|
Post by R.I.P. uncle Teddy on Mar 19, 2016 2:44:59 GMT
Yeah, that just seems like partisan bullshit.
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 2:49:46 GMT
Yeah, that just seems like partisan bullshit. lol that's it? how's it wrong tho?
|
|
|
|
Post by R.I.P. uncle Teddy on Mar 19, 2016 2:53:27 GMT
Yeah, that just seems like partisan bullshit. lol that's it? how's it wrong tho? Suggesting that the dems are somehow morally superior and not obstructionist when its just not true, or that obstructionism is new. Like really, this is an article that just suggested obstructionism is a new thing that the republicans created in 2016. Give me a break.
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 2:56:33 GMT
lol that's it? how's it wrong tho? Suggesting that the dems are somehow morally superior and not obstructionist when its just not true, or that obstructionism is new. Like really, this is an article that just suggested obstructionism is a new thing that the republicans created in 2016. Give me a break. you reachin it gave a pass to the dems (unrightfully) but what it said about the gop was pretty accurate. there are different reasons why the gop and democratic party are equally dogshit, but this definitely isn't untrue. Trump is only possible bc of the current state of the GOP
|
|
|
|
Post by R.I.P. uncle Teddy on Mar 19, 2016 2:56:54 GMT
Low key Sanders supporter, have donated a few hundred. Not married to all of his ideas, but like single payer healthcare and some more regulation (some of his Wall Street proposals sound out there, but some of my old econ texts have discussed them with legitimacy). He doesn't have much hope left, short of an indictment or an unprecedented reversal of fortune. I think Trump is a lunatic, but Hillary leaves a terrible taste in my mouth, and would vote against her in the general. Have a friend from HS who links multiple memes from the 'Economic Illiterates for Bernie Sanders' group on FB, with tons of pro-Hillary nonsense. Would never vote for her. That being said, I'm largely politically apathetic. Only really get interested during presidential election years, and drop it thereafter. I like a lot of FiveThirtyEight's coverage though. Single payer healthcare is defintely the way to go. Doesn't make sense to have millions of insurances in on this. Most of the research suggests otherwise and that singlepayer systems usually have poor results vs multipayer, regardless of the so called "universality" of the system. www.nber.org/papers/w13429As for why Dresta definitely doesnt have a masters in econ, hes just very ignorant of economic basics. If he does, he went to a very very odd school.
|
|
|
|
Post by R.I.P. uncle Teddy on Mar 19, 2016 2:58:07 GMT
Suggesting that the dems are somehow morally superior and not obstructionist when its just not true, or that obstructionism is new. Like really, this is an article that just suggested obstructionism is a new thing that the republicans created in 2016. Give me a break. you reachin it gave a pass to the dems (unrightfully) but what it said about the gop was pretty accurate. there are different reasons why the gop and democratic party are equally dogshit, but this definitely isn't untrue. Trump is only possible bc of the current state of the GOP So youre saying democrats arent obstructionist?
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 2:58:15 GMT
i'm defo with mags on dresta. it's easy to seem like an intelligent person w/ credentials when you post on ish as a pro-conservative yet are able to fall back on the claim that you have no ideological preference
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 3:00:11 GMT
you reachin it gave a pass to the dems (unrightfully) but what it said about the gop was pretty accurate. there are different reasons why the gop and democratic party are equally dogshit, but this definitely isn't untrue. Trump is only possible bc of the current state of the GOP So youre saying democrats arent obstructionist? I think they absolutely are. Hillary Clinton's support being a prime example of this. But, their platform has absolutely shifted (not changed) over the past 30 years in a way that the GOP's really hasn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by R.I.P. uncle Teddy on Mar 19, 2016 3:06:53 GMT
So youre saying democrats arent obstructionist? I think they absolutely are. Hillary Clinton's support being a prime example of this. But, their platform has absolutely shifted (not changed) over the past 30 years in a way that the GOP's really hasn't. They both have sections that have shifted to the fringe. Sanders/Warren and Cruz/Trump are all quacks that have little to nothing to back up what they say.
