|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 31 2019 11:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2019 11:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2019 10:44 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 31 2019 09:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2019 08:53 Mohdoo wrote:
Biden is doing better than I thought he would be at this point. Really looks like a great deal of Bernie's original Midwest support was really just "anyone but Hilary".
A lot depends on the debates still imo. If Biden shits the bed again, I think buttigieg has a chance at being the new Biden. I dunno. It's all in the air, just saying Biden is surprising me. People over 50 just love them some Biden. None of the things that make him unacceptable to people under 45 even budges his over 50 support. Who knows what electorate modeling pollsters are using though? I'd be impressed if Democrats managed to be so terrible that they actually manage to put Biden up against Trump. The thing with models is that people over 50 actually vote. If you're modeling based on the 18-29 demographic you're going to end up with the wrong result because that demographic votes at basically half the rate of the older people. There's a lot of ways to frame it, but Bernie's push to cancel student debt is pretty much perfect to change that dynamic. Never in their lives has their vote had so much easily recognizable and immediate value imo. Hard not to vote for the guy who could just lift a $20-100k burden off your shoulders. Reminds me of Kamala Harris recently. Elect me president so I can not be in the senate anymore where legislation to do this thing I'm talking about actually happens. If you actually want this agenda then you need Bernie to replace turtle as majority leader in the senate.
If we want any of this stuff we have to replace damn near everyone and Sanders is the only one remotely honest about that. The majority (in the House) Democrats got in 2018 isn't worth a damn for any of the policy Sanders or even Warren is espousing, neither are most of the minority in the Senate.
|
maybe it's because I wasnt able to pay full attention (only audio), but that was such a display of demagoguery, and it was primarily coming from the "ideas" candidates. Meanwhile on trade, where they spoke more substantively, they are most of the way to Trump's position. Not that their defenders will make that point.
The hopeless moderates only serve to point out what the Democrat party now is, and that has to work to Trump's advantage.
|
On July 31 2019 07:16 IgnE wrote:
yeah but you have to give up any other entitlements. given that the VAT tax hits people already collecting disability, food assistance, and even social security (?), the people who are already identified by the system as needing assistance would only see cuts to their existing disbursements
Most countries exempt VAT for health and disability services, for food and for financial services. Just so you know.
|
On July 31 2019 18:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2019 07:16 IgnE wrote:
yeah but you have to give up any other entitlements. given that the VAT tax hits people already collecting disability, food assistance, and even social security (?), the people who are already identified by the system as needing assistance would only see cuts to their existing disbursements Most countries exempt VAT for health and disability services, for food and for financial services. Just so you know.
ok but money is fungible. those aren’t the only things people getting any of those forms of assistance spend money on
|
Is there a VOD of last night's (full) primary debate anywhere? Usually one is up on YouTube by now, but I'm having trouble finding one.
|
On July 31 2019 20:43 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2019 18:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 31 2019 07:16 IgnE wrote:
yeah but you have to give up any other entitlements. given that the VAT tax hits people already collecting disability, food assistance, and even social security (?), the people who are already identified by the system as needing assistance would only see cuts to their existing disbursements Most countries exempt VAT for health and disability services, for food and for financial services. Just so you know. ok but money is fungible. those aren’t the only things people getting any of those forms of assistance spend money on
And they'd still need to spend $120k on VAT applicable goods to meet that stipend.
|
On July 31 2019 21:08 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2019 20:43 IgnE wrote:On July 31 2019 18:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 31 2019 07:16 IgnE wrote:
yeah but you have to give up any other entitlements. given that the VAT tax hits people already collecting disability, food assistance, and even social security (?), the people who are already identified by the system as needing assistance would only see cuts to their existing disbursements Most countries exempt VAT for health and disability services, for food and for financial services. Just so you know. ok but money is fungible. those aren’t the only things people getting any of those forms of assistance spend money on And they'd still need to spend $120k on VAT applicable goods to meet that stipend.
no . . . they wouldn’t. because they won’t be taking that stipend because their current benefits are worth more than $1k a month. average disabilty benefits are worth $1200 a month. there is no reason you’d give that up for a ubi of $1k. but you ARE paying more VAT taxes. the net result is you are getting less.
i swear we are going in circles here
|
On July 31 2019 11:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2019 10:44 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 31 2019 09:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2019 08:53 Mohdoo wrote:
Biden is doing better than I thought he would be at this point. Really looks like a great deal of Bernie's original Midwest support was really just "anyone but Hilary".
