Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

All Things "AOC" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez & the Squad.


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, mammajamma said:

You do realize you can buy drugs at pharmacies in hospitals and take them home right?

 

Ok, even IF those aren't covered (most are), they're at a SUBSTANTIALLY lower rate than the US prices. And you still don't have to pay premiums, copay, or deductibles

 

 

Those would not be covered.  You have to be admitted to the hospitial.

 

And drug costs like that are considered a copay.  My link even uses the word copayment.

 

And yes they are much lower rate than the US for most drugs.  

 

But that was not the original claim.  Your origial claim was that the Democratic liberal proposals were inline or even conservative with what is done in Canada and Europe.

 

That is not true.  Sanders plan is to the left of them.  So is the Green New Deal.  The Green New Deal as written is to the left of what any European country or Canada is doing.

Edited by PeterMP
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

Those would not be covered.  You have to be admitted to the hospitial.

 

And drug costs like that are considered a copay.  My link even uses the word copayment.

 

And yes they are ar a much lower rate than the US.

 

But that was the original claim.  Your origial claim was that the Democratic liberal proposals were inline or even conservative with what is done in Canada and Europe.

 

That is not true. 

Ok fine, if you want to do semantics and refer to a small % of prescription drugs picked up after youre discharged for $6 as "copay", and not in the sense that we use it which is hundreds of dollars just to sit in the waiting room, you're right. There is still an extremely small amount of "copay" you might need to pay. Still no premium or deductible

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Progressive policies are popular, just not the messaging of them on a nationwide level. So maybe try to figure out why those policies are popular, instead of pandering to republicans (who represent far less people) than your own party

Edited by mammajamma
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mammajamma said:

Ok fine, if you want to do semantics and refer to a small % of prescription drugs picked up after youre discharged for $6 as "copay", and not in the sense that we use it which is hundreds of dollars just to sit in the waiting room, you're right. There is still an extremely small amount of "copay" you might need to pay. Still no premium or deductible

 

Most prescription drugs are out patient.  Any drug anybody takes daily is out patient.  Your daily cholesterol and high blood pressure drugs are out patient.  In 2018 the NHS made about a billion pounds off prescription drug copays.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, COWBOY-KILLA- said:


I’m not against that idea, but imo it needs to be a balanced approach. You can’t just have the ultra wealthy pay for it all. And there are lots of people that don’t make as much as the wealthy who are also against that idea. It’s both a perception and practicality problem, it terms of paying for it all. And really that’s just one piece that’s an issue, big piece, but only 1. 
 

Imo within the party they need to keep working the plan, make it more reasonable and palatable for everyone affected, which is everyone. Then present it. As constituted it’s DOA, both with the public and the party.

 

My problem is the hardliner approach and tone. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Be more malleable.

 

I hear what you are saying but the last time our government was solvent was just before Reagans tax cuts. At that time the top tax bracket was 70%. He added almost $3T to the debt by lowering taxes and then increasing defense spending to crazily and we have never looked back. Fun fact - every Republicans president in the last 50 yrs has left office with significantly higher deficit spending than when they came in and every Dem president has significantly lower deficit spending while in office outside Carter who was basically flat - about $10M to $10M. 

 

I am Ok with somewhere in between. I also want corporations to pay a fair tax. WHen they passed the tax cuts they were supposed to remove the loop holes so companies like GE can't pay 0 income taxes. 37% is way too high if they actually paid that. Make it 20% but remove the loop holes so 20% is the effective tax rate. Honestly at that point you could probably lower it to 15 to 18% and still increase revenues to pay for health care, infrastructure, and climate control. Get us out of the regime change wars - where possible - not in favor of a cut and run - and you can pay for pretty much anything you want without increasing the burden on middle America. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

 

I hear what you are saying but the last time our government was solvent was just before Reagans tax cuts. At that time the top tax bracket was 70%. He added almost $3T to the debt by lowering taxes and then increasing defense spending to crazily and we have never looked back. Fun fact - every Republicans president in the last 50 yrs has left office with significantly higher deficit spending than when they came in and every Dem president has significantly lower deficit spending while in office outside Carter who was basically flat - about $10M to $10M. 

 

I am Ok with somewhere in between. I also want corporations to pay a fair tax. WHen they passed the tax cuts they were supposed to remove the loop holes so companies like GE can't pay 0 income taxes. 37% is way too high if they actually paid that. Make it 20% but remove the loop holes so 20% is the effective tax rate. Honestly at that point you could probably lower it to 15 to 18% and still increase revenues to pay for health care, infrastructure, and climate control. Get us out of the regime change wars - where possible - not in favor of a cut and run - and you can pay for pretty much anything you want without increasing the burden on middle America. 

 

I don't think we are really disagreeing on anything really.  When I was talking about a balanced approach I didn't mean we needed a balance budget and I'm not some hardline deficit hawk either.  I just mean the default answer to big proposals cannot always be well tax the wealthy.  I'm a firm believer, as it seems you are as well, that there should not be any company not paying taxes, especially with the size of some of these companies, it just should not happen ever.  So there is money there. There is also money in defense and a whole host of other areas. You are saying hey man "we can find the money to pay for it, without negatively affecting most people." And I agree. It brings us back to her and the GND, she has to rework the plan, because as it stands, it doesn't have balance. And it seems like there isn't enough support on either side for it's current iteration. Will she be open to working it out? Remains to be seen.