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 3:10:35 GMT
I think they absolutely are. Hillary Clinton's support being a prime example of this. But, their platform has absolutely shifted (not changed) over the past 30 years in a way that the GOP's really hasn't. They both have sections that have shifted to the fringe. Sanders/Warren and Cruz/Trump are all quacks that have little to nothing to back up what they say. not really fair to compare sanders to cruz or trump imo sanders has probably the cleanest voting record for the policies he supports of any person who has ever run for president. doesn't matter if you agree with his policies or ideas, that's a fact. i still maintain that we'd be better without political parties
|
|
|
|
Post by R.I.P. uncle Teddy on Mar 19, 2016 3:51:17 GMT
They both have sections that have shifted to the fringe. Sanders/Warren and Cruz/Trump are all quacks that have little to nothing to back up what they say. not really fair to compare sanders to cruz or trump imo sanders has probably the cleanest voting record for the policies he supports of any person who has ever run for president. doesn't matter if you agree with his policies or ideas, that's a fact. i still maintain that we'd be better without political parties What does it matter if his voting record is clean if his ideology is equally bogus? I mean, the fact that he's an ideologue and completely unwilling to compromise in the face of facts only makes it worse. This is a guy who has convinced himself poverty is a corporate conspiracy. Beyond all that, he's not even all that different from trump. Lots of rhetoric about "making the rich pay" (america has the most progressive tax rate in the West btw) harshly anti immigration (another thing he thinks is a corporate conspiracy) they talk about how they're not "bought" all the time and harshly anti trade. The biggest difference is their healthcare stance. Oh, and their style of rhetoric. The difference between Trump and Sanders is more or less being part of the liberal in group or the conservative in group. They both strongly pander to what people want to hear, despite have little to no evidence supporting their stances. Cruz is very ideologically consistent too. It just doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 3:58:41 GMT
not really fair to compare sanders to cruz or trump imo sanders has probably the cleanest voting record for the policies he supports of any person who has ever run for president. doesn't matter if you agree with his policies or ideas, that's a fact. i still maintain that we'd be better without political parties What does it matter if his voting record is clean if his ideology is equally bogus? I mean, the fact that he's an ideologue and completely unwilling to compromise in the face of facts only makes it worse. This is a guy who has convinced himself poverty is a corporate conspiracy. Beyond all that, he's not even all that different from trump. Lots of rhetoric about "making the rich pay" (america has the most progressive tax rate in the West btw) harshly anti immigration (another thing he thinks is a corporate conspiracy) they talk about how they're not "bought" all the time and harshly anti trade. The biggest difference is their healthcare stance. Oh, and their style of rhetoric. The difference between Trump and Sanders is more or less being part of the liberal in group or the conservative in group. They both strongly pander to what people want to hear, despite have little to no evidence supporting their stances. Cruz is very ideologically consistent too. It just doesn't matter. There is a monstrous difference between trump and bernie. when bernie preaches about new ideas and policies, he can answer how he would ideally put them in place. Even if it's dumb af (like the 15 dollar minimum wage or transitioning to free college), he has thought out plans and methodology to achieve what he says. Trump says "i'll make mexico pay for the wall" or "you don't understand business". I'm moderate leaning liberal without a huge dog in the race. if you can't tell a difference between sanders and pretty much everybody who is currently running (besides maybe kasich) then i think that's just you being biased. cruz is definitely ideologically consistent, but for how long? not long at all what bernie preaches now is what he voted for / fought for in the 70s. it doesn't even matter if you support him morally or ideologically, that is something worth respect
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 4:00:17 GMT
Bernie provides public access to the exact details to his tax plan (has since he entered the presidential race). He has formulated economic plans for how he'll transition to free college and how he'll incorporate obamacare into his health care policy.
