US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)

[Randy]

I’m a capitalist but when single payer healthcare would be cheaper faster and more efficient I cannot see the downside aside from middle-man industries losing their cut.

Yeah, that's my deal right there. While I try to live my life with empathy and morality as a cornerstone, I don't necessarily think you can legislate or build your programs based on those things alone (because those terms are relative, and you also can't expect people to 'take care of others' from a moral perspective when they're having trouble taking care of themselves), so you really need to have a practical reason, and I absolutely think bypassing the outrageous markups in the US healthcare system qualify.

 

[spudmunkey]

I would straight up pay 10% more in taxes immediately if it meant everyone could go to the doctor regardless of how much they make.

...

Support the people whose work supports you.

This is effectively the same thought behind property taxes funding public schools. I don't have kids, and never plan to have kids...but have no problem paying taxes for publicly-funded education.

 

[G_3_3_k_]

So, I see the general socioeconomic outcomes of Communism and Capitalism as ultimately the same. Communism funnels money and power to the wealthy and powerful quickly. Capitalism accomplishes this same goal slowly. Neither are best for the freedoms of the individual. Neither seeks to maximize the freedoms of the individual (unless wealthy, then all of the freedom). If you want to see the actual horrors of how capitalism functions, take an economics class and pay close attention to how people use the market to decide the optimum amount of some specific commodity every household should have. What a capitalist government does, is balance these numbers with people as a resource/tool. School is to the end of proper training and preparation of working life. Not to the end of individual enrichment. The government and business should be in service to the population. Doing what they can to make the lives of individuals better, rather that the individual being in service to society/job/government. Maximize quality of life over maximizing profit. Profit equates to wealth. Masses of wealth create inequality of quality of life. Inequality of life creates social instability.

 

[Flappydoodle]

I'm leery of stats like this, by the way. In America that's similar, Google is telling me the top 1% pay 39% of all income taxes, and the right is fond of tossing that number around as proof taxes are too high. But, that's not the full picture - they also made more than 22% of income, nationally, so the tax code isn't nearly as top-heavy as it looks, at a glance, and instead the heavy skew in the data is due to a heavy earnings skew rather than radically progressive taxation. In reality, the top 1% are only paying about twice the taxes of the rest of the country, normalized by income, which is quite a bit less than a look at tax rates alone would suggest, with a lowest bracket of 10% and a highest of 37%.

To be totally clear, I'm not making any argument that rich people are overtaxed.

I'm making an argument that a system relying on a small number of people and companies is inherently risky. Maybe unsustainable. It seems silly that even people with better than average, middle-class jobs are still not net contributors to the system. You're saying you want a "broader tax base", so I think we are actually in agreement on that.

Idunno. Really, the issue here is there's this attitude that taxes are taking something from you, but then in return things like passable roads, good public schools, national defense, first responders, social security income, all the things weve gotten from public funding of scientific research, etc etc etc are things that you're entitled to receive from the governent, and that these two views are disconnected. The reality is that yes, you are entitled to them, but only because you've "bought" them with your tax dollars. And in the long run, as a bleeding heart liberal, it's not sustainable to just expect people at some arbitrary threshold richer than you to pay for all the things you expect from your government, so you don't have to. We're all in this together, and while I'm a proponent of progressive taxation for how it helps address income inequality, I'm also a proponent of a broad tax base since we all benefit from government services.

The attitude is a problem when it comes to electing people to do this stuff. And I agree that everybody should pay a fair share. Even low-income people should pay *something* so that they are contributing to the system in some way (even though on a net basis, they are a drain).

My issue is that even if you DO convince voters to elect politicians who will tax them more, the money still goes into a pit of spending. Hence why I don't think the problems can be solved by tax. They have to be solved by cutting spending - either just cutting it, along with expectations of services, or finding efficiency improvements, or by adopting more cost-effective systems.

For example, the US spends around $10,000 taxpayer dollars, per person, per year, on healthcare which only some people can access (Medicare/Medicaid). The UK spends around half of that, and covers everybody for almost everything. If the US taxed everybody more, increased spending to $15,000 per person per year, do you really think it would make any meaningful difference? I don't.

 

[Flappydoodle]

...and even with a medicare expansion, there's still room for for-profit insurance companies and private hospitals to offer coverage with higher levels of service, for an additional cost.

Correct. The UK has the NHS, but also has a competitive private healthcare system. People can opt to buy it privately, and sometimes private insurance plans come as a perk of employment with a particular company - just like in the US. However, there's always the NHS to fall back on.

I would straight up pay 10% more in taxes immediately if it meant everyone could go to the doctor regardless of how much they make.

My assistant loses her job and her kid gets sick and she can just walk in and not worry about how she’s going to pay for the medicine? I’m down.

I don’t have/want kids either but I think the child tax credit should be higher. Them shits expensive.

Support the people whose work supports you.

I’m a capitalist but when single payer healthcare would be cheaper faster and more efficient I cannot see the downside aside from middle-man industries losing their cut.

