Alexandria, The New Direction Of The Democrats

[Paulus]

On 7/17/2018 at 1:46 PM, LABillzFan said:

Apparently the new gift from Alexandria is her explanation that the reason we have low unemployment is "because everyone has two jobs.”

 

When you couple this with Obama coming out to explain that what the country needs is "universal income."

 

Man, oh, man, it's like you leftist nutbags are BEGGING for more Trump. 

When the robots take over we will all be getting gubment checks until the robots realize socialism is not the way to go...

2 hours ago, Foxx said:

yep, thats the new face of the Democrat Party.

remember it, remember it well

because you might not see it again....

It is not. She is like the Democrats version of Roy Moore/Freedom Party folks. 

[/dev/null]

[Bray Wyatt]

In other news Keith Ellison believes borders are an injustice and we need to give money to other countries to help their labor forces

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

52 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The talking point of "Half of America doesn't pay taxes" has been disproven so many times. The working poor pay social security, Medicare, Medicaid, Payroll taxes, State and Local income taxes, sales taxes, fees and various other taxes.

 

 

And they don’t pay income tax. That’s factual. If they file a 1040 they pay ZERO.

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, TPS said:

In the richest country in the world, the so-called "socialists" are people who push policies in support of the poor and working class. In the current system, the wealthiest have used their influence to push policies in support of their interests.

 

Universal healthcare, cheap tuition, childcare, job guarantee, etc. are not radical ideas, and they are no less doable economically than endless ME conflicts, 800 overseas military bases, the F-35, and on and on....

 

Reminder: the F-35 is the Joint Strike Fighter, initiated in 1994 with a targeted unit cost of $28M per plane.  Twenty two years later it entered service at about four times the unit cost.  

 

I would certainly hope that social programs aren't "less doable" than that.    This is why some of us DO NOT WANT the government providing health care.

58 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

I think it is insane to look at the people with the least economic power (The poor) and think they are the ones responsible for everything wrong with the economy. On the surface level whose decisions are going to impact the economy more a billionaire or a poor person? 

 

Of course, there's 540 billionaires in the US, but 50M poor.  So whose decisions are going to impact the economy more, a billionaire's or a hundred thousand poor people?

[TPS]

8 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Reminder: the F-35 is the Joint Strike Fighter, initiated in 1994 with a targeted unit cost of $28M per plane.  Twenty two years later it entered service at about four times the unit cost.  

 

I would certainly hope that social programs aren't "less doable" than that.    This is why some of us DO NOT WANT the government providing health care.

I don't want them providing health care either, but I do want them to provide insurance.

[DC Tom]

17 minutes ago, TPS said:

I don't want them providing health care either, but I do want them to provide insurance.

 

Not going to work.  You can't socialize the demand and leave the supply free-market.  

[billsfan89]

45 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Not going to work.  You can't socialize the demand and leave the supply free-market.  

 

 

That's a big misnomer. Healthcare is not an elastic product, it is not easy to create more of it and everyone has a demand for the best possible use of it. People always cite the government as being this massive bureaucracy and thus everything they do is inefficient. That's true in certain cases, esp for consumer products (Soviet phones and cars were !@#$ing horrendous) but when it comes to health insurance all quantifiable evidence proves your thesis wrong.

 

Although I think that people will ignore the fact that any massive entity private or public is inefficient. People like to compare the federal government to a small business as a sign of inefficiency but compare a large corporate entity to the federal government and you will see very similar waste and politics.  Anyway back to why I support Single Payer Healthcare.

 

The USA's health insurance system spends 13% on billing. Most single payer systems spend less than 5% with the highest single payer system paying 7% on billing. The reason private insurance is inefficient is because healthcare providers in a private system have to deal with hundreds of insurance providers for each patient at the point of use. Each private insurer has their own coding, bureaucracy and payment methods. It's wasteful and inefficient by its nature. I am sure you have been to a hospital and doctors office and seen the massive billing department, that is unique to America. 