|
|
|
|
Post by R.I.P. uncle Teddy on Mar 19, 2016 4:01:43 GMT
What does it matter if his voting record is clean if his ideology is equally bogus? I mean, the fact that he's an ideologue and completely unwilling to compromise in the face of facts only makes it worse. This is a guy who has convinced himself poverty is a corporate conspiracy. Beyond all that, he's not even all that different from trump. Lots of rhetoric about "making the rich pay" (america has the most progressive tax rate in the West btw) harshly anti immigration (another thing he thinks is a corporate conspiracy) they talk about how they're not "bought" all the time and harshly anti trade. The biggest difference is their healthcare stance. Oh, and their style of rhetoric. The difference between Trump and Sanders is more or less being part of the liberal in group or the conservative in group. They both strongly pander to what people want to hear, despite have little to no evidence supporting their stances. Cruz is very ideologically consistent too. It just doesn't matter. There is a monstrous difference between trump and bernie. when bernie preaches about new ideas and policies, he can answer how he would ideally put them in place. Even if it's dumb af (like the 15 dollar minimum wage or transitioning to free college), he has thought out plans and methodology to achieve what he says. Trump says "i'll make mexico pay for the wall" or "you don't understand business". I'm moderate leaning liberal without a huge dog in the race. if you can't tell a difference between sanders and pretty much everybody who is currently running (besides maybe kasich) then i think that's just you being biased. cruz is definitely ideologically consistent, but for how long? not long at all what bernie preaches now is what he voted for / fought for in the 70s. it doesn't even matter if you support him morally or ideologically, that is something worth respect Isn't that basically what I said? There is a difference in their rhetoric, there isn't a difference in their policies (EDIT not necesarily policies, but how they pander I guess). Especially considering that while bernie explains how he will implement something, it's often a lie to pander to his base like his healthcare plan which is underfunded by at minimum a trillion a year but supposedly saves most people 5k a year.
|
|
|
Tom Is Dead
•
Irish Lass Kicker
Posts: 13,008
Likes: 8,196
:: I'll never love again
My World
Is
Ending
|
Post by Tom Is Dead on Mar 19, 2016 4:02:19 GMT
not really fair to compare sanders to cruz or trump imo sanders has probably the cleanest voting record for the policies he supports of any person who has ever run for president. doesn't matter if you agree with his policies or ideas, that's a fact. i still maintain that we'd be better without political parties What does it matter if his voting record is clean if his ideology is equally bogus? I mean, the fact that he's an ideologue and completely unwilling to compromise in the face of facts only makes it worse. This is a guy who has convinced himself poverty is a corporate conspiracy. Beyond all that, he's not even all that different from trump. Lots of rhetoric about "making the rich pay" (america has the most progressive tax rate in the West btw) harshly anti immigration (another thing he thinks is a corporate conspiracy) they talk about how they're not "bought" all the time and harshly anti trade. The biggest difference is their healthcare stance. Oh, and their style of rhetoric. The difference between Trump and Sanders is more or less being part of the liberal in group or the conservative in group. They both strongly pander to what people want to hear, despite have little to no evidence supporting their stances. Cruz is very ideologically consistent too. It just doesn't matter.  what are you implying? I mean I know you're a TPP shill but what else?
|
|
|
|
Post by R.I.P. uncle Teddy on Mar 19, 2016 4:03:36 GMT
What does it matter if his voting record is clean if his ideology is equally bogus? I mean, the fact that he's an ideologue and completely unwilling to compromise in the face of facts only makes it worse. This is a guy who has convinced himself poverty is a corporate conspiracy. Beyond all that, he's not even all that different from trump. Lots of rhetoric about "making the rich pay" (america has the most progressive tax rate in the West btw) harshly anti immigration (another thing he thinks is a corporate conspiracy) they talk about how they're not "bought" all the time and harshly anti trade. The biggest difference is their healthcare stance. Oh, and their style of rhetoric. The difference between Trump and Sanders is more or less being part of the liberal in group or the conservative in group. They both strongly pander to what people want to hear, despite have little to no evidence supporting their stances. Cruz is very ideologically consistent too. It just doesn't matter.  what are you implying? I mean I know you're a TPP shill but what else? That both Bernie and Trump are anti immigration. I'm very pro immigration, but that's not really the point.