Point is, you shouldn't have to pay 10% more. The US already spends more taxpayer money on health care per capita than any other country in the world. A UK/Japan/France/German/Taiwan-style system is totally possible for the amount of money you already pay. This is a uniquely American problem. Any system can work if it's done properly. The problem is that the US seems to just fuck up everything and then throw more money at it. I don't think throwing an extra 10% of tax into the broken system would effectively change anything.

I think if you're rich then America is pretty much the best place to be. But for an average person, I'm REALLY glad I'm not American, seriously.

 

[Mathemagician]

The problem is getting people to realize that discussing standard of living is the better way to compare across countries. Country A taxes at 25%, B at 38%, and C at 10%.

On tax basis C sounds best, but odds are that B has the most Arts, culture, educated population, food, jobs, etc and is why the country can have such a high tax rate. The standard of living is probably best in country B, even AFTER taxes.

 

[G_3_3_k_]

Exactly. One can argue that on average in the US the standard of live is pretty high. However, we have people in EVERY large city with nowhere to go, living under overpasses and in alleys. A disproportionate number of these people are veterans, have manageable mental illnesses with treatment and medication, and are LGBTQ. For a nation like the US that wants to be a world leader, this is an unacceptable standard. We can't keep stopping the conversation and shutting things down every time someone says one thing we don't like. We have to stop being tribal about politics. Its the only way we can focus on issues rather than teams.

 

[Mathemagician]

Exactly. Example: one of my coworkers I would at a glance thinks is the polar opposite of me politically. And often times they are but we actually agree that there are the same problems when we chat (briefly). We just have different ideas about how to resolve them. But 50% of the work is acknowledging you have a problem.

One of the single biggest issues in America is policitians not representing their base because their base won’t vote them out. Team blue or Red will (often) ALWAYS vote blue or red enough so that the elected official does not have to worry about their seat and losing a vote and they can just pass law after law catering to their mega-donors.

Companies need to pay taxes, they should NOT be able to legally bribe officials via lobbying or immediately hire politicians once they leave office (regulatory capture).

But citizens don’t vote out politicians who behave unethically because “at least it’s my team”.

So team No-tax will refuse a guy with a minor tax hike even if it helps them because “wrong team bucko”.

And team “tax everyone” will refuse someone with a moderate and careful plan because “wrong team”.

And instead of having a less than inspiring “modest” tax bump (etc) we get a whopping nothing done.

Then the guys who did nothing get voted in again because THIS TIME will be different.

People have short memories and fucking LOVE feeling like they are part of a club.

 

[Ordacleaphobia]

Exactly. Example: one of my coworkers I would at a glance thinks is the polar opposite of me politically. And often times they are but we actually agree that there are the same problems when we chat (briefly). We just have different ideas about how to resolve them. But 50% of the work is acknowledging you have a problem.

One of the single biggest issues in America is policitians not representing their base because their base won’t vote them out. Team blue or Red will (often) ALWAYS vote blue or red enough so that the elected official does not have to worry about their seat and losing a vote and they can just pass law after law catering to their mega-donors.

Companies need to pay taxes, they should NOT be able to legally bribe officials via lobbying or immediately hire politicians once they leave office (regulatory capture).

But citizens don’t vote out politicians who behave unethically because “at least it’s my team”.

So team No-tax will refuse a guy with a minor tax hike even if it helps them because “wrong team bucko”.

And team “tax everyone” will refuse someone with a moderate and careful plan because “wrong team”.

And instead of having a less than inspiring “modest” tax bump (etc) we get a whopping nothing done.

Then the guys who did nothing get voted in again because THIS TIME will be different.

People have short memories and fucking LOVE feeling like they are part of a club.

I think the root of this also comes down to just how much people distrust the nation's political actors. For most people I've seen, it doesn't even matter what you campaign on- nobody believes a damn word. It seems to come down to the (D) or (R) next to your name, because tribalism. People seem to have this idea of "Oh I can't trust a politician to do what they say, but I can trust my party to do X Y and Z."

It's all busted. There needs to be more accountability. I want term limits. I want less lobbying.
Lord knows that DC isn't going to become a bastion of integrity overnight, but man, I feel like if there was less disdain between the working and political class, things would be in a much better place. Wish I had some insight on how to get there.

 

[G_3_3_k_]

The quickest way to fix everything we're talking about is changing how politicians are allowed to get funds. Lobby groups, PACs, or any other organization shouldn't be allowed to donate to individuals running. This makes it very clear, that in order to get reelected, you have to pander to your campaign donors. Who are wealthy or are large businesses or special interest groups. I saw a statistic recently that basically, no matter how in line your wants as an individual are with the rest of the nation, the likelihood that congress will listen to you is about 30% across the board. Looking at the reverse, the likelihood that a PAC or special interest group having and idea for policy getting considered is roughly the remaining percentage. So, the people aren't being represented in congress. The people buying our elected officials are. However, we can change a lot of this, because cities and states are who controls how the election process works. Convert enough states to a reformed process and federal policy will follow suit. I guarantee we're about to see this happen with medical marijuana and eventually recreational. Focus on local politics.

 

[vilk]

 

[Explorer]

I've been waiting for the DHS to provide the DOD with the list of locations where a wall would improve the effectiveness of the military troops there, along with the underlying data used to justify such evaluation.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/...o-justify-moving-funds-for-trumps-border-wall

Such justification is legally required before reallocating military funds.

