• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

RJ's bad attempts at humor and his inability to ever stand down and let it go leads to some strange board situations.
 
RJKarl said:
But my other thirty voter registrations in PA, MI, WI are all voting for whatever Dem is on the ticket. My singular vote in CA won't impact anything, but the ten in each battleground state could.

Pirsig, please don't cross any street that has traffic or might have traffic.
Click to expand...

I don’t think that’s legal.
 
TownieDeac said:
1) there's no such thing as the middle class
2) this is a facile CNN debate question, not a stated Sanders policy
3) we use tax money now to pay for things that overwhelmingly do not help the bottom 90%; if we did levy new taxes or raise taxes under a Sanders administration, they would be for the benefit of the many, not the few
Click to expand...

Has Bernie not said that everyone’s taxes over the initial $29k will go up progressively?

What things will help the bottom 90%?
 
bym051d said:
Has Bernie not said that everyone’s taxes over the initial $29k will go up progressively?

What things will help the bottom 90%?
Click to expand...

Someone's been reading their Grover Norquist!

From what I can tell about his proposal, which is to raise the money to pay for M4A, take home pay would go up for the vast majority of Americans. Yes, you might pay more in taxes, but you'd pay less for healthcare and therefore less overall. That is one example, but he's got pretty detailed plans you can read about. I just used a Sanders tax calculator, and it looks like I'd pay about $900 more a year in taxes. If that meant no healthcare premiums or copays, I think I'd be coming out ahead, and I'm just outside the top 10% household income.
 
IMO, one of the things the left (including me, probably) hasn't reckoned with enough is that - for all the talk about the need for big structural change, how broken things are, and the incredulity with which we've responded to the "back to the status quo" crowd - for the median American, things really are pretty much fine. They may think Trump is boorish and embarrassing, but many of the truly awful things he or his administration are responsible for just aren't that obvious in the day to day life of the average apolitical American.

Don't get me wrong, I think things *are* broken. And one of the things that appeals to me the most about Warren are what appears to be her first legislative priories, in her words: "My agenda would make our government and our economy work for everyone. It starts with anti-corruption reforms, democracy reforms, campaign finance reforms." I believe getting that right, and first, is essential to allow for us to then make the other big structural changes that would ultimately result in a more prosperous and equitable society. *I* find that super compelling, but I do get that the median voter may not.
 
tiltdeac said:
IMO, one of the things the left (including me, probably) hasn't reckoned with enough is that - for all the talk about the need for big structural change, how broken things are, and the incredulity with which we've responded to the "back to the status quo" crowd - for the median American, things really are pretty much fine. They may think Trump is boorish and embarrassing, but many of the truly awful things he or his administration are responsible for just aren't that obvious in the day to day life of the average apolitical American.

Don't get me wrong, I think things *are* broken. And one of the things that appeals to me the most about Warren are what appears to be her first legislative priories, in her words: "My agenda would make our government and our economy work for everyone. It starts with anti-corruption reforms, democracy reforms, campaign finance reforms." I believe getting that right, and first, is essential to allow for us to then make the other big structural changes that would ultimately result in a more prosperous and equitable society. *I* find that super compelling, but I do get that the median voter may not.
Click to expand...

I can square these two things intellectually in my head, but step 1 doesn't really help the median American in an appreciable, dinner table type of way. I do think I agree though.
 
tiltdeac said:
IMO, one of the things the left (including me, probably) hasn't reckoned with enough is that - for all the talk about the need for big structural change, how broken things are, and the incredulity with which we've responded to the "back to the status quo" crowd - for the median American, things really are pretty much fine. They may think Trump is boorish and embarrassing, but many of the truly awful things he or his administration are responsible for just aren't that obvious in the day to day life of the average apolitical American.

Don't get me wrong, I think things *are* broken. And one of the things that appeals to me the most about Warren are what appears to be her first legislative priories, in her words: "My agenda would make our government and our economy work for everyone. It starts with anti-corruption reforms, democracy reforms, campaign finance reforms." I believe getting that right, and first, is essential to allow for us to then make the other big structural changes that would ultimately result in a more prosperous and equitable society. *I* find that super compelling, but I do get that the median voter may not.
Click to expand...

Many of us have said basically the same thing, but it will probably be more palatable coming from you.
 
"Things really are pretty much fine" in a "this is fine" meme way.