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 4:05:18 GMT
There is a monstrous difference between trump and bernie. when bernie preaches about new ideas and policies, he can answer how he would ideally put them in place. Even if it's dumb af (like the 15 dollar minimum wage or transitioning to free college), he has thought out plans and methodology to achieve what he says. Trump says "i'll make mexico pay for the wall" or "you don't understand business". I'm moderate leaning liberal without a huge dog in the race. if you can't tell a difference between sanders and pretty much everybody who is currently running (besides maybe kasich) then i think that's just you being biased. cruz is definitely ideologically consistent, but for how long? not long at all what bernie preaches now is what he voted for / fought for in the 70s. it doesn't even matter if you support him morally or ideologically, that is something worth respect Isn't that basically what I said? There is a difference in their rhetoric, there isn't a difference in their policies (EDIT not necesarily policies, but how they pander I guess). Especially considering that while bernie explains how he will implement something, it's often a lie to pander to his base like his healthcare plan which is underfunded by at minimum a trillion a year but supposedly saves most people 5k a year. there is a major difference in rhetoric. one is based on misinformation and fear. the other is based on thought out ideas and policy. would love a source on the last point
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 4:05:46 GMT
R.I.P. uncle Teddy As I noted a page or two ago I'm a casual politics follower during presidential years. Would be interested in your thoughts on this page, and how unrealistic Sanders' proposals are from a cost POV: berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/Follow-up (if/when you have time): How would you mold Sanders into a realistic candidate, while still preserving the basic tenets of his ideology/policy proposals? Thanks for the paper on single payer, I'll check it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by R.I.P. uncle Teddy on Mar 19, 2016 4:08:25 GMT
Isn't that basically what I said? There is a difference in their rhetoric, there isn't a difference in their policies (EDIT not necesarily policies, but how they pander I guess). Especially considering that while bernie explains how he will implement something, it's often a lie to pander to his base like his healthcare plan which is underfunded by at minimum a trillion a year but supposedly saves most people 5k a year. there is a major difference in rhetoric. one is based on misinformation and fear. the other is based on thought out ideas and policy. would love a source on the last point www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10858644/bernie-sanders-kenneth-thorpe-single-payerWas just the first thing I googled. I might have some actual studies on my phone, but it's charging right now. They're both based on misinformation and fear. One builds off fear of the "rich" gaming the system, the other is based off fear of race, culture etc. Their style of rhetoric is very different, but their actual plan of action is very similar as I laid out before.
|
|
|
Tom Is Dead
•
Irish Lass Kicker
Posts: 13,008
Likes: 8,196
:: I'll never love again
My World
Is
Ending
|
Post by Tom Is Dead on Mar 19, 2016 4:11:36 GMT
The only pro-immigration candidate left is Shillary, mormon. How do you feel about this? How did you feel watching the farce of the last democratic debate where they shamelessly pandered to perceived Hispanic voters by presenting a Guatemalan woman crying about her deported husband (just a pure coincidence amirite) I'm referring to this incident btw  just look at that tailor-made question for Hillary. "Would you stop deportations and reunite families?"