My question to all those here who have been justifying the wall: If justifying wall construction is actually fact-based, why can't the DHS actually do so?

If such hard data isn't available, then that really deflates the pro-wall arguments being presented here as fact.

 

[Drew]

So, I see the general socioeconomic outcomes of Communism and Capitalism as ultimately the same. Communism funnels money and power to the wealthy and powerful quickly. Capitalism accomplishes this same goal slowly. Neither are best for the freedoms of the individual. Neither seeks to maximize the freedoms of the individual (unless wealthy, then all of the freedom). If you want to see the actual horrors of how capitalism functions, take an economics class and pay close attention to how people use the market to decide the optimum amount of some specific commodity every household should have. What a capitalist government does, is balance these numbers with people as a resource/tool. School is to the end of proper training and preparation of working life. Not to the end of individual enrichment. The government and business should be in service to the population. Doing what they can to make the lives of individuals better, rather that the individual being in service to society/job/government. Maximize quality of life over maximizing profit. Profit equates to wealth. Masses of wealth create inequality of quality of life. Inequality of life creates social instability.

I mean, not to be overly reductionist or negative here, or anything...

...but the problem with communism is the freeloader problem, that if you guarantee people what they need with respect to guaranteed food, shelter, clothing, etc then you leave them with very little to no incentive to actually work for a living, production plummets, and you can't produce enough food, shelter, and clothing to feed, shelter, and clothe the masses.

And, the problem with capitalism is it tends to accrue most of its rewards to those who already HAVE wealth, to commoditize labor, and reward capital while minimizing the rewards that accrue to labor, leaving the vast majority of people with huge incentives to work, but for what ends up being a very shitty living, to the great reward of the elite.

These are the two basic arguments used to attack communism and attack capitalism, and both have their merits. However, could we maybe take a giant step back an pause to acknowledge the real root of the problem here, which isn't that communism is bad or capitalism is bad, but rather that people are just inherently selfish?

 

[G_3_3_k_]

I mean, not to be overly reductionist or negative here, or anything...

...but the problem with communism is the freeloader problem, that if you guarantee people what they need with respect to guaranteed food, shelter, clothing, etc then you leave them with very little to no incentive to actually work for a living, production plummets, and you can't produce enough food, shelter, and clothing to feed, shelter, and clothe the masses.

And, the problem with capitalism is it tends to accrue most of its rewards to those who already HAVE wealth, to commoditize labor, and reward capital while minimizing the rewards that accrue to labor, leaving the vast majority of people with huge incentives to work, but for what ends up being a very shitty living, to the great reward of the elite.

These are the two basic arguments used to attack communism and attack capitalism, and both have their merits. However, could we maybe take a giant step back an pause to acknowledge the real root of the problem here, which isn't that communism is bad or capitalism is bad, but rather that people are just inherently selfish?

I don't disagree. There is no perfect political/socio-economic system. But there is an ideal one, featuring components of all the systems.

 

[spudmunkey]

My question to all those here who have been justifying the wall: If justifying wall construction is actually fact-based, why can't the DHS actually do so?

If such hard data isn't available, then that really deflates the pro-wall arguments being presented here as fact.

Considering Trump's publicly expressed that he either doesn't trust the CIA, the FBI, NASA, his top generals, most of his non-family-member advisors, or scientific consensus (or at least he believes he knows more than them), I wouldn't expect anything that comes from DOD or DHS to change his mind, anyway.

 

[Drew]

I don't disagree. There is no perfect political/socio-economic system. But there is an ideal one, featuring components of all the systems.

This may be me as an increasingly openly avowed misanthrope, but as someone who from a purely theoretical standpoint is a fairly traditional capitalist provided it's acompanied by just enough regulation to keep maximum utility more or less aligned with public good, I honestly don't think it matters or there IS an ideal system.

People are selfish, self-interested, and generally shit. We're going to find some way to corrupt ANY system for allocating scarce resources and we may as well own up to that.

 

[Yul Brynner]

That is why terminators should run the world instead of people.

 

[Drew]

I don't disagree. There is no perfect political/socio-economic system. But there is an ideal one, featuring components of all the systems.

All the systems? Eh, feudalism can fuck right off.

 

[G_3_3_k_]

This may be me as an increasingly openly avowed misanthrope, but as someone who from a purely theoretical standpoint is a fairly traditional capitalist provided it's acompanied by just enough regulation to keep maximum utility more or less aligned with public good, I honestly don't think it matters or there IS an ideal system.

People are selfish, self-interested, and generally shit. We're going to find some way to corrupt ANY system for allocating scarce resources and we may as well own up to that.

What I'm hearing is that people can't be trusted to self govern. Do you think that A.I. or some other form of automation of legislation could do a better job? It would absolutely be impartial since it would not be directly deriving power from the policy. It could absolutely do the job and would be much more financially efficient. I'm not suggesting I agree with this path. Just asking the obvious questions.

 

[G_3_3_k_]

All the systems? Eh, feudalism can fuck right off.

Technically the corporate world still is feudalism...