Democratic 2020 Presidential Primary Thread

[1915 Buffalo Bill Cody fan]

@reddogblitz thank you for Yang Gang note....he was the only blue to stand for what is needed inside USA continuous support to all adults and ending the illegal wars in 160 countries..

.McGovern worked closely with JFK , but USA was still very McCarthyism driven in '72&'92....the internet GENERATION of people not brainwashed by fascist newspapers radio and TV are responding to Bernie despite his record of corruption in office since 1979 ....WWW.HOWIEHAWKINS.US peace through Green jobs is our only solution candidate now that Yang lost NH 

[Rob's House]

2 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Yeah. And I've read P.J O'Rourke's book regarding pizza, slices, and such. Solid counterarguments that I don't personally buy.

 

Did you know that America, yes, the United States of America, once taxed the top 1 percent roughly 90 PERCENT of their earnings? This was in the 50's and 60's to pay for GI Bills and such. We needed to make America great again; is THIS the time period in which we needed to return or is it ONLY the 1980's laissez faire approach, which of course lead to a huge deficit crisis, just as the roaring 20's lead to 1929. Is Bernie Sanders proposing anything CLOSE to a 90 percent marginal rate? The answer is of course not. You can disagree with his policies, but the notion that these proposals are DRASTIC alterations from anything we've seen before just doesn't mesh with history.

 

The reason I ask the question regarding CEO/worker ratio is because I believe capitalism is great, but requires a proverbial reset button on occasion. It's entirely possible that Sanders is TOO extreme. Maybe. I don't know. 

 

But the reason I posed the question is that I believe unchecked capitalism WOULD lead to soaring CEO/worker rates. Like I said, does it become a problem if it's 10,000 to 1? I would say yes. That's a problem. 

 

Once again Rob; I don't want to see any policies that preclude folks from getting extremely wealthy through innovation and creativity. That would lead to disastrous consequences. But I have zero problem with taxing those at the top a slightly higher rate for things like healthcare and higher minimum wage standards. Free tuition? That's a bit far for my taste. I think there should be MORE assistance for kids who did well in high school but come from poor backgrounds. Free for everyone? Meh. Little too far.

 

Last thing I'll say on this is that if the minimum wage were adjusted for inflation from it's inception, we'd be talking about raising it to 19 and change an hour. Sanders is proposing 15/hr. So historically speaking, the minimum wage would STILL not top where it's been right here in America.

 

Ok. I lied. Democrats have lost all their credibility regarding Trump with nonsensical investigations and accusations. It's a little different because of the time lapse, but R's lost a lot of cred with their proclamations regarding an Obama Presidency. Remember when he was a socialist and the country would be destroyed? I don't think people feel that way about 2009-2017. Now Sanders is much more progressive than Obama, but those fear tactics are fresh in my mind; not so sure people have long enough memories for that to matter electorally.

 

This is pretty far removed from what I was asking, but that's fine. I personally oppose such tax hikes due largely to the broader effect they have on the economy, but I wouldn't freak out about a moderate hike in the top marginal tax rate. A drastic hike, however, would give me great concern.

 

What I was getting at is the idea that people at the top making lots of money causes people in lower brackets to have less. I'm not sure that you're taking that position, but many do, & as far as I can tell it's a baseless theory.

[3rdnlng]

35 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Lots of money was dumped into farming back during the 1950's-1990's as a tax loss type operation.  WNY was no different than any other area in the US in this respect.  Then the Feds clamped down on that.  No coincidence in my mind that is when a lot of agribusinesses tanked when the tax write off money stopped coming in.

Hell, they were even advertising tax shelters on tv. 

[LSHMEAB]

12 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

 

What I was getting at is the idea that people at the top making lots of money causes people in lower brackets to have less. I'm not sure that you're taking that position, but many do, & as far as I can tell it's a baseless theory.

See, now that is really a fascinating concept. I don't know that I fully agree. Considering that the world contains a finite number of resources and can only create a finite number of services or goods, I do think it's quite possible that the rich getting richer negatively affects those at the bottom wrung. The tricky part there is that as a country, you want to have the most resources BECAUSE they are finite. So while I would like to see LESS income disparity, pulling that off without alienating business is really, really tough.

 

But where I'm at, which likely differs from your perspective, is that I think it's a worthwhile endeavor. 

 

On a personal level, which means absolutely nothing; I ALWAYS take the side of the "underdog/little guy/powerless." So my focus is going to be on that demo. Pretty sure CEO's and 1 percenters don't need any advocates. 

 

What concerns me most about our economy is that the upward mobility rates are trash. We rank 16th out of 24 among the wealthiest nations in the world in terms of those born poor emerging into a higher class. I think that's a problem.