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 4:11:47 GMT
there is a major difference in rhetoric. one is based on misinformation and fear. the other is based on thought out ideas and policy. would love a source on the last point www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10858644/bernie-sanders-kenneth-thorpe-single-payerWas just the first thing I googled. I might have some actual studies on my phone, but it's charging right now. They're both based on misinformation and fear. One builds off fear of the "rich" gaming the system, the other is based off fear of race, culture etc. Their style of rhetoric is very different, but their actual plan of action is very similar as I laid out before. article brings up valid criticism, will have to read the full article before weighing in
|
|
|
|
Post by R.I.P. uncle Teddy on Mar 19, 2016 4:20:03 GMT
R.I.P. uncle Teddy As I noted a page or two ago I'm a casual politics follower during presidential years. Would be interested in your thoughts on this page, and how unrealistic Sanders' proposals are from a cost POV: berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/Follow-up (if/when you have time): How would you mold Sanders into a realistic candidate, while still preserving the basic tenets of his ideology/policy proposals? Thanks for the paper on single payer, I'll check it out. Realistic as in electable, or realistic as in what he can actually get done if he had complete freedom? First off, his taxes way underfund his plans because he doesn't assume people will change their behavior when he raises taxes. So he assumes people will work just as much when taxed at 60% (or whatever it was) as when the tax rates were much lower. They won't though. So if you just want to look at that, then his choices are A raise taxes by a very very large amount on the middle class, and don't get elected because most of the middle class will end up paying much more in his system, or B lower his sights. To what that is, I do not know. He uses a stock transaction tax to pay for college too, and I think he has the same problem. He assumes people won't change their behavior on this too I believe. Beyond that, disincentivizing investment can be very bad. It would mostly affect the high speed stock trading, so what effect it would have exactly, I'm not 100% certain, but it would certainly make that sector of the economy completely obsolete which is probably not a good thing (although not really a huge deal tbh) I don't see how he could expand social security in the long term. It's a system that was based on having a much large % of people in the workforce than we will in the future to pay for a small % of retirees. Theoretically, you could just raise taxes a ton, but it's once again not politically viable. It really just needs to be cut. He could probably get an infrastructure program through, although 1 trillion dollars is massive.
|
|
|
|
Post by R.I.P. uncle Teddy on Mar 19, 2016 4:21:31 GMT
The only pro-immigration candidate left is Shillary, mormon. How do you feel about this? How did you feel watching the farce of the last democratic debate where they shamelessly pandered to perceived Hispanic voters by presenting a Guatemalan woman crying about her deported husband (just a pure coincidence amirite) I'm referring to this incident btw  just look at that tailor-made question for Hillary. "Would you stop deportations and reunite families?" Hillary is almost certainly going to win at this point though Tom, lol. I didn't watch the last debate, but I do hate it when they do that shit. Why exactly do you hate immigration so much?
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 4:42:18 GMT
R.I.P. uncle Teddy As I noted a page or two ago I'm a casual politics follower during presidential years. Would be interested in your thoughts on this page, and how unrealistic Sanders' proposals are from a cost POV: berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/Follow-up (if/when you have time): How would you mold Sanders into a realistic candidate, while still preserving the basic tenets of his ideology/policy proposals? Thanks for the paper on single payer, I'll check it out. Realistic as in electable, or realistic as in what he can actually get done if he had complete freedom? First off, his taxes way underfund his plans because he doesn't assume people will change their behavior when he raises taxes. So he assumes people will work just as much when taxed at 60% (or whatever it was) as when the tax rates were much lower. They won't though. So if you just want to look at that, then his choices are A raise taxes by a very very large amount on the middle class, and don't get elected because most of the middle class will end up paying much more in his system, or B lower his sights. To what that is, I do not know. He uses a stock transaction tax to pay for college too, and I think he has the same problem. He assumes people won't change their behavior on this too I believe. Beyond that, disincentivizing investment can be very bad. It would mostly affect the high speed stock trading, so what effect it would have exactly, I'm not 100% certain, but it would certainly make that sector of the economy completely obsolete which is probably not a good thing (although not really a huge deal tbh) I don't see how he could expand social security in the long term. It's a system that was based on having a much large % of people in the workforce than we will in the future to pay for a small % of retirees. Theoretically, you could just raise taxes a ton, but it's once again not politically viable. It really just needs to be cut. He could probably get an infrastructure program through, although 1 trillion dollars is massive. Realistic in terms of feasible. I don't think the success of his candidacy (for better or for worse) hinges on how realistic his plans are. This primary looks like it's come down strictly to demographics (outside of the deep south, where he didn't actively campaign). How he could've improved his chances of being elected is another conversation entirely. 