A lot depends on the debates still imo. If Biden shits the bed again, I think buttigieg has a chance at being the new Biden. I dunno. It's all in the air, just saying Biden is surprising me. People over 50 just love them some Biden. None of the things that make him unacceptable to people under 45 even budges his over 50 support. Who knows what electorate modeling pollsters are using though? I'd be impressed if Democrats managed to be so terrible that they actually manage to put Biden up against Trump. The thing with models is that people over 50 actually vote. If you're modeling based on the 18-29 demographic you're going to end up with the wrong result because that demographic votes at basically half the rate of the older people. There's a lot of ways to frame it, but Bernie's push to cancel student debt is pretty much perfect to change that dynamic. Never in their lives has their vote had so much easily recognizable and immediate value imo. Hard not to vote for the guy who could just lift a $20-100k burden off your shoulders.
Cancelling student debt is selfishly amazing for me, but it would be a perfect way to super charge the economy. Our economy does not benefit from us paying interest to banks.
|
On July 31 2019 22:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2019 11:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2019 10:44 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 31 2019 09:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2019 08:53 Mohdoo wrote:
Biden is doing better than I thought he would be at this point. Really looks like a great deal of Bernie's original Midwest support was really just "anyone but Hilary".
A lot depends on the debates still imo. If Biden shits the bed again, I think buttigieg has a chance at being the new Biden. I dunno. It's all in the air, just saying Biden is surprising me. People over 50 just love them some Biden. None of the things that make him unacceptable to people under 45 even budges his over 50 support. Who knows what electorate modeling pollsters are using though? I'd be impressed if Democrats managed to be so terrible that they actually manage to put Biden up against Trump. The thing with models is that people over 50 actually vote. If you're modeling based on the 18-29 demographic you're going to end up with the wrong result because that demographic votes at basically half the rate of the older people. There's a lot of ways to frame it, but Bernie's push to cancel student debt is pretty much perfect to change that dynamic. Never in their lives has their vote had so much easily recognizable and immediate value imo. Hard not to vote for the guy who could just lift a $20-100k burden off your shoulders. Cancelling student debt is selfishly amazing for me, but it would be a perfect way to super charge the economy. Our economy does not benefit from us paying interest to banks.
I have zero student debt because I was able to pay it all off in a reasonable amount of time, but I'm appalled when people in my position believe that everyone else should be just as screwed financially and forced to deal with future crushing debt simply because I was able to successfully overcome it by working hard. That kind of opinion lacks perspective of the fact that not everyone is in the same position (economically, socially, academically, etc.), it lacks an understanding of the disparity between the increasing cost of education and the average income, and it absolutely lacks any empathy and compassion whatsoever. Maybe it's just the educator in me, but I recognize a very clear difference between the next generation working hard to understand the value of a dollar and explicitly kneecapping them out of spite. People who are in a financial bind aren't necessarily lazy or bad decision-makers or worth any less than I am, and forgiving debt allows those people to start saving and spending money, which stimulates the economy and helps the average family.
|
|
|
Nothing brightens my day quite like Reagan's bullshit legacy being revealed as horse shit.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49177034
Former US President Ronald Reagan described African delegates to the UN as "monkeys", in newly-unearthed tapes published by a US magazine.
He made the comment in a 1971 telephone call with then-President Richard Nixon.
Mr Reagan, who was governor of California at the time, was angered that African delegates at the UN sided against the US in a vote.
Members of the Tanzanian delegation started dancing after the UN voted to recognise China and expel Taiwan.
Mr Reagan, who was a supporter of Taiwan, called the president the following day to express his apparent frustration.
He said: "To see those... monkeys from those African countries - damn them, they're still uncomfortable wearing shoes!"
Mr Nixon, who quit as president in 1974, can then be heard laughing.
With these tapes, his support for private prisons has a much more clear intention. Identifying with Reagan and his presidency now carries a great deal of shame. He was always a bad guy, but at least now it is more apparent to everyone and even his defenders will have to just swallow this. Rest in pieces, Reagan legacy.
|
On July 31 2019 23:07 JimmiC wrote:
Paying off debt is great for the people if they know how to use that fresh start. Is there a plan to reduce the cost of university instead or as well? The for profit universities seem like a bigger problem to me. Schooling is expensive here, but not even in the same ball park as down south. I know Warren has talked about free, but if the government is footing the bill and universities are still for profit I don't think that is a sustainable solution. It will end up like like prisons. The obvious answer is government intervention.
If you want to cut the cost for students without making it free you set a maximum tuition fee a school can ask.
If you want to make it free you give every school X dollars per student.
|
On July 31 2019 23:09 Mohdoo wrote:Nothing brightens my day quite like Reagan's bullshit legacy being revealed as horse shit. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49177034Show nested quote +Former US President Ronald Reagan described African delegates to the UN as "monkeys", in newly-unearthed tapes published by a US magazine.
He made the comment in a 1971 telephone call with then-President Richard Nixon.
Mr Reagan, who was governor of California at the time, was angered that African delegates at the UN sided against the US in a vote.