[Rob's House]

33 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

See, now that is really a fascinating concept. I don't know that I fully agree. Considering that the world contains a finite number of resources and can only create a finite number of services or goods, I do think it's quite possible that the rich getting richer negatively affects those at the bottom wrung. The tricky part there is that as a country, you want to have the most resources BECAUSE they are finite. So while I would like to see LESS income disparity, pulling that off without alienating business is really, really tough.

 

But where I'm at, which likely differs from your perspective, is that I think it's a worthwhile endeavor. 

 

On a personal level, which means absolutely nothing; I ALWAYS take the side of the "underdog/little guy/powerless." So my focus is going to be on that demo. Pretty sure CEO's and 1 percenters don't need any advocates. 

 

What concerns me most about our economy is that the upward mobility rates are trash. We rank 16th out of 24 among the wealthiest nations in the world in terms of those born poor emerging into a higher class. I think that's a problem.

 

There are a few points there so I'll take them in order.

 

The fact that resources are arguably finite does not mean goods and services are finite or anywhere near capacity. In the 1850s Marx thought humanity had reached its technological peak and we needed to focus on more equitable distribution of the finite resources in existence.

 

Production of goods and services increases every day.

 

As to upward mobility, I believe those numbers are misleading as they ignore what causes some poor people to remain poor.

 

Our welfare state largely encourages and enables people born into it to remain in it. Also, there are cultural considerations in play that cannot be explained by lack of opportunity.

 

I'll use the real life example of a guy I'll call Joe to illustrate this. Joe and his older sister are less than 2 years apart in age & were both born into a relatively poor household. Joe's sister aspired to have a better life and now has a decent job, a nice family with a husband and children, and lives in a nice house in the suburbs.

 

Joe aspired to thug life. He was given multiple opportunities across many years to learn a trade and make a decent living. He squandered every opportunity opting instead to work dead end jobs and sell drugs. Joe lives in a ***** apartment in a ***** neighborhood with his other sister, who could be an RN but settled for an LPN, & has a stagnant career because she's irresponsible and can't hold a job. They both have illegitimate children, no savings, and no prospects for improving their SES.

 

On paper they are the people who have been denied upward mobility, but the issue isn't lack of opportunity, but rather unwillingness to answer the door when opportunity knocks.

 

These are the majority of poor who remain poor. Most people see their incomes grow as they get older and develop marketable skills. Age is the greatest demographic indicator of income. A high % of people in the lower brackets are in their 20s.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Rob's House

[LSHMEAB]

4 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

 

As to upward mobility, I believe those numbers are misleading as they ignore the cause of poor people who remain poor. Our welfare state largely encourages and enables people born into it to remain in it. Also, there are cultural considerations in play that cannot be explained by lack of opportunity.

I'll refrain from the cultural considerations issue because I think it's got some merit, but it's a little dicey.

 

I completely disagree that America's welfare state plays a role in upward mobility. If you look at the numbers, the countries at the top of this list; Denmark, Finland, Canada, Sweden, they all have a much more robust welfare state than does the United States. But to your point, these countries are also monoethnic, so there's that.

 

7 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

There are a few points there so I'll take them in order.

 

The fact that resources are arguably finite does not mean goods and services are finite or anywhere near capacity. In the 1850s Marx thought humanity had reached its technological peak and we needed to focus on more equitable distribution of the finite resources in existence.

 

Production of goods and services increases every day.

 

 

This raises yet another problem. Production of goods and services increase every day, but that's largely a function of automation. Automation may pose an existential threat to our economy. We'll see what happens there, but there are very few professions that can't ultimately be replaced by a machine.

[LB3]

This debate is great. Just a melee.

[Golden Goat]

My reparations check is in the mail, Tom!

[LB3]

This debate also reinforces another thought I've always brought up when discussing with liberal friends. They always like to bring up the fact that a larger percentage of liberals are college educated. I honestly wonder how much that number is skewed by worthless degrees. It doesn't seem like any candidate on stage understands basic math.

 

I think someone that knows they're better at a trade and doesn't want to accumulate unnecessary debt is much smarter than a D student taking out loans to go to school for a fringe liberal arts degree.

[Koko78]

6 minutes ago, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said:

This debate also reinforces another thought I've always brought up when discussing with liberal friends. They always like to bring up the fact that a larger percentage of liberals are college educated. I honestly wonder how much that number is skewed by worthless degrees. It doesn't seem like any candidate on stage understands basic math.

 

I think someone that knows they're better at a trade and doesn't want to accumulate unnecessary debt is much smarter than a D student taking out loans to go to school for a fringe liberal arts degree.

 

Are you questioning the validity of my Afro-Asian Women's 14th Century Basket Weaving Studies degree?!?

 

[Rob's House]

44 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

I'll refrain from the cultural considerations issue because I think it's got some merit, but it's a little dicey.