1) Taxes underfunding his plans based on not adjusting for behaviors - I'll have to look into that. 2) I believe he's noted that taxes on the middle class would be more than offset by the healthcare savings. Is this true, partially true, or incorrect? 3) From the document linked on that page, it notes with FTT rates of 50 basis points for stocks, 15 basis points for bonds, 0.5 basis points for derivatives, as well as a 50 percent fall in market trading volume, it would generated $350B in revenue. Do you think it would disincentivize investment beyond that 50 percent fall? 4) He noted that in order to expand social security, he'd remove the payroll tax cap. I believe the marginal tax rates for the highest income brackets awhile back, but is that less feasible based on how different the US is as a whole now than 30 or so years ago (which I believe is when it last was uncapped, could be wrong)? If you have time, would be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on the infrastructure program. In addition: 1) I don't see it linked on that specific page, but I believe he'd proposed a Carbon Tax awhile back. Maybe this is what it currently is? Used to be $20 per ton (and that document claims it would generate $300B over ten years). 2) These are more adventurous, but how reasonable are his proposals to reinstate Glass-Steagall, and enforce that "too-big-to-fail" plan to break up large investment banks? 3) Getting to the bottom line, how much of this is possible without the cooperation of Congress/Senate? Would he be able to use executive actions to further any of his goals, or would he be severely handcuffed? 4) Lastly he's noted that his litmus test for nominating Supreme Court Justices would be that they'd be willing to overturn the Citizens United decision. Would he have any issue getting such justices through? Thanks again. No hurry, whenever you have time.
|
|
|
Tom Is Dead
•
Irish Lass Kicker
Posts: 13,008
Likes: 8,196
:: I'll never love again
My World
Is
Ending
|
Post by Tom Is Dead on Mar 19, 2016 4:42:57 GMT
The potential problems outweigh the benefits, and those benefits are largely exclusive for the immigrants themselves and the ones hiring them, and not the people who the politicians are ostensibly acting in the best interests of.
Looking at everything through a purely economist lens will create a population that reflects that pursuit. A population that is too divided and degenerate, instead of unified and of noble character.
The 'multiculturalist experiment' is an utter sham, and in many places was conducted with no consent or care for the previous communities that existed. I've no problem with a place like New York City or Toronto existing, I just don't think the whole world should be clamouring for so called 'cultural enrichment' and diversity. Especially not in the irresponsible manner which seems to be taking place in Europe.
Today in Brussells one of the assailants of the Paris attacks was finally caught months later. I would be fucking LIVID if I was a Parisian and haved to live my daily life knowing that within the many diverse communities, one of them protected and helped to escape one of these guys that went and did the fucked up shit that killed so many innocent people, and who would no doubt relish the opportunity to do the same once more....What madness is that?
Please don't take this to be a Nick Young/9er/UK2K type sentiment. It's not the fact that they're ____ or whatever, it's the fact that such a stratified society seems to be encouraged and forced with little care for the ramifications, and presented as if it were a categorical obligation when it clearly is not. In fact, the mass "Diversity is strength!" propaganda is something that seems to be just the other side of the coin of the type of dystopian shit we were told to read as kids.
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 4:50:15 GMT
I can't get a read on Dresta. I usually skim over his posts, but he types quite a lot, and even if he's bullshitting, at least he's passionate up to put up the act.
You guys probably have a better feel for fit than I do, but if there's going to be legitimate political (or religious/philosophical/economic) discussion here (which there seems to be potential for), it would be interesting to see how he'd do in this type of environment.
I don't think he's a troll, because there seems to be someone on RealGM with the same username, who also looks like a Heat fan. If you did decide to invite him, might be best to contact him through there (not sure if he would spill the beans on the site on ISH though, don't see why he would, but don't follow his posts closely enough).