Members of the Tanzanian delegation started dancing after the UN voted to recognise China and expel Taiwan.
Mr Reagan, who was a supporter of Taiwan, called the president the following day to express his apparent frustration.
He said: "To see those... monkeys from those African countries - damn them, they're still uncomfortable wearing shoes!"
Mr Nixon, who quit as president in 1974, can then be heard laughing. With these tapes, his support for private prisons has a much more clear intention. Identifying with Reagan and his presidency now carries a great deal of shame. He was always a bad guy, but at least now it is more apparent to everyone and even his defenders will have to just swallow this. Rest in pieces, Reagan legacy.
This doesn't come as much of a surprise to me, but this does highlight what I've been saying about Trump exposing what has always been (not really) just beneath the surface. Bipartisan support for racist policy with plausible deniability that the racist part is intentional.
|
|
|
On July 31 2019 23:13 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2019 23:07 JimmiC wrote:
Paying off debt is great for the people if they know how to use that fresh start. Is there a plan to reduce the cost of university instead or as well? The for profit universities seem like a bigger problem to me. Schooling is expensive here, but not even in the same ball park as down south. I know Warren has talked about free, but if the government is footing the bill and universities are still for profit I don't think that is a sustainable solution. It will end up like like prisons. The obvious answer is government intervention. If you want to cut the cost for students without making it free you set a maximum tuition fee a school can ask. If you want to make it free you give every school X dollars per student.
Could even revert some government intervention. If student loans weren't federally backed and could be discharged in bankruptcy nobody would loan an 18 year old 100k.
|
On July 31 2019 23:27 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2019 23:13 Gorsameth wrote:On July 31 2019 23:07 JimmiC wrote:
Paying off debt is great for the people if they know how to use that fresh start. Is there a plan to reduce the cost of university instead or as well? The for profit universities seem like a bigger problem to me. Schooling is expensive here, but not even in the same ball park as down south. I know Warren has talked about free, but if the government is footing the bill and universities are still for profit I don't think that is a sustainable solution. It will end up like like prisons. The obvious answer is government intervention. If you want to cut the cost for students without making it free you set a maximum tuition fee a school can ask. If you want to make it free you give every school X dollars per student. I think the for profit has to be taken out of it. With the US prisons they have those sorts of rules so they just try to cram as many people in as possible as cheap as possible. Now I get with uni's there is more competition so that should help. But I think a lot will just become diploma factories that don't give a ton of value. I think mandatory type things like school, prisons, residential waste hauling, landfills, power, healthcare, so on should all be publicly owned and operated.
Here they rate all the programs every 2-3 years. If you rate too poorly you lose financing. They are also available so you can check the ratings as part of your scan of where to study.
I think any new program that wants financing also needs to be approved. Not sure about this but would be logical.
|
On July 31 2019 23:31 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2019 23:13 Gorsameth wrote:On July 31 2019 23:07 JimmiC wrote:
Paying off debt is great for the people if they know how to use that fresh start. Is there a plan to reduce the cost of university instead or as well? The for profit universities seem like a bigger problem to me. Schooling is expensive here, but not even in the same ball park as down south. I know Warren has talked about free, but if the government is footing the bill and universities are still for profit I don't think that is a sustainable solution. It will end up like like prisons. The obvious answer is government intervention. If you want to cut the cost for students without making it free you set a maximum tuition fee a school can ask. If you want to make it free you give every school X dollars per student. Could even revert some government intervention. If student loans weren't federally backed and couldn't be discharged in bankruptcy nobody would loan an 18 year old 100k. And yet other countries work perfectly fine with federally backed students loans.
The problem with reverting intervention is that you then get (even) more class divide in education.
The solution to tuition fees isn't to limit University to only the rich, which is what would likely happen without federally backed student loans.
|
On July 31 2019 20:43 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2019 18:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 31 2019 07:16 IgnE wrote:
yeah but you have to give up any other entitlements. given that the VAT tax hits people already collecting disability, food assistance, and even social security (?), the people who are already identified by the system as needing assistance would only see cuts to their existing disbursements Most countries exempt VAT for health and disability services, for food and for financial services. Just so you know. ok but money is fungible. those aren’t the only things people getting any of those forms of assistance spend money on
People who are given monetary assistance aren't supposed to be exempt to all forms of taxation. If they choose to spend their money on non-essential goods that have VAT charged, that's not a problem with VAT.
