Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread


88Comrade2000
Message added by TK,

 

Recommended Posts

@NoCalMike think this would be better for the health care thread, @bearrock chatted a bit on the perception of MFA vs Public Option compared to reality.  Both sides are missing important points, either by mistake or intentionally.  

 

I believe people public option are doing so because they believe people are more likely to support it, not because it's actually more likely to work.  And I hate that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes during these debates I feel the "middle" candidates just have a poor way of explaining things.

 

I will point to one issue specifically, college.

 

Bernie throws out the "free college" thing, I can't remember who else is on board with that.

 

If I am a middle candidate, my response would be something along the lines of, "demanding "free college" is an over-correction solution of a justified anger and frustration with the current system that rips our children off and sets them up with a lifetime of debt.  It didn't use to be this way.  College was affordable, most of the time you could work your way through your college years and get a degree with little or no debt, but because lending companies, universities, etc etc etc have continued to warp the system, the process has got out of hand, and I believe that our youth would be perfectly willing to pay into a system they felt had their best interests for their future in mind instead of preying on them for as much money they can squeeze out their pay checks for the rest of their lives.

 

And then lay out policy that can fix the system.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

That’s your answer, no?


A lot of them don’t have a plan.

 

Progressive candidates hurt themselves by saying college should be free when they are talking about government run colleges, not private.  Moderate candidates hurt themselves by attacking that without an alternative that brings prices back to being realistic to pay while in college like it used to be.  

 

I dont want to hear about fixing repayment systems without fixing the outrageous costs same time.  Giving me more time to pay back 6 figures is missing the point progressive candidates are making for slashing the prices as low as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do feel like it needs to be said the way the phrase medicare for all is being used in the Democratic primary is not literally medicare for all (e.g. there's nothing about being on medicare that says you can't have private insurance that covers some of the same things that Medicare does, but Sanders' plan would do just that).

 

Sanders is a good politician.  He's defined his health care plan using a phrase/concept that was popular, and then the media lazily also uses that phrase to describe his health care plan to the point where the two get intertwined, which essentially forces everybody else to as well.  I guess if I were Buttigieg I'd be running ads pointing out that the Sanders plan is not literally medicare for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Progressive candidates hurt themselves by saying college should be free when they are talking about government run colleges, not private.  Moderate candidates hurt themselves by attacking that without an alternative that brings prices back to being realistic to pay while in college like it used to be.  

 

I dont want to hear about fixing repayment systems without fixing the outrageous costs same time.  Giving me more time to pay back 6 figures is missing the point progressive candidates are making.

 

The fundamental problem with college costs is that the states haven't kept up funding of colleges with inflation and the increased demand for college.  In most states, when corrected for inflation most colleges are being funded at below levels they were 30 or 40 years ago even though they are educating more people and education has a larger costs because of increases in technology. 

 

The answer is simple.  Vote for state politicians that support funding higher education in a manner consistent with the costs and number of people going to college.

 

And you already see some states making moves to make college more affordable (e.g. NY).

 

(Private colleges are funky because most people don't pay full price.  When you look at increases in private college tuition, the numbers are meaningless because you have no idea how many people are actually paying that.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PeterMP said:

Interesting take on the wealth tax that I had not considered before (though I'm also not sure of all of the details of Warren's plan):

 

http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/taxing-financial-transactions-is-more-strategic-than-taxing-high-wealth

 

"Since the bulk of the money comes from a very small group of people, this small group of people has the option to announce that they will not pay the tax, by renouncing their citizenship. If that sounds strange to people, they have not been following the political behavior of the very rich in recent years. Can anyone say it’s worth $5 billion a year to Jeff Bezos to be a U.S. citizen?

 

Suppose 1,000 very rich people, representing $10 trillion in wealth, sent a letter to Congress proclaiming their plan to renounce their citizenship if lawmakers moved ahead with President Warren’s wealth tax? My guess is that Congress would not move forward (even if it otherwise were inclined to endorse such a measure). If Congress did move forward, and a substantial share of these billionaires carried through with their threat, the Warren administration would face a major embarrassment.