KevinNYC (who seems to be FillJackson now?) might be interesting too.
|
|
|
|
Post by R.I.P. uncle Teddy on Mar 19, 2016 5:00:22 GMT
Realistic as in electable, or realistic as in what he can actually get done if he had complete freedom? First off, his taxes way underfund his plans because he doesn't assume people will change their behavior when he raises taxes. So he assumes people will work just as much when taxed at 60% (or whatever it was) as when the tax rates were much lower. They won't though. So if you just want to look at that, then his choices are A raise taxes by a very very large amount on the middle class, and don't get elected because most of the middle class will end up paying much more in his system, or B lower his sights. To what that is, I do not know. He uses a stock transaction tax to pay for college too, and I think he has the same problem. He assumes people won't change their behavior on this too I believe. Beyond that, disincentivizing investment can be very bad. It would mostly affect the high speed stock trading, so what effect it would have exactly, I'm not 100% certain, but it would certainly make that sector of the economy completely obsolete which is probably not a good thing (although not really a huge deal tbh) I don't see how he could expand social security in the long term. It's a system that was based on having a much large % of people in the workforce than we will in the future to pay for a small % of retirees. Theoretically, you could just raise taxes a ton, but it's once again not politically viable. It really just needs to be cut. He could probably get an infrastructure program through, although 1 trillion dollars is massive. Realistic in terms of feasible. I don't think the success of his candidacy (for better or for worse) hinges on how realistic his plans are. This primary looks like it's come down strictly to demographics (outside of the deep south, where he didn't actively campaign). How he could've improved his chances of being elected is another conversation entirely. 1) Taxes underfunding his plans based on not adjusting for behaviors - I'll have to look into that. 2) I believe he's noted that taxes on the middle class would be more than offset by the healthcare savings. Is this true, partially true, or incorrect? 3) From the document linked on that page, it notes with FTT rates of 50 basis points for stocks, 15 basis points for bonds, 0.5 basis points for derivatives, as well as a 50 percent fall in market trading volume, it would generated $350B in revenue. Do you think it would disincentivize investment beyond that 50 percent fall? 4) He noted that in order to expand social security, he'd remove the payroll tax cap. I believe the marginal tax rates for the highest income brackets awhile back, but is that less feasible based on how different the US is as a whole now than 30 or so years ago (which I believe is when it last was uncapped, could be wrong)? If you have time, would be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on the infrastructure program. In addition: 1) I don't see it linked on that specific page, but I believe he'd proposed a Carbon Tax awhile back. Maybe this is what it currently is? Used to be $20 per ton (and that document claims it would generate $300B over ten years). 2) These are more adventurous, but how reasonable are his proposals to reinstate Glass-Steagall, and enforce that "too-big-to-fail" plan to break up large investment banks? 3) Getting to the bottom line, how much of this is possible without the cooperation of Congress/Senate? Would he be able to use executive actions to further any of his goals, or would he be severely handcuffed? 4) Lastly he's noted that his litmus test for nominating Supreme Court Justices would be that they'd be willing to overturn the Citizens United decision. Would he have any issue getting such justices through? Thanks again. No hurry, whenever you have time. 1/2-No, because under his plan he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class very much, but in reality he would have to raise them a lot. Also, applying a single payer system onto the current system in America might inflate costs a large amount unless you just make very long wait lines a norm. I think the article I linked to TSK talked about the tax costs a bit. 3-That paper seems reasonable, although I haven't looked too deep into it. 4-Taxes worked very different before Reagan changed the tax plans, and I'm not 100% sure how they worked except that the rates were higher, but the deductions were bigger and there were more of them. Also, they had tax creep causing the middle class to pay more, but that's not 100% relevant. You could raise taxes and get higher revenue, but you'd get diminishing returns quickly, especially at the higher brackets which are already taxed pretty heavily. 1-His carbon tax plan is one of his best economic proposals as I understand it. I don't know exactly what an ideal rate is, but him and Rubio are the only ones who have talked about it as far as Im aware. 2-For reasons that I'm not sure I'm able to explain well, glass-steagull isn't an effective or useful piece of legislation for the 21st century. Ill look for an explanation somewhere else for you. 3-He'd need congressional help most definitely, and he wouldn't get it probably. Apparently he's hated in congress and his proposals aren't something that would get congressmen re-elected. 4-No clue. I mean, I don't think it was a 9-0 decision, so someone who would rule that way already got through.
