The real derangement syndrome, AOCDS

[Jhhnn]

Stop saying "free health care" and "free college" too. Nobody is asking for it for FREE. Do we say the GOP wants a "free wall"? Or the military wants "free bombs"? No. It's such a deceptive tactic used by the right.

What the right wing wants is to be free of any obligation to the rest of America.

 

[dainthomas]

Remember the non-plan to repeal & replace the ACA with... with what, exactly?

With freedumb, of course.

Yep, free to crawl into a gutter and die. Just the way they want it.

 

[fskimospy]

Remember the non-plan to repeal & replace the ACA with... with what, exactly?

With freedumb, of course.

Exactly. The two pieces of substantial legislation that the GOP attempted to push through with its majority were the two most irresponsible major pieces of legislation I am aware of in literally all of American history. They weren’t just crafting legislation without knowing what they were doing (although they did do this), when people with actual knowledge told them what it would do they simply ignored them. I mean for fuck’s sake the original plan to repeal the ACA was bad enough but when that failed they settled on a backup plan to just eliminate the individual mandate and try to drive the private health care industry into a death spiral. Like...what?

That failed by a single vote from the venerable John McCain who decided he couldn’t countenance that attempt to undermine the health care of millions...until it was combined with an equally irresponsible tax cut for rich people a few months later. Then he was fine with it.

I genuinely like Greenman and I think he provides valuable conservative insight here so again this isn’t pointed at him specifically but until conservatives are able to introduce responsible legislation of their own or reject the irresponsible legislation others put forward they have no room to ask anyone to get into the details because we all know they don’t care about them.

 

[Jaskalas]

She's on the easy path to popularity. That's not a bad thing or any kind of dismissal, it's just the way it is. People like the idea of taking from those with vast wealth, they like the idea of a total safety net where failure isn't allowed. They want free health care and free collage. None of these are new ideas. What most don't consider is what their personal contribution to that system will be. The mantra is "tax the rich", and that's not a bad idea, but what's rich? Here in the bay area $117k a year is low income, in Alabama that's living large.

All personal income in the United States, totals $15.5 trillion annually.
The cornerstone of my plan, Basic Income, would require an amount of funding equal to 25% of that value.

I've done some (very early, and oversimplified) preliminary tests on if the upper brackets (rich) could pay for it. They simply do not have that kind of money. Republicans would be correct, in that the "Rich" cannot pay for everything.. alone. Admittedly, a flat tax of 25% would hit a lot of people.

OTOH, as opposed to today, the American people would actually get a direct return on that "investment". $1,000/mo per person. So $24,000 returned to a couple. Not to mention, in a generation, there's a $216,000 "nest egg" for your children when they turn 18. That's a GIANT benefit to everyone. Find a partner, and every single young adult can pay cash for a home. How much "cost of living" would you save with the elimination of mortgages / rents? Moreover, Basic Income would enable guaranteed payments to a Federal Housing Loan program, enabling us to provide housing beyond just the Nest Egg.

The way it provides direct benefits to the people is unlike our current hodgepodge of bureaucratically strangled programs, with their paperwork and strings. People wouldn't have to earn it, or prove that they belong to one group or another, they'd always benefit from their tax dollars. If they happen to be rich enough not to need it, or actually take a "loss" from the taxes, then they can rest assured that they live in a secure society that won't melt down or have homeless / hungry people looking to make a meal out of them.

There is a benefit to ensuring our society doesn't devolve into Mad Max.
People behind gated walls shouldn't assume that they are immune to whatever fate befalls their brothers and sisters on the streets.

 

[UNCjigga]

I genuinely like Greenman and I think he provides valuable conservative insight here so again this isn’t pointed at him specifically but until conservatives are able to introduce responsible legislation of their own or reject the irresponsible legislation others put forward they have no room to ask anyone to get into the details because we all know they don’t care about them.

I actually think Greenman has a point here. There’s a conservative corollary to the popular rise of AOC—remember a handsome, young, good-looking Republican by the name of Paul Ryan? He rode a wave of Tea Party populism based on his talk of “hard choices” entitlement reform and tax cuts somehow helping the poor. He was the bright new thing for the GOP...and how did that turn out? He was touted as a policy wonk...and yet all his policy talk led nowhere during his term as Speaker.

