What Will The Democrats' Platform Be In 2020?

[SunsetBengal]

(06-13-2019, 09:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm not sure adopting a regressive flat tax would be beneficial, but where exactly would the wealthy go if we raised their effective tax rate to levels closer to their tax bracket?

They'll go wherever they want to, they have the means to pick up and go.

[treee]

Net Nuetrality, universal healthcare, anti-trust in multiple industries, education spending reform, campaign finance reform, Infrastructure Jobs plan, fixing the tax inequity

[BmorePat87]

(06-13-2019, 09:17 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: They'll go wherever they want to, they have the means to pick up and go.

Best of luck to them as expats. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-13-2019, 09:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm not sure adopting a regressive flat tax would be beneficial, but where exactly would the wealthy go if we raised their effective tax rate to levels closer to their tax bracket?

Is your assertion really: It's ok to treat some folks differently because they've got nowhere else to go? 

"America. Love it or leave it!"

[BmorePat87]

(06-13-2019, 10:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is your assertion really: It's ok to treat some folks differently because they've got nowhere else to go? 

"America. Love it or leave it!"

Nope, that's not my assertion. I directly responded to Sunset's claim that we'll see a max exodus by asking where these people will go if their taxes were raised. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-13-2019, 09:56 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Best of luck to them as expats. 

(06-13-2019, 11:54 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Nope, that's not my assertion. I directly responded to Sunset's claim that we'll see a max exodus by asking where these people will go if their taxes were raised. 

Meh, must have misread you. To me you just seemed like of aloof to over-taxing the rich and suggesting what other option do they have, but to suck it up. Apparently, you meant something else. 

[BakertheBeast]

"What Will The Democrats' Platform Be In 2020"?

It doesn't matter my friend. The experiment is over and it was a huge failure. The idea of having a business man instead of a politician run things seemed like a good idea for everyone looking for a change. Who knows, it might of worked out if we elected a real business man instead of a fraudulent Conman. Like the Who song, "we won't get fooled again", who ever runs against Trump will beat him pretty handily. This is why there are so many Demo's running, they smell blood in the water.


MAGA

[BmorePat87]

(06-14-2019, 12:56 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Meh, must have misread you. To me you just seemed like of aloof to over-taxing the rich and suggesting what other option do they have, but to suck it up. Apparently, you meant something else. 

You didn't misread me, you dishonestly misrepresented by post in hopes of creating some sort of argument. It's pathetic, and as I said before, your childish games will not be entertained by me. Move along. 

[Benton]

(06-13-2019, 08:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Healthcare has been brought up, and that will be a huge factor in 2020. States, including predominantly red states, are passing progressive healthcare legislation while national level Republicans are still talking about dismantling the ACA.

If Democrats are smart, this is what they'd focus on. Healthcare is one of the things that's both noticeably gotten worse and directly attributable to republican policy. There's also no shortage of people with 'i didn't have health insurance' horror stories. Toss in a dash of 'mcconnell already took your insurance, now he's coming for grandma's medicare.'

But that will likely be a back burner issue for them compared to issues like corruption, taxes and equal rights. Which is dum. Those issues are all important, but they don't tend to pull voters from the middle.

[Vas Deferens]

(06-13-2019, 07:40 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Probably a strong foundation of "we are not corrupt traitors."

Stuff like...

We won't sell out our country and give nukes to the country responsible for 9/11 to enrich our family.

We wont support evil dictators and sing there praises.

And little bits and pieces for people who dont like drama and the circus like...

We wont act like middle school bullies.

And we are not pathological liars.

Probably a dash of stuff like intelligence and morality. But not so much that it would scare off the deplorables.

We won't start another war in the middle east because some rich pricks over sent us a snap chat.

We won't support apartheid and speak to the legitimacy of further annexation of other people's land.

We'll elaborate and provide details of our leadership directives rather than relying on -ly adverbs.

We'll uphold the basic tenants of checks and balances

[Belsnickel]

(06-14-2019, 10:07 AM)Benton Wrote: If Democrats are smart, this is what they'd focus on. Healthcare is one of the things that's both noticeably gotten worse and directly attributable to republican policy. There's also no shortage of people with 'i didn't have health insurance' horror stories. Toss in a dash of 'mcconnell already took your insurance, now he's coming for grandma's medicare.'

But that will likely be a back burner issue for them compared to issues like corruption, taxes and equal rights. Which is dum. Those issues are all important, but they don't tend to pull voters from the middle.

