Can you tell us why in your own words?
I think if we can at least get to the same place here, there may be less “out-of-context takes”.
You can start with the points in my post. If you thought m4a meant “universal coverage”, why are you supporting Pete’s plan which does not provide universal coverage?
You keep bringing up the point that “people are acting like if your plan doesn’t get single payer in 4 years then you’re not in favor of single payer” - Pete’s plan has no timetable to get to single payer and his entire premise is that people shouldn’t have to give up private insurance if they don’t want to. Why do you keep making this point, as if to say that Pete wants to get to single payer just on a longer timescale?
When you made the point of “where are we going to get 30 trillion dollars” this forum had been discussing in detail the cost of private healthcare for months. You know that the answer is from the same place we currently get 40 trillion. Why did you make that dishonest argument?
Can you just admit that Pete’s plan is not Medicare for All under any definition (including the definition of “for all who want it”, because I can want something but not want to pay for it) and is in fact an entirely separate plan? And stop pretending that it’s the left’s fault that a bunch of moderates decided to co-opt the popular m4a label for their milquetoast plans - m4a never meant anything like what Pete is proposing.
It’s the same kind of thing as your line about $200 donors being the big money in politics that people are worried about. It’s not. You know it’s not, even in comparison individual donors giving the limit which is like 1500% higher than that. But you make the point to deflect criticism.
5 Likes
Like, I don’t come in here talking about how actually the filibuster is an important legislative tool and Bernie will be able to get 60 senators to pass his legislation. It’s a bad position he has that I hope he changes. He has some kind of weird plan to accomplish stuff through budget reconciliation but I don’t think it’s a good idea.
There’s a difference between supporting someone and propagandizing for them and like, whatever, if you’re a campaign volunteer I don’t even see anything WRONG with propagandizing for your candidate I just am going to treat it as such.
5 Likes
Similarly I think Warren’s wealth tax will 1) never get passed and more crucially 2) wouldn’t work well if passed and 3) would probably require a constitutional amendment after 100% being overturned by the supreme court, which again isn’t something we have a prayer of getting done. I think a lot of her policy positions fall into this camp honestly, but would love to be wrong.
2 Likes
Hilariously the only candidate whose policies I think are pretty close to achievable and don’t really have any significant holes is Yang… and that’s because he basically decided to campaign on the best available option on every issue simultaneously. Just literally be the candidate of the right answers lol.
Which is probably a good bit of why he won’t come close to winning the primary. Just like most people can find something to love in his platform most people can find something to hate. The sheer amount of hate he’s taken from liberals on funding UBI with a mildly regressive consumption tax and making people choose between it and food stamps is a great example of what I mean. He’s also not making any friends by telling Universities they need to get to a 50:1 administrator to student ratio or lose federal grants and loans lol. If he actually did get traction I think the number of people from the liberal establishment who would be trying to sink him would be larger than the number of people who want to stop Bernie.
Every party has sacred oxen and Yang is basically in favor of killing a whole bunch of them. Don’t get me wrong I agree with him that they need to die, so I’m far from unhappy about this, but I also would expect the pushback to be crazy.
That should maybe make you question his plans?
No? If the establishment wants to stop you, chances are you’re trying to do something right.
1 Like
2 Likes
Speaking as someone with a massive student loan debt (that I’m paying as slowly as possible because we are getting bailed out eventually) I’m going to say no. In fact I’m going to say it’s a hard no. Liberals are corrupt in different (and lesser) ways than conservatives, but they are definitely corrupt. The Education lobby is definitely one of the big things corrupting them.
I also think means tested welfare is politically toxic (because the people who don’t get it resent paying for it), economically toxic, and actively hurts the people it’s meant to help. Yes it’s better than them getting nothing, but creating a situation where poor people face effective taxes north of 100% for increasing their income is suuuuuper bad.
Someone should do a study of the lives of modest trust fund kids. I know someone who had enough of a trust fund that it paid for college, stuff like medical insurance and probably something on the order of $1000/mo.
1 Like
My dad was such a person. It absolutely ruined him as a human being. Never quite having to work for a living is a really bad situation for some people. Although honestly the personality disorder probably would have just made everything worse if he didn’t get that 800/month or whatever it was. My childhood definitely took a meaningful turn for the worse every time his monthly check got smaller because he was slowly draining the trust by taking max income.
To be clear 800/month in the 80’s-90’s is more than 1k a month… and most people don’t have full blown narcissistic personality disorder. There’s a very good chance my childhood would have been 10x worse if he didn’t have that money coming in no matter how bad he fucked up.
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that Medicare for All was originally used to describe single payer, and the term was then co-opted by those with more moderate plans because it polled well, etc. Despite this, you continue to attack the left for trying to distort the debate by “switching it” to mean single payer now. The first couple of times could have been a mistake, but you keep doing it.
Then you defend it by claiming it was your experience - maybe so, but NOW you know the facts and yet you STILL keep describing it that way.
And the cherry on top is that I’ve explained this very thing to you repeatedly, and yet you’re still out there like, “Golly gee, I can’t quite understand what Redacted for privacy.thinks I’m being misleading about. I’m so confused about it.”
This is where we differ. Pete is extremely intelligent and well informed on the issues, I think he understands exactly how things work and what he’s doing.
Still waiting for someone to answer whether UBI will be considered taxable income. It being taxable would make it much less popular.
Jesus Christ framing this dispute as skydiver lying is just absurd and very harmful to discourse. Just because someone doesn’t accept how you personally frame an issue doesn’t mean she is lying.
7 Likes
She has had it pointed out to her where her claims are inaccurate, and chooses to continue to make those claims - without any attempt to explain/prove why her claims are actually accurate beyond “it was my personal experience.”
Once you have had facts that contradict your personal experience pointed out to you, it’s on you to take that in and adjust if you want to debate in good faith.
1 Like
I mean this is just semantics. What difference does it make if it’s $~1300/month that’s taxable so comes out to $1000 or $1000/month that’s not taxed?
Not taxable. Not garnishable either.
Link to some text.