 

I completely disagree that America's welfare state plays a role in upward mobility. If you look at the numbers, the countries at the top of this list; Denmark, Finland, Canada, Sweden, they all have a much more robust welfare state than does the United States. But to your point, these countries are also monoethnic, so there's that.

 

This raises yet another problem. Production of goods and services increase every day, but that's largely a function of automation. Automation may pose an existential threat to our economy. We'll see what happens there, but there are very few professions that can't ultimately be replaced by a machine.

 

WRT the welfare state, the issue is form rather than robustness. 

 

WRT automation, if you're interested in the topic I would recommend checking this video out. It's not exactly the main subject discussed but the example illustrates the point very well. The whole video is worth watching but 9:25-15:20 is the most relevant portion.

 

 

[GG]

3 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Yeah. And I've read P.J O'Rourke's book regarding pizza, slices, and such. Solid counterarguments that I don't personally buy.

 

Did you know that America, yes, the United States of America, once taxed the top 1 percent roughly 90 PERCENT of their earnings? This was in the 50's and 60's to pay for GI Bills and such. We needed to make America great again; is THIS the time period in which we needed to return or is it ONLY the 1980's laissez faire approach, which of course lead to a huge deficit crisis, just as the roaring 20's lead to 1929. Is Bernie Sanders proposing anything CLOSE to a 90 percent marginal rate? The answer is of course not. You can disagree with his policies, but the notion that these proposals are DRASTIC alterations from anything we've seen before just doesn't mesh with history.

 

Throwing out percentages without context is useless.  I'm sure you also know that in the days of 90% tax rates, deductions were unlimited and encompassed almost every possible deduction.  That meant that the very people who the Bernies of the world thought would pay a 90% tax, actually paid 0% tax.  Worse than that a cottage industry grew up that specialized in selling tax shelters, meaning that for a small $10k investment you could buy $50k of tax deductions.   Not bad is it?   

 

What the Bernies of the world don't realize is that the people he thinks he can fleece for all their worth, are the ones who have the wherewithal to escape the tax.

 

You're also ignoring what happened in the decades between '60s and '80s and the mess that the economy was in before Reagan saved it by unleashing capitalism again.  Laissex faire was needed to invigorate stagnant investment which was sitting on the sidelines.  Which is another lesson the Bernies of the world never understand.  If there's no incentive for investment, nobody is going to invest.  That's a lesson Venezuela didn't learn, thinking that the oil would come gushing out of the ground no matter what.

 

3 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

The reason I ask the question regarding CEO/worker ratio is because I believe capitalism is great, but requires a proverbial reset button on occasion. It's entirely possible that Sanders is TOO extreme. Maybe. I don't know. 

 

The reset is only called for by people needing political points.  It would do nothing to actually solve the problem you are trying to solve.  When you enact policies that affect the super wealthy job creators, guess who gets hit first and hardest? 

 

3 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

 

LOL. Probably quite a bit if we're being honest.

 

Then isn't using US health outcomes a red herring when discussing the effectiveness of US healthcare?

[Rob's House]

38 minutes ago, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said:

This debate also reinforces another thought I've always brought up when discussing with liberal friends. They always like to bring up the fact that a larger percentage of liberals are college educated. I honestly wonder how much that number is skewed by worthless degrees. It doesn't seem like any candidate on stage understands basic math.

 

I think someone that knows they're better at a trade and doesn't want to accumulate unnecessary debt is much smarter than a D student taking out loans to go to school for a fringe liberal arts degree.

 

It does seem odd that those who spend 4 years in left-wing indoctrination centers are more likely to identify as left-wingers.

[LSHMEAB]

13 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Throwing out percentages without context is useless.  I'm sure you also know that in the days of 90% tax rates, deductions were unlimited and encompassed almost every possible deduction.  That meant that the very people who the Bernies of the world thought would pay a 90% tax, actually paid 0% tax.  Worse than that a cottage industry grew up that specialized in selling tax shelters, meaning that for a small $10k investment you could buy $50k of tax deductions.   Not bad is it?   

 

What the Bernies of the world don't realize is that the people he thinks he can fleece for all their worth, are the ones who have the wherewithal to escape the tax.

 

You're also ignoring what happened in the decades between '60s and '80s and the mess that the economy was in before Reagan saved it by unleashing capitalism again.  Laissex faire was needed to invigorate stagnant investment which was sitting on the sidelines.  Which is another lesson the Bernies of the world never understand.  If there's no incentive for investment, nobody is going to invest.  That's a lesson Venezuela didn't learn, thinking that the oil would come gushing out of the ground no matter what.

 

 

The reset is only called for by people needing political points.  It would do nothing to actually solve the problem you are trying to solve.  When you enact policies that affect the super wealthy job creators, guess who gets hit first and hardest? 