|
On July 31 2019 23:27 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2019 23:13 Gorsameth wrote:On July 31 2019 23:07 JimmiC wrote:
Paying off debt is great for the people if they know how to use that fresh start. Is there a plan to reduce the cost of university instead or as well? The for profit universities seem like a bigger problem to me. Schooling is expensive here, but not even in the same ball park as down south. I know Warren has talked about free, but if the government is footing the bill and universities are still for profit I don't think that is a sustainable solution. It will end up like like prisons. The obvious answer is government intervention. If you want to cut the cost for students without making it free you set a maximum tuition fee a school can ask. If you want to make it free you give every school X dollars per student. I think the for profit has to be taken out of it. With the US prisons they have those sorts of rules so they just try to cram as many people in as possible as cheap as possible. Now I get with uni's there is more competition so that should help. But I think a lot will just become diploma factories that don't give a ton of value. I think mandatory type things like school, prisons, residential waste hauling, landfills, power, healthcare, so on should all be publicly owned and operated. I'm guess/hoping the US has some sort of organisation tasked with overseeing quality in education that would be responsible for ensuring schools don't become valueless diploma factories, because they would lose their funding long before that.
|
On July 31 2019 21:30 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2019 21:08 Gahlo wrote:On July 31 2019 20:43 IgnE wrote:On July 31 2019 18:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 31 2019 07:16 IgnE wrote:
yeah but you have to give up any other entitlements. given that the VAT tax hits people already collecting disability, food assistance, and even social security (?), the people who are already identified by the system as needing assistance would only see cuts to their existing disbursements Most countries exempt VAT for health and disability services, for food and for financial services. Just so you know. ok but money is fungible. those aren’t the only things people getting any of those forms of assistance spend money on And they'd still need to spend $120k on VAT applicable goods to meet that stipend. no . . . they wouldn’t. because they won’t be taking that stipend because their current benefits are worth more than $1k a month. average disabilty benefits are worth $1200 a month. there is no reason you’d give that up for a ubi of $1k. but you ARE paying more VAT taxes. the net result is you are getting less. i swear we are going in circles here
Hey, just wanted to pop in and say that there are actually people who would trade something like $1200 in disability benefits (or even more) for $1000 a month. There are a couple reasons for this.
First, much of the disability benefits are means-tested. In theory, this is to prevent abuse, as in, only people who need it get it. But in practice, it becomes a sort of poverty trap. "Only people who make less than $X get this" quickly turns into "If I make more than $X, I lose my benefits." "Only people without a job get this." ----> "If I get a job, I lose my benefits."
People are disincentivized from bettering their position, keeping them on disability. Some of these people would love to have $1000 /month with no strings attached so they can do other things and not be disqualified from the benefit. Even if it comes at a "loss" of turning the $1200 into $1000, for example. The freedom dividend is $1000 /month, no strings attached. No poverty trap.
A second reason is that, in fact, this already happens to some degree. There is a shocking amount of welfare fraud in the US, that takes many forms. From Wikipedia:
Welfare fraud is widespread, but in most cases it is committed by people who are struggling financially. In a 1997 study, 30 of 34 interviewed welfare recipients admitted fraud.[4] A 1988 study of 50 Chicago women on welfare found that 80% worked either full-time or part-time, but none of them reported their income to the welfare office.
People don't report income because they want to work and better their position in life, but don't want to be punished for it. The freedom dividend would let them do this without committing fraud.
A more recent accounting from Lexington Law:
In 2016, 10.6 percent of all federal welfare payments made were improperly filed or fraudulent. [Source: United States Government Accountability Office]
In 2016, 24 percent of negative income tax payments were considered improperly filed or fraudulent. [Source: United States Government Accountability Office]
A total of $77.8 billion in payments were found improperly filed or fraudulent in 2016. [Source: United States Government Accountability Office]
That's the more wholesome form of fraud I'd say. There's another form where welfare recipients use their food stamp money at the beginning of the month to buy things like soda, meat, etc. and then sell it to a guy (possibly even the shop owner if they are unscrupulous) for half price in cash. Free money for the buyer (they get the goods for half price), and the food stamp recipient converts their benefit to cash they can use on anything.
To your greater point, that there are people who would ultimately have less purchasing power if the freedom dividend and VAT were implemented, yes, that is true. I'd argue that it's a very small portion of the population. Further, it's a group of people who are receiving a significant amount of government assistance already. The usual logic is that those are the people most in need, but in truth, there are many people who need assistance just as much and are not getting it for any number of reasons. I see the freedom dividend as an expansion and modernization to the social safety net if anything. At the cost of "weakening" the benefits of those currently receiving significant benefits by (at most) 10%, we can set up a much cleaner infrastructure that benefits hundreds of millions of Americans.
So certainly there is a group of people who would be worse off from this, yes. That's true of any progressive plan (ex. Bernie's free college isn't really free. People who pay taxes and don't go to college are worse off). I just think that the people who would be worse off from the freedom dividend + VAT wouldn't be that much worse off, and would only be worse off because they are already receiving a significant amount of assistance. On the other hand, the freedom dividend would have a transformative effect on the lives of literally hundreds of millions of Americans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
