Candidates for 2020 elections.

[BmorePat87]

(06-04-2019, 12:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Pat, Your dismissal of my post as being dismissive is not constructive to the conversation or the topic at hand. Many of those (candidates/audience) gathered in Cali were critical of Biden because he's considered a "compromise" candidate (aka not radical).  So take your dismissal, shine that som' bytch up, turn it sideways, and shove it straight up your candy a$$.

Oh and share it with Matt


Hope that was helpful

I appreciate the lesson on what is not constructive in a thread. I will keep that in mind when I read thread where someone tries to derail it with whataboutism, responds with rhetorical questions, demand people answer their inane questions, completely ignore what is posted, and make up lies about what other people have said. 

There is no doubt in my mind that you are the best person here to help us know what we should not do. 

[fredtoast]

(06-04-2019, 01:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Have 1% of the population pay 90% of the cost: radical

How about the top 20% since they control 90% of the wealth in this country.

That would not be radical would it?

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2019, 01:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How about the top 20% since they control 90% of the wealth in this country.

That would not be radical would it?

See my reply to Matt

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2019, 01:48 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: What is being advocated for isn't a THOROUGH or COMPLETE political or social change. 

Okey Dokey

[Belsnickel]

(06-04-2019, 01:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No, I don't think we should "punish" folks for being successful. It's why I support a flat tax among other things.

(06-04-2019, 01:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: See my reply to Matt

Would that not be less radical than a flat tax, though, since we are currently using a progressive tax structure?

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2019, 01:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Would that not be less radical than a flat tax, though, since we are currently using a progressive tax structure?

Sure going to a flat tax would be radical, simply provided it as my support of shared responsibility.

To me universal health care should be paid for universally. By taxing the wealthy at an disproportionate rate you are forcing them to pay for something they need less than anyone.  I consider that to be radical.

[Belsnickel]

(06-04-2019, 02:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure going to a flat tax would be radical, simply provided it as my support of shared responsibility.

To me universal health care should be paid for universally. By taxing the wealthy at an disproportionate rate you are forcing them to pay for something they need less than anyone.  I consider that to be radical.

If you are taxing the wealthy based on the amount of wealth they hold, that is not disproportionate. It is a proportion based on their wealth. Much like how our progressive tax system does the same thing based on income. By the definition of radical your presented earlier, this solution is far less so than a flat tax.

[BmorePat87]

(06-04-2019, 02:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If you are taxing the wealthy based on the amount of wealth they hold, that is not disproportionate. It is a proportion based on their wealth. Much like how our progressive tax system does the same thing based on income. By the definition of radical your presented earlier, this solution is far less so than a flat tax.

By that definition

Expand an existing, decades old government healthcare program to allow more to enroll and keep the current health care industry intact. Not radical.


Keep existing abortion rights that have been around since the 70's. Not radical. 
              
Include sexual orientation and gender identity to existing anti discrimination laws. Not radical. 

Expand the number of grants offered by 50 year old program to provide lower cost higher education to families. Continue to hold post-secondary institutions and lenders accountable for predatory practices. Not radical. 

Keeping a progressive tax system. Not radical. 

Continuing to invest in infrastructure as we have been doing for decades. Not radical. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2019, 02:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If you are taxing the wealthy based on the amount of wealth they hold, that is not disproportionate. It is a proportion based on their wealth. Much like how our progressive tax system does the same thing based on income. By the definition of radical your presented earlier, this solution is far less so than a flat tax.

OK, I see we're chasing the squirrel. We can discuss funding universal healthcare in a universal healthcare thread. Fred choose to introduce the Red Herring; I shouldn't have taken the bait. The bottom line is many on the Left insult Biden for not being radical enough and going to Universal healthcare would be a radical change (remember your stance on flat tax) as we currently don't have it.  We can pick and choose examples all day.

For instance:

Is College debt forgiveness a good idea?

Is catch and release a good idea

Is giving Citizens $1000 a month a good idea


Now how many of those are a radical change from what we currently have.

[fredtoast]

(06-04-2019, 02:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  By taxing the wealthy at an disproportionate rate you are forcing them to pay for something they need less than anyone.  I consider that to be radical.

How can something that every country does (progressive taxes) be considered radical?

But to your original point, universal health care would relieve businesses and business owners from providing heath care, so the top 20% would see a bigger benefit from that than poor people would. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2019, 02:19 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: By that definition

Expand an existing, decades old government healthcare program to allow more to enroll and keep the current health care industry intact. Not radical.


Keep existing abortion rights that have been around since the 70's. Not radical. 
              
Include sexual orientation and gender identity to existing anti discrimination laws. Not radical. 