 

 

Then isn't using US health outcomes a red herring when discussing the effectiveness of US healthcare?

As far as I can tell, you're not really making a case against taxing the rich at a higher rate; rather implying that they'll never pay them. Not quite sure what to make of that, but I know corporate lobbyists will be going HARD after Bernie. You think they're gonna go hard because they're concerned about the guy on disability or the guy making 40k a year? 
 

As far as healthcare goes, I conceded that America has obesity issues as well as addiction issues; almost certainly at a greater rate than the majority of countries. While it's a mitigating factor, it certainly doesn't fully explain the problem. I would say the Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex is the single greatest factor for the cost and PERHAPS, the outcomes. Docs pop out pills because they get kickbacks and MANY of these drugs, even non opioids, have a deleterious affect on people's overall health. 

 

You make a good point about the economy during the NIXON, Ford, Carter era, but fail to address the inevitable crash when the laissez faire approach is taken. 

Edited February 26, 2020 by LSHMEAB

[B-Man]

Slip of the tongue? Mike Bloomberg stops himself from saying he ‘bought’ all of the new Democrats’ seats

 

 

.

[SoCal Deek]

9 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Slip of the tongue? Mike Bloomberg stops himself from saying he ‘bought’ all of the new Democrats’ seats

 

 

.

I saw that and spit out my drink! ?

[GG]

8 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

As far as I can tell, you're not really making a case against taxing the rich at a higher rate; rather implying that they'll never pay them. Not quite sure what to make of that, but I know corporate lobbyists will be going HARD after Bernie. You think they're gonna go hard because they're concerned about the guy on disability or the guy making 40k a year? 
 

 

I think it's a rather compelling argument.  What's the point of having high tax rates if nobody ever pays that rate?    I would much rather collect 25% of something than 90% of nothing.

 

But that's just me.

 

 

8 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

As far as healthcare goes, I conceded that America has obesity issues as well as addiction issues; almost certainly at a greater rate than the majority of countries. While it's a mitigating factor, it certainly doesn't fully explain the problem. I would say the Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex is the single greatest factor for the cost and PERHAPS, the outcomes. Docs pop out pills because they get kickbacks and MANY of these drugs, even non opioids, have a deleterious affect on people's overall health. 

 

Nobody here has ever argued that the healthcare industry doesn't need changes to be implemented.  Name one product that you buy where you have no idea of the cost before you buy it?

 

Ironically, the evil Trump has signed more orders that improve transparency on healthcare pricing than any President in history.  He's also the only one to target the Pharma sector to be more transparent.  He's doing things that actually matter to controlling costs, rather than bloviating false promises.

 

8 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

You make a good point about the economy during the NIXON, Ford, Carter era, but fail to address the inevitable crash when the laissez faire approach is taken. 

 

Market crashes are a major downside of open economies.  Luckily there are enough safeguards in place to prevent full blown panics and depressions.  It's more than worth it to maintain growth to keep raising everyone's standard of living.

 

As I've said before, class warfare is never a winning formula for those who think they will benefit.  All it does is blow up any opportunities for advancement because you're choking off the productive portion of societies.    It's been proven again and again over nearly a century, yet each new generation falls for the siren song of communism.  

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

 

(They're all pretty good)

[LSHMEAB]

3 minutes ago, GG said:

Nobody here has ever argued that the healthcare industry doesn't need changes to be implemented.  Name one product that you buy where you have no idea of the cost before you buy it?

 

Ironically, the evil Trump has signed more orders that improve transparency on healthcare pricing than any President in history.  He's also the only one to target the Pharma sector to be more transparent.  He's doing things that actually matter to controlling costs, rather than bloviating false promises.

I'm not obsessed with Trump, and he has taken measures to address big Pharma, which I applaud. He hasn't done enough, but at least he's taken some targeted steps in the right direction.

 

6 minutes ago, GG said:

 

I think it's a rather compelling argument.  What's the point of having high tax rates if nobody ever pays that rate?    I would much rather collect 25% of something than 90% of nothing.

 

But that's just me.

 

This argument really doesn't seem logical. You could make the corporate >1m/year rate 1% and they'd still try to pay 0. They'll try to pay zero regardless of where you set the rate.

[GG]

6 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

I'm not obsessed with Trump, and he has taken measures to address big Pharma, which I applaud. He hasn't done enough, but at least he's taken some targeted steps in the right direction.

 

This argument really doesn't seem logical. You could make the corporate >1m/year rate 1% and they'd still try to pay 0. They'll try to pay zero regardless of where you set the rate.

 

I'm arguing reality.  A 1% tax rate will have 100% compliance because the cost of avoidance will be more than 1%.

 

The perfect tax rate would be set at the exact intersection of tax compliance and tax avoidance costs.  Miraculously than number is always around 20%-25%.  Funny how that works.