They can do both if they're smart. Democrats are terrible at running for office, though, so who knows. Like I said in my first post, talking about how things haven't changed and, in the case of healthcare, have gotten worse in some ways is important. Talking about Trump ignoring the voters he courted to line his own pockets is a natural way to tie the corruption and the healthcare issue together.

Those social issues are the most important things to talk about, though. They are things that help all people.

Another political maneuver they need to make is to drop the whole gun control thing. It alienates a lot of voters from the party that could otherwise lean their way. There are so many hunters out there that are in favor of conservation efforts, recognize the effects of global warming, would favor progressive policies in other ways, but are scared shitless of Democrats because of gun control. There are other reasons I could go into about why they need to drop it, but I'm just focusing on the political for right now.

[CJD]

Here is Elizabeth Warren's issues page:
https://elizabethwarren.com/issues?&mkwid=ssMM2kcUf|pcrid|344788400874|pkw|elizabeth%20warren|pmt|p|pdv|c|slid||product||pgrid|67845584859|ptaid|kwd-171777258|&pgrid=67845584859&ptaid=kwd-171777258&source=WFP2019-LB-GS-OH&subsource=GS-67845584859-elizabeth%20warren-p-344788400874&utm_source=GS&utm_campaign=WFP2019-LB-GS-OH&utm_term=Elizabeth%20warren-344788400874&gclid=Cj0KCQjwi43oBRDBARIsAExSRQEufmrpMILMFnD2I0BNUmkHk46FCb5F-7xRgrF4weuGH-E95gBiHZgaAoedEALw_wcB&refcode=WFP2019-LB-GS-OH&refcode2=GS-67845584859-elizabeth%20warren-p-344788400874

The subheaders are:
End Washington Corruption - Basically, putting a stop to things like ignoring checks and balances, firing people investigating you, attempting to fire people investigating you, lying to the people on a daily basis etc.

Rebuild the Middle Class - Basically, almost half of the wealth in America is in the top 1% and the bottom 80% own less than 10% of the wealth. The gap between the rich and the middle class and the gap between the middle class and the poorest class is downright staggering. Tax reform and social programs designed to lift the lower classes up are the general policies here. School debt is also a big one here.

Strengthen our Democracy - End Gerrymandering, end election voter suppression tactics, prevent future election fraud and prevent foreign governments from influencing our elections. Decreasing the power of lobbyists.

Equal Justice under the Law - End the practice of jailing certain people for things and not others. End the practice of lenient sentences for people with wealth or power. Hold Corporations accountable when they commit crimes or federal violations, rather than just generically fining them (which has essentially become the "cost of business" in a lot of industries).

A Foreign Policy for All - Make our allies respect us again, stop sucking the dicks of dictators, create fair trade deals and don't overuse tariffs just to appear tough (tariffs are not inherently bad, but misusing them hurts your citizens).

Other topics not explicitly mentioned on her issues page (though a few show up in the "latest announcements" subheader)
Combat climate change.
Lower the deficit.
Healthcare reform.
Protecting the freedoms of women, minorities, LGBTQ etc.

I think there's plenty of things to run on.

[fredtoast]

(06-13-2019, 08:34 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: You realize that people in nations with single payer health care systems aren't exactly thrilled with it, right? 

You do realize that every industrialized democracy has some form of socialized health care, right?

You do realize that in all these democracies voters have a say in what they prefer, right?

The claim that people in other countries don't like socialized health makes no sense when they keep voting for it.

[fredtoast]

(06-13-2019, 09:17 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: They'll go wherever they want to, they have the means to pick up and go.

Seems like a great way to open up some high paying positions here in the United States.

The fact is the wealthy will pay more to live in the United States.  Just look at the cost of living in top US cities.  It is sometimes twice what it is in rural areas of the country, but the cost of living is high because people are willing to pay more to live there.

[Dill]

(06-13-2019, 08:34 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote:
You realize that people in nations with single payer health care systems aren't exactly thrilled with it, right?  Once health care professionals are limited in their earnings potential, and "assigned" a predetermined salary, the best and brightest up and comers in the field will simply take their services to free market systems.

I think consumers of Fox and the National Review "know" this.

Most people in those single payer nations don't, though. (Though every conservative I know has a "friend" in Canada who comes to the US for health care; while we pass laws to keep our citizens from buying drugs there.)


Where will the "best and brightest" health care professionals go if their earnings are limited--to Canada, Great Britain, France, Russia?

I have utilized health care systems in Europe, the Middle East, not to mention the US military's. 