 

In a single payer system hospitals can get singular lump sum payments for the year (The administration can ask the government for X amount to cover their budget for a year.)

 

Single payer systems also save money with preventative care. How many people do you know in the USA that don't see doctors for preventative care because they are uninsured or underinsured? People wait on things to get worse and then the treatments later on when a problem gets worse are more costly. The private insurance system is incentivized to not cover people for treatments because it saves them money so people don't like to navigate the system because it is so intentionally complicated. 

 

I also think that there is a tremendous economic benefit beyond the fact that the US would save trillions in healthcare costs. All businesses love a fixed cost. Replacing private insurance costs which can vary year to year with a simple payroll tax you fix that cost. It is also a great benefit to small businesses looking to compete and it also makes freelancing and self-employment much more realistic. Start ups looking to get talent already are at a disadvantage not being able to offer more pay but smaller companies and start ups have an even harder time competing for employees who might need the health coverage a larger company might be able to provide. Removing health care from work is a big boost.

 

All single payer healthcare is, is paying for the services of healthcare providers with taxes as opposed to hundreds of private insurers with their own complicated rules and incentive to not cover people. Is single payer perfect? No there are issues but the question shouldn't be what system is perfect, the question should be what system is better. The outcomes and efficiency of a single payer system are far better than the ones of America's horrendous private system. 

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

Reminder: the F-35 is the Joint Strike Fighter, initiated in 1994 with a targeted unit cost of $28M per plane.  Twenty two years later it entered service at about four times the unit cost.  

 

I would certainly hope that social programs aren't "less doable" than that.    This is why some of us DO NOT WANT the government providing health care.

 

Of course, there's 540 billionaires in the US, but 50M poor.  So whose decisions are going to impact the economy more, a billionaire's or a hundred thousand poor people?

 

The Walton Family has more wealth than 42% of American's combined, I think the decisions of the super rich have a much larger impact than the decisions of poor people. I am not saying that there aren't a lot of poor people that make bad decisions on their own accord that lead to their disposition in life. But I think that if I am looking at what the !@#$ is wrong with the economy I can't put the blame on the poor instead of the people that actually hold the economic power.

[IDBillzFan]

 

2 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The talking point of "Half of America doesn't pay taxes" has been disproven so many times.

 

In 2015, Forbes reported that 45.3% of Americans did not pay federal income tax.

 

Quote

We still project that the percentage of non-payers will fall over time, though more slowly than we previously thought. We now estimate that 40 percent of tax units won’t pay tax in 2025, higher than our previous projection of about one-third.

 

You can push your little "intellectual dishonesty" narrative all you want, but my point remains the same: according to the one poll, 48% of the US believes you should be given a guaranteed living wage for nothing, and in another poll,  more than 45% of the US  doesn't pay federal income taxes.

 

I pay more than enough, and in fact I'm making steps to move to where I no longer have to be financially gang-raped by a Dem Supermajority that can't even figure out how to get a train on the tracks without sticking money in their own pockets and repeatedly showing up months later saying "Oh, no, we need more money!!!"

 

We really appreciate your weepy little "we care about the poor" stories, but through church and other charities, I also give plenty to help the poor and less fortunate, and it seems like all that happens is the number or poor and less fortunate grows in numbers in LA and SFO. So spare me the drama, mama. It's not a heart string that anyone wants to hear you play anymore.

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

I am not saying that there aren't a lot of poor people that make bad decisions on their own accord that lead to their disposition in life. 

 

I'm saying there are a lot of people who COULD make better decisions on their own accord, and DON'T because they don't have have an incentive to do so...stay with me...because, y'know, why try harder when all you have to do is just show up for food, shelter, health care, education AND a monthly paycheck...all just for showing up.

 

Hand up? Absolutely. Hand out? Pass.

 

[GG]

3 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The talking point of "Half of America doesn't pay taxes" has been disproven so many times. The working poor pay social security, Medicare, Medicaid, Payroll taxes, State and Local income taxes, sales taxes, fees and various other taxes. 