 

 

I think France went through something similar when they had extremely high income tax rate.  But US does have a 24% exit tax, so people would factor that in as well.  Still, I'm not on board with an annual 2% tax on assets.  I think there are intentional loopholes you can close in the tax code to raise substantial revenue that will be better received.

 

1 hour ago, NoCalMike said:

It just feels like those arguing for a public option instead of medicare for all are making a dishonest argument because their campaign managers feel that "give people a choice" polls better. Instead their argument should be more along the lines of "going from our current system to medicare for all in one big swoop would be too big a shock to the system, a public option will allow the gradual transition over time and allow us to tie up loose ends and make improvements in real time" etc etc etc etc

 

I could be wrong in my understanding, please chime in and tell me where I am wrong here.

 

I think most public option candidates approach it from two perspectives.  One is the shock to the system, so let's do it gradually.  The other is how robust the single payer plan (that even public option candidates acknowledge as the ultimate goal) should be.  I think this is where they are being intentionally vague with their position.

 

Sanders and liberal wing of the party aren't just advocating for medicare for all, but a dramatic expansion of medicare on top of it.  It would be by far the most robust single payer healthcare system in the world.  In some sense, that's the other component of the choice that public option candidates are referring to without really talking about it.  Should everyone be signed up for the Cadillac plan or should government provide a floor with people having the option to supplement with more coverage if they so choose?  I think there are credible arguments to be made on both side of the debate (which probably belongs in the healthcare thread), but I think that's part of the choice phrasing they are using.

 

I agree with you though.  There's a lot of apprehension regarding the healthcare debate because it's such an explosive topic.  But I think that calls for more clarity, not less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said:

 

If the Dems don't Warren; they need to find an alternative  to Biden.

Biden will be worse than Hillary.

 

I don’t disagree with this I just thought compared to Bidens previous debates he did better. He was a stumbling old out of touch man that brings nothing to the party at this point. But for him, and maybe it’s a low bar, that was his best debate 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, visionary said:

Oh boy....

 

 

 

 

Seriously?  Warren is "failing the Commander in Chief test" if she cannot instantly come up with a detailed plan to fix the disaster Trump is still in the process of creating?  

 

Could you please point us at the candidate which you would consider acceptable, using the same test?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, visionary said:

Oh boy....

 

 

 

 

The central problem is neither endless involvement nor no involvement at all is much of a solution in most situations.  That leaves the POTUS with the unenviable task of trying to explain to the American people why this quagmire is different from the other quagmire, while hoping and praying the soldiers you reluctantly sent into harms way mostly come back alive.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

I don’t disagree with this I just thought compared to Bidens previous debates he did better. He was a stumbling old out of touch man that brings nothing to the party at this point. But for him, and maybe it’s a low bar, that was his best debate 

I thought he was the same other than a couple of good moments.

For the most part, he reinforced his weaknesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

I hold no doubt that Liz will identify and, more importantly, listen to quality input regarding our military policy.  

 

No issue for me, at all.

 

You have to be smart enough to know you don’t have all the answers, find the people that do, and then empower them to make the decision if needed. All leaders should know that (IMO) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

You have to be smart enough to know you don’t have all the answers, find the people that do, and then empower them to make the decision if needed. All leaders should know that (IMO) 

 

@twa, please listen.

 

And study up on your syphillis game.  I’m out here on safari...could be useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if you are an isolationist in theory when it comes to foreign policy, the problem is when you step into the role of commander in chief you are stepping into situations all over the world that have been going on for decades.  You can't simply get elected and then declare a reset on world affairs, it doesn't work that way.

 

Now, you can do your best to avoid starting new wars and conflicts, but a lot of places where troops are stationed, might be there for a good reason.  

 

Foreign policy is a nuanced in how you approach it.  It will never be as black & white as John Bolton's "lets bomb everything" vs. Rand Paul's "Imagine how much more of the wealthy's taxes we can cut if we just brought every single troop every home tonight!" thinking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...