AOC needs to make sure she doesn’t become the female Dem version of Paul Ryan. Talk is easy...the hard part is getting things done. The details do matter. Let’s hope she’s just not another flash in the pan and can get some real policy wins where the benefits outweigh the costs.

 

[Greenman]

Most Americans and businesses are already paying for it with rates going up every year (and, in a "fun" sidenote, insurance company profits going up every year as well.
If I had that money back on my gross paycheck, including the money my company pays towards my insurance, then the gov't took a insurance tax out on it fo a single payer system, I'm going to venture a guess that my actual net paycheck would not be too much different. And the concept of insurance companies reaping billion dollar profits year after year on premiums that increase year after year is mind-boggling. American Family just paid $75M for the re-naming rights to Miller Park in Milwaukee. An insurance company shouldn't have that sort of expendable money.

Stop saying "free health care" and "free college" too. Nobody is asking for it for FREE. Do we say the GOP wants a "free wall"? Or the military wants "free bombs"? No. It's such a deceptive tactic used by the right.

By "free" I simply mean no cost at the time of service. Though it would indeed be free to some.
I directly pay for health insurance, and the cost is absurd. I've seen several people make the same claim as you did, that all of that money run through a single payer system would net a near zero increase in nation wide healthcare spending. Taking insurance company's out of the mix might well result in savings, or might not. We will need administration no matter who runs the system, and I've never seen anything to indicate that government administration is more cost effective than private sector.
Without an actual plan with realistic cost estimates, we're just farting in the wind. It's not just for health insurance, it's also for collage tuition and whatever other government sponsored programs we want.
I'd also like to see how the trillion dollars of student loans on the books right now play into the system. Are they simply forgiven and we toss that trillion on the national debt?
Until she comes up with the numbers, AOC is just tossing out a sales pitch.

 

[fskimospy]

I actually think Greenman has a point here. There’s a conservative corollary to the popular rise of AOC—remember a handsome, young, good-looking Republican by the name of Paul Ryan? He rode a wave of Tea Party populism based on his talk of “hard choices” entitlement reform and tax cuts somehow helping the poor. He was the bright new thing for the GOP...and how did that turn out? He was touted as a policy wonk...and yet all his policy talk led nowhere during his term as Speaker.

Ryan is an interesting case in that he was always, ALWAYS an obvious fraud. There is not a single time he proposed a policy that I am aware of that was actually backed by economics as we understand it or a nonpartisan budgetary authority as doing what he claimed. Every one of his 'budgets' were obvious scams that relied on magic asterisks. His entire reputation as a policy wonk was a media driven phenomenon where they wanted a 'serious' conservative. He played the part, but he never actually acted like one.

In contrast AOC's main proposals are already supported by real, robust economics. The 70% tax rate? According to some research, still a bit too low:

https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.25.4.165

The key remaining empirical ingredient to implement the formula optimal tax rate is the elasticity of top incomes with respect to the net-of-tax rate. With the Pareto parameter a = 1.5 if e = .25, a mid-range estimate from the empirical literature, τ * = 1/(1+ 1.5× .25)= 73 percent, substantially higher than the current 42.5 percent top U.S. marginal tax rate (combining all taxes).

Maybe AOC ends up being a Ryan-like fraud but so far she's already on vastly better footing than he ever was.

AOC needs to make sure she doesn’t become the female Dem version of Paul Ryan. Talk is easy...the hard part is getting things done. The details do matter. Let’s hope she’s just not another flash in the pan and can get some real policy wins where the benefits outweigh the costs.

I 100% agree that the details matter but I frankly have no interest in hearing about the details mattering (or what details matter) from conservatives as their arguments are in obvious bad faith as if they cared about the details they would have shown it at, say, any point in my lifetime. They have lost all right to be taken seriously and if they want to be taken seriously in the future they should have to earn it back. That means no more tax bills 'paid for' by magical growth. That means no more health care legislation that magically insures more people against all credible projections. That means no more denial of science, etc.

I'm perfectly willing to sweat the details, but Democrats should only do so with people who actually care about the details.

 

[nakedfrog]

Now crazy right wingers comparing her to Hitler. See what I mean, this is the real derangement
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/ben-stein-ocasio-cortez-promising-102755528.html

Wealthy old white guy thinks the current system works extremely well, man, I never would have seen that coming.