 That's seven specific taxes that the 53% pay?  You sure about that?

[billsfan89]

16 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

 

In 2015, Forbes reported that 45.3% of Americans did not pay federal income tax.

 

 

You can push your little "intellectual dishonesty" narrative all you want, but my point remains the same: according to the one poll, 48% of the US believes you should be given a guaranteed living wage for nothing, and in another poll,  more than 45% of the US  doesn't pay federal income taxes.

 

I pay more than enough, and in fact I'm making steps to move to where I no longer have to be financially gang-raped by a Dem Supermajority that can't even figure out how to get a train on the tracks without sticking money in their own pockets and repeatedly showing up months later saying "Oh, no, we need more money!!!"

 

We really appreciate your weepy little "we care about the poor" stories, but through church and other charities, I also give plenty to help the poor and less fortunate, and it seems like all that happens is the number or poor and less fortunate grows in numbers in LA and SFO. So spare me the drama, mama. It's not a heart string that anyone wants to hear you play anymore.

 

 

 

 

I'm saying there are a lot of people who COULD make better decisions on their own accord, and DON'T because they don't have have an incentive to do so...stay with me...because, y'know, why try harder when all you have to do is just show up for food, shelter, health care, education AND a monthly paycheck...all just for showing up.

 

Hand up? Absolutely. Hand out? Pass.

 

 

Once again, the working poor still pay Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Payroll taxes, Sales taxes, state and local taxes, fees on things like car registration and various other little taxes. I don't dispute the "federal taxes" portion, however, to present it as 45% of working Americans are just taking from the public and not putting anything back in is completely dishonest. It's a semantics argument but I think the way some people frame that statistic is highly misleading.  

 

I think we are in agreement on the Hand up and not hand out. I do think that there are some very basic needs like Healthcare and education that should be publicly funded, you can't get off your feet without those basic things. But I think that a lot of conservatives (Not you specifically) will place all the ills of the economy onto the poor when in reality it wasn't the poor who shipped jobs all over the world to undercut their labor. It isn't the poor causing the larger economic issues. The poor are the symptom, not the cause in most cases. The government isn't getting influenced and bought by lobbyists poor people are paying for. 

[IDBillzFan]

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

 

But I think that a lot of conservatives (Not you specifically) will place all the ills of the economy onto the poor when in reality it wasn't the poor who shipped jobs all over the world to undercut their labor.

 

I do not place the ills of the economy onto the poor. I place it on the people who enable the poor to stay poor. And that would be the people who successfully pile the poor up on streets with no hope because...why bother? Detroit. Baltimore. San Francisco. LA. Portland. Seattle.

 

What do all these cities have in common?

[billsfan89]

7 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

I do not place the ills of the economy onto the poor. I place it on the people who enable the poor to stay poor. And that would be the people who successfully pile the poor up on streets with no hope because...why bother? Detroit. Baltimore. San Francisco. LA. Portland. Seattle.

 

What do all these cities have in common?

 

What was it that the poor were doing in 1960 that was so different than they are doing now? I think the ills of the economy are caused by large corporations outsourcing (along with automation which is more a natural progression of technology) and the government being corrupted by the creeping influence of money and special interests. What is it that poor people are doing that is causing the jobs to be outsourced? 

 

I think the enablers of poverty are these large entities that take away a lot of the jobs and opportunities that formed the foundations of the middle class. 

24 minutes ago, GG said:

 That's seven specific taxes that the 53% pay?  You sure about that?

 

Yes, everyone who works pays a payroll tax which funds Social Security and Medicare, the working poor also pay a sales tax on almost everything they buy as most states have some sort of sales taxes. Toss in fees and other state and local taxes like tolls, gas taxes and vice taxes and you will see that even that 40-45% that isn't paying federal income tax is paying a significant portion of their income towards taxes. Is what they get out greater than what they put in? In some cases, yes, but to say they are putting in 0 taxes and getting a lot out is inaccurate.