We've gotten used to the world literally burning around us.
 
I get what he means though. Some of the most pressing problems facing the country aren't at the front door of many Americans. Trump keeping kids in cages with bags on their heads, trying to pop a quick Apartheid on the Gaza strip, and pulling out of Paris. That's not really making much of a difference to the day to day of the average Joe, no matter the level of tragedy.

Where I depart though is that things aren't really "pretty much fine" when you could face medical bankruptcy at the drop of a hat with an accident or illness. Most of the country is not immune from that at all, and for a lot of folks, it's when not if.
 
TownieDeac said:
Someone's been reading their Grover Norquist!

From what I can tell about his proposal, which is to raise the money to pay for M4A, take home pay would go up for the vast majority of Americans. Yes, you might pay more in taxes, but you'd pay less for healthcare and therefore less overall. That is one example, but he's got pretty detailed plans you can read about. I just used a Sanders tax calculator, and it looks like I'd pay about $900 more a year in taxes. If that meant no healthcare premiums or copays, I think I'd be coming out ahead, and I'm just outside the top 10% household income.
Click to expand...

If you are just outside the top 10% of household income and you actually believe that Medicare For All would mean you wouldn't pay anything in healthcare premiums or copays, then either it should be much harder to become just outside the top 10% of household income, or you married a relatively high-earning individual.
 
TownieDeac said:
I get what he means though. Some of the most pressing problems facing the country aren't at the front door of many Americans. Trump keeping kids in cages with bags on their heads, trying to pop a quick Apartheid on the Gaza strip, and pulling out of Paris. That's not really making much of a difference to the day to day of the average Joe, no matter the level of tragedy.

Where I depart though is that things aren't really "pretty much fine" when you could face medical bankruptcy at the drop of a hat with an accident or illness. Most of the country is not immune from that at all, and for a lot of folks, it's when not if.
Click to expand...

Sure, but they're not facing it right now. Or even those who are are in denial.
 
ABCDeac said:
If you are just outside the top 10% of household income and you actually believe that Medicare For All would mean you wouldn't pay anything in healthcare premiums or copays, then either it should be much harder to become just outside the top 10% of household income, or you married a relatively high-earning individual.
Click to expand...

Bloomberg 2020!
 
I do think that, generally speaking, the members of this board are less in touch with the "dinner table" problems of many Americans than they may realize

that said, I am pretty sure folks around here forgo medical care or have large swaths of post-secondary options unavailable to them due to money

e.g. how many times have you seen someone here post "I went to Wake, but no chance my kids will without a full ride"?
 
Last edited:
tiltdeac said:
IMO, one of the things the left (including me, probably) hasn't reckoned with enough is that - for all the talk about the need for big structural change, how broken things are, and the incredulity with which we've responded to the "back to the status quo" crowd - for the median American, things really are pretty much fine. They may think Trump is boorish and embarrassing, but many of the truly awful things he or his administration are responsible for just aren't that obvious in the day to day life of the average apolitical American.

Don't get me wrong, I think things *are* broken. And one of the things that appeals to me the most about Warren are what appears to be her first legislative priories, in her words: "My agenda would make our government and our economy work for everyone. It starts with anti-corruption reforms, democracy reforms, campaign finance reforms." I believe getting that right, and first, is essential to allow for us to then make the other big structural changes that would ultimately result in a more prosperous and equitable society. *I* find that super compelling, but I do get that the median voter may not.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with this, in theory. It would be great to root out corruption in the government and get things back to...

Wait, in practice, there has always been rampant corruption in our government and in the private sector. That was true with a nation of 20 million people, and will always be true in a nation of over 300 million. Granted, Trump seems to me to be the most corrupt person to hold high office in American history. That is a problem. He needs to go, and go quickly. But he needs to be replaced with a pragmatist more so than an ideologue. Bernie is a better person than Trump - as is just about anyone else. It doesn't mean that Bernie should be POTUS. He really, really should not be. I'd take him over Trump, but I would never vote for either one of them.
 
ABCDeac said:
If you are just outside the top 10% of household income and you actually believe that Medicare For All would mean you wouldn't pay anything in healthcare premiums or copays, then either it should be much harder to become just outside the top 10% of household income, or you married a relatively high-earning individual.
Click to expand...

Medicare for All means no premiums or copays for everyone!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top