|
|
|
|
Post by R.I.P. uncle Teddy on Mar 19, 2016 5:04:45 GMT
I'm afraid Ill forget Tom Is Dead, but I do have a lot of econ studies I've read that show that bringing in low skill immigrants actually help the average person economically, not just people who hire them. Ill try to remember to post them later.
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 5:12:39 GMT
1/2-No, because under his plan he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class very much, but in reality he would have to raise them a lot. Also, applying a single payer system onto the current system in America might inflate costs a large amount unless you just make very long wait lines a norm. I think the article I linked to TSK talked about it a bit. 2-For reasons that I'm not sure I'm able to explain well, glass-steagull isn't an effective or useful piece of legislation for the 21st century. Ill look for an explanation somewhere else for you. 3-He'd need congressional help most definitely, and he wouldn't get it probably. Apparently he's hated in congress and his proposals aren't something that would get congressmen re-elected. Thanks. Just about these: 1) Which countries with a single-payer have been able to avoid long waits and subpar care? Or is that pretty much the norm? 2) Thanks. Here's a link to his thoughts on Glass-Steagall in case it helps. Would be interested in your take on the "too big to fail" angle, here's a link to his issues page. 3) So if he would need congressional support, do executive actions/orders help at all ( I'm looking at the Wiki page, not sure what their limitations are)? From following the republican side of the conversation, it seems to be a prevailing belief that President Obama has overstepped his boundaries with executive actions/orders. If they would be useful, what could he push through with them?
|
|
|
|
Post by R.I.P. uncle Teddy on Mar 19, 2016 5:27:35 GMT
1/2-No, because under his plan he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class very much, but in reality he would have to raise them a lot. Also, applying a single payer system onto the current system in America might inflate costs a large amount unless you just make very long wait lines a norm. I think the article I linked to TSK talked about it a bit. 2-For reasons that I'm not sure I'm able to explain well, glass-steagull isn't an effective or useful piece of legislation for the 21st century. Ill look for an explanation somewhere else for you. 3-He'd need congressional help most definitely, and he wouldn't get it probably. Apparently he's hated in congress and his proposals aren't something that would get congressmen re-elected. Thanks. Just about these: 1) Which countries with a single-payer have been able to avoid long waits and subpar care? Or is that pretty much the norm? 2) Thanks. Here's a link to his thoughts on Glass-Steagall in case it helps. Would be interested in your take on the "too big to fail" angle, here's a link to his issues page. 3) So if he would need congressional support, do executive actions/orders help at all ( I'm looking at the Wiki page, not sure what their limitations are)? From following the republican side of the conversation, it seems to be a prevailing belief that President Obama has overstepped his boundaries with executive actions/orders. If they would be useful, what could he push through with them? 1-Subpar care isn't usually the norm I'd say, but lower universality of access and longer wait lines is usually common in single payer systems vs other "universal" systems like Germany's. There isn't a ton of stuff that you can rank countries on in healthcare though, so it's really hard to say 100%. Treatment of curable disease and access to care are really the only things you can look at, and the US ranks the highest in those two in everything I've seen. It's not exactly a definitive measure though. 2-I dont like politifact, but I'm going to post this anyway out of laziness. www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/19/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/As I understand it, Glass-Steagall has almost nothing to do with the size of banks. 3-I am not 100% sure what it's absolute limitations are. It depends on a lot of factors. He couldn't get much of anything he wanted done without congress.
|
|
|