 

[zinfamous]

By "free" I simply mean no cost at the time of service. Though it would indeed be free to some.
I directly pay for health insurance, and the cost is absurd. I've seen several people make the same claim as you did, that all of that money run through a single payer system would net a near zero increase in nation wide healthcare spending. Taking insurance company's out of the mix might well result in savings, or might not. We will need administration no matter who runs the system, and I've never seen anything to indicate that government administration is more cost effective than private sector.
Without an actual plan with realistic cost estimates, we're just farting in the wind. It's not just for health insurance, it's also for collage tuition and whatever other government sponsored programs we want.
I'd also like to see how the trillion dollars of student loans on the books right now play into the system. Are they simply forgiven and we toss that trillion on the national debt?
Until she comes up with the numbers, AOC is just tossing out a sales pitch.

Well for starters, her marginal rate proposal only kicks in with annual wealth above the $10 million mark--so this means current progressive rates stay the same for all income (and, I think wealth) below 10 million, and the escalation to a potential maximum of 70% total is put on top of that beyond $10 million, annual. And this is wealth--not just income. So a lot coming from capital gains and other investment interest). Personally, I'm not too concerned with the ability of a billionaire to have any problems in life on a still-substantial guaranteed income that will keep them and their spawn protected by untouchable wealth for generations.

At this point, I think the GOP is better off ignoring the illogical argument of "how will billionaires survive...after they are still billionaires?" and focus more on how the money is spent to better advantage everyone. I mean, I think this is what you are saying, but it's not like she hasn't put forward a model of how the plan is supposed to work (it's actually the same model that we used to employ here, to very great effect--I'm sure it's just strange coincidence that the middle class only started eroding when they voted to end this very same policy that allowed it to thrive)

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm perfectly willing to sweat the details, but Democrats should only do so with people who actually care about the details.

We tried that with Hillary.

 

[dank69]

AOC (and all Dems really) need to be careful about spin/lies. We do not need to lie or spin to support our positions, so every time a Democrat lies, there is essentially no upside while the downside cannot be overstated. America is literally scouring the internet every day for reasons to hate liberals/Democrats. There is absolutely no need to give them actual ammunition on top of the fake shit they will manufacture anyway.

 

[Paul98]

I agree with the 70% tax over 10 million, and why the heck do the tax brackets stop increasing where they do?

 

[Jhhnn]

Well for starters, her marginal rate proposal only kicks in with annual wealth above the $10 million mark--so this means current progressive rates stay the same for all income (and, I think wealth) below 10 million, and the escalation to a potential maximum of 70% total is put on top of that beyond $10 million, annual. And this is wealth--not just income. So a lot coming from capital gains and other investment interest). Personally, I'm not too concerned with the ability of a billionaire to have any problems in life on a still-substantial guaranteed income that will keep them and their spawn protected by untouchable wealth for generations.

At this point, I think the GOP is better off ignoring the illogical argument of "how will billionaires survive...after they are still billionaires?" and focus more on how the money is spent to better advantage everyone. I mean, I think this is what you are saying, but it's not like she hasn't put forward a model of how the plan is supposed to work (it's actually the same model that we used to employ here, to very great effect--I'm sure it's just strange coincidence that the middle class only started eroding when they voted to end this very same policy that allowed it to thrive)

I try to work up some sympathy for taxpayers at the peak of the Pareto curve but never found any enthusiasm for it. In the sane view of rational adults, they absolutely have it made when it comes to money. The reality of what they actually pay in taxes is a blight on this country & top down class warfare at its ugliest.

I mean, imagine making $5M/mo & paying the same tax rate as filers making $85K-

As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real. - The Washington Post

Now imagine squeezing tax cuts out of a Congress you & your friends bought outright. You own those bitches. You own their voters' headsets, too. Damned fools will defend you every time. Tell them that the poors, the browns, the Libs, De Gubmint & anybody they see as Other are dragging them down, not that you're robbing them blind, and they'll believe you. It wasn't quite so easy 40 years ago, but repetition is the soul of propaganda, isn't it? Now they're even goofy enough to make Trump President.