Edited July 19, 2018 by billsfan89

[IDBillzFan]

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

 

What was it that the poor were doing in 1960 that was so different than they are doing now? I think the ills of the economy are caused by large corporations outsourcing (along with automation which is more a natural progression of technology) and the government being corrupted by the creeping influence of money and special interests. What is it that poor people are doing that is causing the jobs to be outsourced? 

 

The poor in 1960 were trying. They'd do whatever they had to do. I know, because I watched my whole family do it. Parents. Aunts. Uncles. Grandparents. Brothers. Sisters. They were hard workers. They were surrounded by hard workers.  I spent years up and down the east coast, outside NC textile mills, for example. When textiles were outsourced, companies like Glaxo moved in because those people didn't care what they were doing...they were proud to do it. Turning sweatshirts inside out or moving plastic tubes. Happy to do it and Glaxo was happy to hire them because hard workers are always valued.

 

The industry I'm in is desperate for hard workers. Cable pullers. Easy work. Room to learn and grow and get raises and benefits. Yet they're nowhere to be found. The industry and it's association turns every rock at every college...everywhere.

 

They can find workers. They just can find hard workers. They don't want to earn anything. They want to be given everything. "I have to do what to earn what?"

 

I suspect the truth is somewhere between what you see and what I see, but we can both agree that a guaranteed wage for people who don't pay federal income taxes is a very, very, very bad plan.

 

[Nanker]

On 7/18/2018 at 7:11 AM, TPS said:

She comes from the Bernie wing. Had it been another white male, the DNC would've ignored the win. 

Also, her policies of "democratic socialism" are mostly what the Nordic economies and much of Europe follow, such as universal healthcare. They don't seem to be starving...

What happy horseshit. 

In Sweden, The "progressive" Personal Income Tax Rate is only 61.85% of income (for the highest earners) - but their company has to pay Social Security tax of 38.42% of their employees GROSS income. Oh, and their sales tax rate is 25%. 

 

Norway's a piker in comparison. 38.52% Personal income tax rate, 22.30 Social Security tax rate, and a 25% Sales tax rate.

 

Finland has a top rate of 51.6%, a Social Security tax of 32.53%, and a mere 24% Sales Tax rate.

 

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/12/18/why-sweden-denmark-and-norway-have-high-taxes-and-still-show-up-to-work

"A SMALL NUMBER OF overwhelmingly white Northern European countries with a Christian cultural heritage or even a Protestant established church are, for quite a few American progressives, the place to turn to for public policy inspiration. This can probably be explained by a strong belief that those countries – Denmark, Sweden and Finland, perhaps even Iceland, the Netherlands or Austria – are characterized by more equal outcomes, higher rates of social mobility, better public education and higher taxes. (I suppose that secularism, drug policy and bike lanes help as well.) 

 

The high taxes are particularly awesome, especially because they don’t seem to destroy everyone’s willingness to show up to work. Now, it is obviously infuriating to believe that other countries have discovered and implemented a technology to immanentize the eschaton, and that you could, too, if only your political opponents believed in science and weren’t so racist. Why, you ask, why, tell me why! 

 

And there is more that sets Scandinavia apart. So far we have looked at fairly clear-cut correlations of quantifiable numbers between zero and one. But might policy and politics be downstream from culture? Well, that certainly appears to be the case once we look at Scandinavian culture. Scandinavians trust their fellow citizens. They think poor people have typically been unlucky instead of lazy. They vote actively and participate in civil society. They respect the rule of law, and they donate to charity. Professor Kleven recognizes all of these things, and ultimately chooses not to guess what causes what. 

 

Yet for the ambitions of American progressives, that distinction matters very much. If all of these things are so precisely because the Scandinavian countries are small and homogeneous and have been that way for quite some time, then there is not much to be learned from this Scandinavian business. The Scandinavians themselves seem quite confident that they know the answer: culture matters and that their countries are small and homogeneous matters. They are the most Euroskeptic peoples of the continent. Norway is not a member of the European Union, Sweden joined only recently, and none of the three adopted the eurozone’s common currency. They seem to like their small, homogeneous countries just fine. And perhaps that’s what Scandinavia ultimately teaches us: the value of subsidiarity, not of subsidies."