Expand the number of grants offered by 50 year old program to provide lower cost higher education to families. Continue to hold post-secondary institutions and lenders accountable for predatory practices. Not radical. 

Keeping a progressive tax system. Not radical. 

Continuing to invest in infrastructure as we have been doing for decades. Not radical. 

This is sorta like saying we currently have the death penalty, so expanding it to jaywalking is not radical.

Expanding healthcare to a universal system would be a complete overhaul of how we currently operate.

Paying off student loans would be radical to how we currently operate

Allowing prisoners to vote would be radical to how we currently operate.

I get that you want to defend your earlier post, but none of that changes the fact that many on the Left condemn Biden because his ideas are not radical enough.

[fredtoast]

(06-04-2019, 02:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The bottom line is many on the Left insult Biden for not being radical enough and going to Universal healthcare would be a radical change (remember your stance on flat tax) as we currently don't have it. 

I am still confused on how you define "radical".

Is ANYTHING that we don't already have radical?

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2019, 02:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How can something that every country does (progressive taxes) be considered radical?

But to your original point, universal health care would relieve businesses and business owners from providing heath care, so the top 20% would see a bigger benefit from that than poor people would. 

It would be a radical change from what we currently do.

Would it be a radical change for the US to go to the Metric System?

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2019, 02:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am still confused on how you define "radical".

Is ANYTHING that we don't already have radical?

Did you not read the definition of radical I shared earlier? It's not me that is defining it.

Perhaps this will quell the firing squad:

It can be a radical idea and be a sensible solution.

[fredtoast]

(06-04-2019, 02:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  By taxing the wealthy at an disproportionate rate you are forcing them to pay for something they need less than anyone.  I consider that to be radical.

(06-04-2019, 02:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How can something that every country does (progressive taxes) be considered radical?

(06-04-2019, 02:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It would be a radical change from what we currently do.

No it would not.  We already have a progressive tax system.  Just like every other country on Earth.

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2019, 02:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No it would not.  We already have a progressive tax system.  Just like every other country on Earth.

Changing this country's healthcare to Universal would be a radical change from the current policy.We DON"T already have universal healthcare We don't already have universal healthcare. As I said we can debate the merits of its funding in a separate thread (aka "tweaking").

[fredtoast]

This thread has gone off the rails on policy issues instead of talking about all the possible candidates.  So I am going to start a nnew one to address how the term "radical" is being used by both the right and the left.


HERE

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Is-radical-good-or-bad

[BmorePat87]

(06-04-2019, 02:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is sorta like saying we currently have the death penalty, so expanding it to jaywalking is not radical.

Expanding healthcare to a universal system would be a complete overhaul of how we currently operate.

Paying off student loans would be radical to how we currently operate

Allowing prisoners to vote would be radical to how we currently operate.

I get that you want to defend your earlier post, but none of that changes the fact that many on the Left condemn Biden because his ideas are not radical enough.

Your comparison isn’t even remotely accurate.

Saying you will open up Medicaid enrollment from 70 million Americans to 320 million isn’t the same as saying you’ll open up the death penalty from murderers to jaywalkers.

Same goes with any of the other things. Expanding existing programs to allow more Americans to benefit isn’t “thorough” or “complete” changes, it’s expansion.

Expanding voting rights has occurred for centuries. Paying off debt is no different from routine government bailouts. Is paying off $1000b in student loans for 44 million Americans radical compared to a $700b corporate bailout?

By your definition, this is progress not radicalization

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2019, 03:31 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Your comparison isn’t even remotely accurate.

Saying you will open up Medicaid enrollment from 70 million Americans to 320 million isn’t the same as saying you’ll open up the death penalty from murderers to jaywalkers.

Same goes with any of the other things. Expanding existing programs to allow more Americans to benefit  isn’t “thorough” or “complete” changes, it’s expansion.

Expanding voting rights has occurred for centuries. Paying off debt is no different from routine government bailouts. Is paying off $1000b in student loans for 44 million Americans radical compared to a $700b corporate bailout?

By your definition, this is progress not radicalization

In my example we're just expanding the death penalty.  But as I said: I understand I your motivation to defend your earlier post.  You were dismissive of the point and passively aggressive (pointed out by more than 1 board member) and you must sooth your cognitive dissonance. It's human nature. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2019, 02:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This thread has gone off the rails on policy issues instead of talking about all the possible candidates.  So I am going to start a nnew one to address how the term "radical" is being used by both the right and the left.


HERE

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Is-radical-good-or-bad

Thanks (I truly mean it). The absolutely hilarious thing is: In the exact same post I called the candidates that went to Cali "Children" and nobody said a word.