates can be correctly defined as socialism, nor is it "pie in the sky" if you consider that most developed countries already operate this way. I personally think we should quit buying into the narrative that the primary people we need to worry about are the wealthy. WTH does that come from anyway. We've done far too much worrying about the wealthy and have precious little to show for it. So yes, I think it's wise to worry about some of the groups who have been ignored and disenfranchised for decades. I'm not looking for one who is perfect; I'm looking for one who isn't already bought and paid for by corporate PACs and wealthy super donors. What I have heard (and what I think people earlier in the thread were getting at) is that people don't like the idea of punishing the wealthy. There is a difference between proposing policies that will ensure they are paying their fair share and using verbiage that comes across that people are angry at the wealthy for being wealthy, and want to make them "pay" for that. One of the values of our country has been that if you work hard, you can do well. Intentionally creating policies that punish people for saving and/or doing well in life seems to go against that value, even for those of us who realize that the opportunities presented are not equal. I also realize that the "Democrats are socialists" is the Republican narrative right now. But I think that the ideas of taxing the wealthy just feed into that. As for progressives not voting for a moderate...hasn't it been said all along that Bernie supporters who chose not to vote for Hillary were part of the problem in the 2016 election? I also have listened to The Daily podcasts that highlighted Warren supporters, Bernie supporters, and Democrats in general. There have been people on all of those podcasts who said that they would not vote for Biden or a more moderate candidate. I don't know the number of voters that that opinion represents, though. Just like we don't know the number of people who wouldn't vote for Warren because of the wealth tax.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 4, 2019 21:36:01 GMT
I haven't seen any progressive say they would rather vote for Trump than a moderate. I have seen quite a few people warn that their supposedly moderate friends would vote for Trump before a progressive. I don't intend to bully anyone. I do, however, intend to continue to correct misinformation. Polling numbers do not currently support the idea that "the country" isn't ready for a progressive. Nothing being proposed by any of the mainstream candidates can be correctly defined as socialism, nor is it "pie in the sky" if you consider that most developed countries already operate this way. I personally think we should quit buying into the narrative that the primary people we need to worry about are the wealthy. WTH does that come from anyway. We've done far too much worrying about the wealthy and have precious little to show for it. So yes, I think it's wise to worry about some of the groups who have been ignored and disenfranchised for decades. I'm not looking for one who is perfect; I'm looking for one who isn't already bought and paid for by corporate PACs and wealthy super donors. What I have heard (and what I think people earlier in the thread were getting at) is that people don't like the idea of punishing the wealthy. There is a difference between proposing policies that will ensure they are paying their fair share and using verbiage that comes across that people are angry at the wealthy for being wealthy, and want to make them "pay" for that. One of the values of our country has been that if you work hard, you can do well. Intentionally creating policies that punish people for saving and/or doing well in life seems to go against that value, even for those of us who realize that the opportunities presented are not equal. I also realize that the "Democrats are socialists" is the Republican narrative right now. But I think that the ideas of taxing the wealthy just feed into that. As for progressives not voting for a moderate...hasn't it been said all along that Bernie supporters who chose not to vote for Hillary were part of the problem in the 2016 election? I also have listened to The Daily podcasts that highlighted Warren supporters, Bernie supporters, and Democrats in general. There have been people on all of those podcasts who said that they would not vote for Biden or a more moderate candidate. I don't know the number of voters that that opinion represents, though. Just like we don't know the number of people who wouldn't vote for Warren because of the wealth tax. IDK about podcasts. I was talking about people on this thread. The whole narrative that people who are super wealthy have gotten that way solely by working hard is the problem. Almost without exception, they've gotten that way in large part because the system is stacked in their favor. Nobody's talking about punishing anyone - we're talking about mitigating some of the advantage they get just by virtue of being wealthy. It's all but impossible for a person of modest means to become a billionaire or even multi-millionaire in today's economy. I say "all but" because we can all point to exceptions - professional athletes, Oprah, etc. But the average person who grows up in a middle class or working class home and is not phenomenally talented in some way, or very lucky, is going to stay in roughly the same socio-economic class they grew up in. Or lower. No matter how hard they work or how much they save. Whereas the very average son of a wealthy family (Trump, Kushner for starters) is going to have an elite education purchased for him, he's going to be introduced to the "right" people, he's going to marry into a "good" family, and his trust fund/inherited wealth is going to increase. You don't become hugely wealthy by saving and doing well if you don't already start out way ahead of the pack. We all like to think that can happen, but mostly it doesn't. People stuck in the middle class are not less bright or less hardworking than the wealthy. They simply don't have the advantage of capital and connections. It's not punishing the wealthy to acknowledge that their wealth is not entirely the product of their own virtue, and to attempt some form of economic equity.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 21:24:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2019 21:41:13 GMT
I understand Warren has other things she wants to do to pay for her Medicare for All.
My point with a question, and I’m sorry if I was not clear, is there are a lot of programs that both Warren and Sanders plan to completely or partly pay for by tapping into the spigot of revenue from taxing the wealthy and corporations in various ways. My question, what happens to these programs if the revenue from this spigot does not meet expectations or diminishes over time? Then what? While there is a lot of wealth there, it’s also a relativity small pool of donors, so to speak, to rely on for this stream of revenue long term. Especially when they have access to all kinds of tax attorneys and accountants to help them hide their wealth.
But I do think too many people do think rich people shouldn’t be allowed to be rich. That because there are rich , they should be told what they must do with their money.
Personally I don’t care one way or the other if people have money. I just think it’s foolish to build these programs in varying degrees around taxing the rich. Because if the programs fail from the lack of funds from taxing the rich, the people hurt are the ones that need the help the most.
|
|