 

The US is a melting pot. It's not a homogeneous society. It's more like Europe - without the smelly armpits. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

11 minutes ago, Nanker said:

What happy horseshit. 

In Sweden, The "progressive" Personal Income Tax Rate is only 61.85% of income (for the highest earners) - but their company has to pay Social Security tax of 38.42% of their employees GROSS income. Oh, and their sales tax rate is 25%. 

 

Norway's a piker in comparison. 38.52% Personal income tax rate, 22.30 Social Security tax rate, and a 25% Sales tax rate.

 

Finland has a top rate of 51.6%, a Social Security tax of 32.53%, and a mere 24% Sales Tax rate.

 

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/12/18/why-sweden-denmark-and-norway-have-high-taxes-and-still-show-up-to-work

"A SMALL NUMBER OF overwhelmingly white Northern European countries with a Christian cultural heritage or even a Protestant established church are, for quite a few American progressives, the place to turn to for public policy inspiration. This can probably be explained by a strong belief that those countries – Denmark, Sweden and Finland, perhaps even Iceland, the Netherlands or Austria – are characterized by more equal outcomes, higher rates of social mobility, better public education and higher taxes. (I suppose that secularism, drug policy and bike lanes help as well.) 

 

The high taxes are particularly awesome, especially because they don’t seem to destroy everyone’s willingness to show up to work. Now, it is obviously infuriating to believe that other countries have discovered and implemented a technology to immanentize the eschaton, and that you could, too, if only your political opponents believed in science and weren’t so racist. Why, you ask, why, tell me why! 

 

And there is more that sets Scandinavia apart. So far we have looked at fairly clear-cut correlations of quantifiable numbers between zero and one. But might policy and politics be downstream from culture? Well, that certainly appears to be the case once we look at Scandinavian culture. Scandinavians trust their fellow citizens. They think poor people have typically been unlucky instead of lazy. They vote actively and participate in civil society. They respect the rule of law, and they donate to charity. Professor Kleven recognizes all of these things, and ultimately chooses not to guess what causes what. 

 

Yet for the ambitions of American progressives, that distinction matters very much. If all of these things are so precisely because the Scandinavian countries are small and homogeneous and have been that way for quite some time, then there is not much to be learned from this Scandinavian business. The Scandinavians themselves seem quite confident that they know the answer: culture matters and that their countries are small and homogeneous matters. They are the most Euroskeptic peoples of the continent. Norway is not a member of the European Union, Sweden joined only recently, and none of the three adopted the eurozone’s common currency. They seem to like their small, homogeneous countries just fine. And perhaps that’s what Scandinavia ultimately teaches us: the value of subsidiarity, not of subsidies."

 

The US is a melting pot. It's not a homogeneous society. It's more like Europe - without the smelly armpits. 

 

That must be vaguely racist somehow.

 

[Nanker]

3 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

That must be vaguely racist somehow.

 

No. Because they're "progressive" in their mindset. Except for the fact that all the Scandinavian people look alike at least within their own borders, and they all speak the same language, you couldn't tell them apart from the hundreds of thousands of homeless on the streets of Kallifornyah. 

[3rdnlng]

9 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

That's a big misnomer. Healthcare is not an elastic product, it is not easy to create more of it and everyone has a demand for the best possible use of it. People always cite the government as being this massive bureaucracy and thus everything they do is inefficient. That's true in certain cases, esp for consumer products (Soviet phones and cars were !@#$ing horrendous) but when it comes to health insurance all quantifiable evidence proves your thesis wrong.

 

Although I think that people will ignore the fact that any massive entity private or public is inefficient. People like to compare the federal government to a small business as a sign of inefficiency but compare a large corporate entity to the federal government and you will see very similar waste and politics.  Anyway back to why I support Single Payer Healthcare.