Edited by COWBOY-KILLA-
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, I was thinking about this from earlier and I do kinda have a bone to pick. Balancing and prioritizing concerns and needs from a broad range of blacks and latino and NA and urban and immigrant peoples, etc., is not a political coalItion, it literally IS ****ING SOCIETY!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my take, AOC et. al. represent a younger, newer, more aspirational "wing" of political discourse and as such they are not focusing on the day-to-day nuts n bolts of getting there, they are trying to steer us towards a destination. I'm cool with that. They know this as well. They are one voice among many, but that deserves to be heard, as do others. 

 

Once the fevers die down and we get rehydrated as a nation, we might be inclined to remember that we are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.

 

I for one support a lot of what the progressives advocate but at the same time most of things are not/can not be THE thing, our highest priority. There is a hierarchy of needs/importance that will have to be established. I like to think that knowing that they still want to see evidence of some tangible moral ethos to what we are doing and where we are going. I don't think that is unfair or unreasonable.

 

My list starts with voting-voting-voting, fix voting first and you have the biggest tool to address the rest. We can begin to address the very real, long neglected state of race relations in this country at the same time. Two biggies side-by-side right off the bat that do not demand immediate titanic infusions of cash that show where your heart is really at.

 

But what the hell do I know?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

AOC is free to express her opinion.   If the progressives want their views to become law; then they have to go out and win elections across the country.  It's easy for AOC to win in her district because her views are aligned with her voters.   Her views aren't aligned with the other parts of the country.

 

I think the younger generation just expects instant gratification.  They expect everyone to follow them now and do what they want.   Well, in the real world that doesn't happen.

 

Other than losing the presidency, the GOP actually had a good election.

 

It takes time and hard work.  Maybe the country will see things the progressive way eventually but it's not going to happen overnight.   The younger generation will be in power soon enough.

 

She's also complaining about who Joe will pick for his cabinet.   It's his administration; so he can pick who he feels will help him govern.  The only real obstacle will be Mitch and the Senate not approving any cabinet appointment.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2020 at 11:22 AM, Rdskns2000 said:

AOC is free to express her opinion.   If the progressives want their views to become law; then they have to go out and win elections across the country.  It's easy for AOC to win in her district because her views are aligned with her voters.   Her views aren't aligned with the other parts of the country.

 

I think the younger generation just expects instant gratification.  They expect everyone to follow them now and do what they want.   Well, in the real world that doesn't happen.

 

Other than losing the presidency, the GOP actually had a good election.

 

It takes time and hard work.  Maybe the country will see things the progressive way eventually but it's not going to happen overnight.   The younger generation will be in power soon enough.

 

She's also complaining about who Joe will pick for his cabinet.   It's his administration; so he can pick who he feels will help him govern.  The only real obstacle will be Mitch and the Senate not approving any cabinet appointment.

 

 

I think much of that interview and some of her other comments were taken out of context. People believe all she thinks is pushing the progressive agenda. That's not entirely true. Her comments about some of the other campaigns was that they instantly blamed her and other progressives for losses when in fact they had not used social media and done other things to reach out to people and get them to vote. She offered her help, not in making their message but how to get it out. Those who refused lost. Those who took it mostly won (I think one of like 5 lost). And maybe her help made no difference and those races all go that way anyway but seems a bit too much coincidence for me. 

 

As for her "complaining" about the cabinet, all I saw was her ask on twitter who peoples dream cabinet would be. in fairness maybe I missed something. But if not, I see nothing wrong with that at all. 

 

 

Edited by goskins10
typos
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think James Carville commented that the Dems went away from what won them the House in 2018.   Maybe that was inevitable since Donald Trump was on the ballot this time but he says in 2022 they need to go back to the 2018 playbook and even look at 2006.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

I think the younger generation just expects instant gratification.  They expect everyone to follow them now and do what they want.   

 

I wonder where they would learn such a thing. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mooka said:

 

I wonder where they would learn such a thing. 

Youth is full of impatience.    Always has been and always will be.

 

We all were young once.

 

It's just the old cling to power and refuse to give it up; especially in the Democratic party.  I think age wise, the GOP is younger overall compared to the Dems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we roll back Trump's tax cuts? There, I found 1.5 trillion dollars.  Can I go back a few more Republican administrations?  Pretty sure I can find few trillions more.

 

If money is the problem, it's not shutdown vs hundreds of thousands dead.  It's keeping the tax cuts vs hundreds of thousands dead.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, bearrock said:

How about we roll back Trump's tax cuts? There, I found 1.5 trillion dollars.  Can I go back a few more Republican administrations?  Pretty sure I can find few trillions more.

 

If money is the problem, it's not shutdown vs hundreds of thousands dead.  It's keeping the tax cuts vs hundreds of thousands dead.

 

Yep. This is something the GOP always want to dance around, the tax cuts for the wealthy and the damage they did, the deficits they create, and the cuts to everything that are forced because of them.  It's like once they pass the tax cuts, they want to pretend we can no longer look at reversing those as an option.

 

I never see the fact that taxes for the wealthy seem to keep being cut regardless of the situation over the past 30 years as a major problem for our economy and the middle-class/working poor.  War in Iraq? That's okay cut the taxes anyway! The Great Recession? No biggie, cut those taxes!  Pandemic and economy is going to slow to a crawl? No worries, cut those taxes for the wealthy anyway!

 

Even the Dems seem to be rather weak pointing this out a lot of the time, likely because they have a lot of the same donors.  AOC has no problem calling this garbage out and it has to be appreciated by the working class & poor.  Every other first world country was literally paying people to stay home, making sure businesses did not go under, etc etc etc....somehow they all managed to do it with far less money and resources than America has at it's disposal, but guess what, it likely means the wealthy would have to contribute towards the cause more than they are, and in America that seems to be a big no-no.

 

Oh and AOC was great oh twitch last time. Hopefully she jumps on again soon.

Edited by NoCalMike
  • Like 2
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...