 

[dank69]

I agree with the 70% tax over 10 million, and why the heck do the tax brackets stop increasing where they do?

freedumb

 

[Jhhnn]

Too bad paying a 70% tax rate on more than $10M/yr isn't something a person can just sign up for, huh? Shee-it. What's left is more money than many Americans will earn in a lifetime of honest work. It's probably more than filers at the entry level to the 1% take home in a decade.

 

[zinfamous]

I agree with the 70% tax over 10 million, and why the heck do the tax brackets stop increasing where they do?

Reagan

 

[Greenman]

until conservatives are able to introduce responsible legislation of their own or reject the irresponsible legislation others put forward they have no room to ask anyone to get into the details because we all know they don’t care about them.

But the people do have that right. We absolutely have the right to demand those answers before action is taken. Far more importantly, those answers have to be presented in clear simple language. I don't want to see another five thousand page bill that no one reads.

Edit: I snipped a portion of your remarks, hope you don't mind. Wanted to stay on this one point.

 

[Jhhnn]

But the people do have that right. We absolutely have the right to demand those answers before action is taken. Far more importantly, those answers have to be presented in clear simple language. I don't want to see another five thousand page bill that no one reads.

Edit: I snipped a portion of your remarks, hope you don't mind. Wanted to stay on this one point.

If such a thing is ever proposed as legislation I'm sure it will be there in black & white. It'll be wildly popular, as well, other than among the true Bush constituency.

 

[fskimospy]

But the people do have that right. We absolutely have the right to demand those answers before action is taken. Far more importantly, those answers have to be presented in clear simple language. I don't want to see another five thousand page bill that no one reads.

Edit: I snipped a portion of your remarks, hope you don't mind. Wanted to stay on this one point.

I assume you are referring to the ACA and the idea that no one read it is a myth. What the ACA did was available in clear, simple language to everyone for months. Of course you can’t get into all the details, but if you did it wouldn’t be plain, simple language anymore.

Seriously though, plenty of people vote for conservatives whose answer to the details is basically ‘fuck you’. Why is it that only one side needs to actually do the work and if anything they are punished for it electorally?

 

[Jhhnn]

But the people do have that right. We absolutely have the right to demand those answers before action is taken. Far more importantly, those answers have to be presented in clear simple language. I don't want to see another five thousand page bill that no one reads.

Edit: I snipped a portion of your remarks, hope you don't mind. Wanted to stay on this one point.

Amazing Chutzpah. Did we know what the ACA replacement plan was when the GOP suspended the rules of the Senate & missed repealing it by one vote?

Fuck, no. There was no replacement plan. There would have been a House version & a Senate version they could make anything they wanted in reconciliation.

 

[Greenman]

So the idea here is the belief that one side is providing lousy government, which compels the other side to provide lousy government? Do we really want a declining spiral? Retribution instead of solution's? If that's the case, then the current impasse is actually the best government we can hope for. Two relics trying to see who can piss further, a few hundred others standing behind them afraid they might lose their cushy jobs if they say anything. This is our utopia.

 

[uclaLabrat]

I feel like that's a false dichotomy; just because you dont know the details of a bill doesnt mean it makes for lousy government, and vice versa. There were hardly any details about the tax cut, other than the usual hand waving. Were you all on board for that?

 

[Jhhnn]

So the idea here is the belief that one side is providing lousy government, which compels the other side to provide lousy government? Do we really want a declining spiral? Retribution instead of solution's? If that's the case, then the current impasse is actually the best government we can hope for. Two relics trying to see who can piss further, a few hundred others standing behind them afraid they might lose their cushy jobs if they say anything. This is our utopia.

The point of my remarks was that you've got a lot of nerve given the Party you support. And you just doubled down on it, too.

Given a divided Congress, it's safe to say that there will be no changes to the tax code until 2021 at the earliest. Mitch will keep the uber wealthy safe until then. It's probably not something you should personally worry about, anyway.

When & if such legislation is actually considered it will probably be every bit as specific as the GOP tax bill of 2017 if not more so.

 

[Homerboy]

Was this covered yet? AOC's clap-back to SHS's stupid comments?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1088200188089565184

 

[zinfamous]

all that aside: "leave Climate Change to god" ...coming from the White House. ...holy fucking shit. These motherfucking terrorists can't be swept out of power soon enough. They need to be fucking Gitmo'd, to be honest.

Is Gitmo still a thing? If not, can we make a new one for all the Trump admin terrorists that are going to need their own special type of prison?