My eyewitness message to US citizens is--our health care services are way ahead of Afghanistan, Cambodia, Egypt, India and Jordan.

Don't let the Dems tell you any different!

[GMDino]

Ok,ok...but OTHER than all the things the Democrats have said and talked about?

LMAO!

[hollodero]

(06-13-2019, 08:34 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: You realize that people in nations with single payer health care systems aren't exactly thrilled with it, right?

That's not true. We have something probably at least pretty similar to single payer and I never ever heard anyone say "I wish our system was more like in the US". We have good doctors, there was no "exodus" in any way, by all measures available to me our health is better than in the US. At lesser overall cost, obviously.

And sure many specialists are found in the US and some more exotic or complicated illnesses can be treated there alone, but that's not because doctors can get richer there (rather that it's a very big country that of course has more top specialists to offer than other smaller countries). But by no means is all medical excellence assembled in the US. In other cases, Germany or some other European countries are the best place for treatment, even with the universal healthcare system in place.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-14-2019, 08:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: That's not true. We have something probably at least pretty similar to single payer and I never ever heard anyone say "I wish our system was more like in the US". We have good doctors, there was no "exodus" in any way, by all measures available to me our health is better than in the US. At lesser overall cost, obviously.

And sure many specialists are found in the US and some more exotic or complicated illnesses can be treated there alone, but that's not because doctors can get richer there (rather that it's a very big country that of course has more top specialists to offer than other smaller countries). But by no means is all medical excellence assembled in the US. In other cases, Germany or some other European countries are the best place for treatment, even with the universal healthcare system in place.

With all do respect, Austria is much different that the US.  (and I don't mean that in a negative way)  For one, Austria has a population of only 8.7M people, and the US is over 330M.  The logistics involved with managing such a minute population are much different than that of a Nation with a population as large, and with as many diverse lifestyles as ours has.  

I might change my mind, if an entire US State, one with a major metropolis as well as vast rural territories, were to adopt that method and make it successful.  Maybe a State like Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Gerorgia.  Those States offer a good example of a balance between Urban and Rural, with both populaces being vital to the States total economy.  If one of those States could make it work for 20 years?  I'd be likely to vote for it at the Federal level.

[hollodero]

(06-14-2019, 08:48 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: With all do respect, Austria is much different that the US.  (and I don't mean that in a negative way)  For one, Austria has a population of only 8.7M people, and the US is over 330M.  The logistics involved with managing such a minute population are much different than that of a Nation with a population as large, and with as many diverse lifestyles as ours has.

Sure, my small country is not the best comparison. But there are bigger countries like Germany (which is more like 80M) also running pretty much the same system. I don't think size matters too much in that instance.

Also, I am not so certain how lifestyle factors into it. If you fall sick, you fall sick. Still the same human body with the same issues in the end, isn't it? I also feel like adding that we do have some different public insurers for different groups of people, so probably we're not perfect single payer. Also, we did not eliminate private insurance (or private doctors). And - our system has its flaws too, but overall? Pretty much no one has to worry to go bancrupt for medical bills, or worst case die because one couldn't afford the doctor. That's just such a nice thing to have (and doesn't even cost more overall) and I'd even argue this plays its part in our crime rates being lower overall. Less desperation, less struggle for survival etc.

But sure, I get it, there's a mandatory element that many Americans don't like. Legit. My answer was mainly directed at your "people in these nations are not thrilled with it" comment. Because yes we are. Pretty universally so.

[Dill]

(06-14-2019, 08:48 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: With all do respect, Austria is much different that the US.  (and I don't mean that in a negative way)  For one, Austria has a population of only 8.7M people, and the US is over 330M.  The logistics involved with managing such a minute population are much different than that of a Nation with a population as large, and with as many diverse lifestyles as ours has.  

I might change my mind, if an entire US State, one with a major metropolis as well as vast rural territories, were to adopt that method and make it successful.  Maybe a State like Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Gerorgia.  Those States offer a good example of a balance between Urban and Rural, with both populaces being vital to the States total economy.  If one of those States could make it work for 20 years?  I'd be likely to vote for it at the Federal level.

Seems to me like scale should work in favor of the large countries, with more people paying in. Why would we expect US health care to cost more because it is bigger, especially when there are so many other factors to explain why we pay double per capita per year what Germans pay?



So what about Germany, and Japan too?  They are WAY bigger than runty little Austria.  

If one of those countries proved to have a better, and cheaper, healthcare system--measured in something other than profits for doctors, hospitals and insurance--would you give that system a second look?