 

The USA's health insurance system spends 13% on billing. Most single payer systems spend less than 5% with the highest single payer system paying 7% on billing. The reason private insurance is inefficient is because healthcare providers in a private system have to deal with hundreds of insurance providers for each patient at the point of use. Each private insurer has their own coding, bureaucracy and payment methods. It's wasteful and inefficient by its nature. I am sure you have been to a hospital and doctors office and seen the massive billing department, that is unique to America. 

 

In a single payer system hospitals can get singular lump sum payments for the year (The administration can ask the government for X amount to cover their budget for a year.)

 

Single payer systems also save money with preventative care. How many people do you know in the USA that don't see doctors for preventative care because they are uninsured or underinsured? People wait on things to get worse and then the treatments later on when a problem gets worse are more costly. The private insurance system is incentivized to not cover people for treatments because it saves them money so people don't like to navigate the system because it is so intentionally complicated. 

 

I also think that there is a tremendous economic benefit beyond the fact that the US would save trillions in healthcare costs. All businesses love a fixed cost. Replacing private insurance costs which can vary year to year with a simple payroll tax you fix that cost. It is also a great benefit to small businesses looking to compete and it also makes freelancing and self-employment much more realistic. Start ups looking to get talent already are at a disadvantage not being able to offer more pay but smaller companies and start ups have an even harder time competing for employees who might need the health coverage a larger company might be able to provide. Removing health care from work is a big boost.

 

All single payer healthcare is, is paying for the services of healthcare providers with taxes as opposed to hundreds of private insurers with their own complicated rules and incentive to not cover people. Is single payer perfect? No there are issues but the question shouldn't be what system is perfect, the question should be what system is better. The outcomes and efficiency of a single payer system are far better than the ones of America's horrendous private system. 

 

The Walton Family has more wealth than 42% of American's combined, I think the decisions of the super rich have a much larger impact than the decisions of poor people. I am not saying that there aren't a lot of poor people that make bad decisions on their own accord that lead to their disposition in life. But I think that if I am looking at what the !@#$ is wrong with the economy I can't put the blame on the poor instead of the people that actually hold the economic power.

Yes, but that was a long running TV show that was really popular. John-boy is still receiving residuals.

 

 

 

 

 

Socialism at its finest:

 

https://pagesix.com/2018/07/01/ex-co-worker-no-fan-of-democrat-darling-alexandria-ocasio-cortez/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_3065122

 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is being hailed as the new face of the Democratic Party after vanquishing Queens party boss Joe Crowley in Tuesday’s primary, but one former co-worker isn’t jumping on her bandwagon.

Most of the staff at Flats Fix, the East 16th Street taco and tequila bar, say nice things about Sandy, as they knew her for the four years she worked there, until she quit six months ago to run for Congress.

But one waitress has a bad memory of working with Ocasio-Cortez, 28, as Ocasio-Cortez tended bar during the very busy Cinco de Mayo celebration in 2017.

At the end of the night, when it came time to split the $560 in tips she had gotten at the bar, Ocasio-Cortez gave the waitress only $50. After the waitress complained to her manager, her take was doubled to $100, a source said.

“It says so much about her character,” said my source. “From that point on, I wouldn’t talk to her.

Edited July 19, 2018 by 3rdnlng

[DC Tom]

10 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

That's a big misnomer. Healthcare is not an elastic product, it is not easy to create more of it and everyone has a demand for the best possible use of it

 

Which is why you can't socialize demand and leave the supply free-market.  If you do, costs skyrocket beyond what your socialized "insurance" can pay.  You can't manage only half the equation.

[row_33]

27 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Which is why you can't socialize demand and leave the supply free-market.  If you do, costs skyrocket beyond what your socialized "insurance" can pay.  You can't manage only half the equation.

 

the chance to nationalize it ended at the latest in the 1950s, it's not possible to do it now in a remotely responsible way

 

make sure you and yours are covered....