View Poll Results: Have the extremes fully taken over?

Voters
58. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, it's done.

    13 22.41%
  • There's still time to right the course.

    29 50.00%
  • No, not even close.

    14 24.14%
  • Yes, but I'm a partisan hack and will pretend it's not happening.

    2 3.45%
Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213
Results 121 to 125 of 125

Thread: Have the extremes fully taken over?

  1. #121
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    6,800

    Re: Have the extremes fully taken over?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    You can complain about his tone all day long - the fact remains that imposing the progressive platform costs far more in taxes than the American people are willing to pay for it, but their level of dedication (to either position) is generally highly malleable and not particularly well thought out. So, when told it c/would replace their current health care with government health insurance and increase their taxes, that opposition rises to well over 50%, and opponents, when carefully not told that information, can be pulled into supporting it when told that it would simply ensure that everyone is covered. And, yes, the $32 Trillion is taking Sander's own preferred assumptions into account.

    And if you want to believe sources like:



    Who try to preach differently to you, then you are listening to the far-left advocacy movement, rather than the best available data. I could just as easily go to Drudgereport's internal polling or Breitbart, or Alex Jones to "prove" that the American people are massively in support of a border wall.



    ....I"m not positive you want to cite this.....

    ...To fund the program, payroll and income taxes would have to increase from a combined 8.4 percent in the Sanders plan to 20 percent while also retaining all remaining tax increases on capital gains, increased marginal tax rates, the estate tax and eliminating tax expenditures. The plan would create enormous winners and losers even with the more generous benefits with respect to what households and businesses pay today compared to what they would pay under a single payer plan. Overall, over 70 percent of working privately insured households would pay more under a fully funded single payer plan than they do for health insurance today...





    So, it's sort of like saying that the American people are 100% in favor of invading Iraq, until it cost a lot of casualties and time and money and we got bogged down, but we shouldn't look at that, we should instead just declare the Iraq war to have been wildly popular.

    Presenting programs without their costs or potential costs isn't really a fair test of any policy proposal, because you are only scoring the benefits, and not the full program.



    You sound much like me, circa 2010.
    By the way this argument will be won not buy cost but by the savings with the average healthcare cost. If the average saving per year is 4,000.00 and the increase in taxes is 2000.00 wheres your argument now.

  2. #122
    Guru

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,995

    Re: Have the extremes fully taken over?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    You can complain about his tone all day long - the fact remains that imposing the progressive platform costs far more in taxes than the American people are willing to pay for it, but their level of dedication (to either position) is generally highly malleable and not particularly well thought out. So, when told it c/would replace their current health care with government health insurance and increase their taxes, that opposition rises to well over 50%, and opponents, when carefully not told that information, can be pulled into supporting it when told that it would simply ensure that everyone is covered. And, yes, the $32 Trillion is taking Sander's own preferred assumptions into account.
    Per the study you cited, the gain/loss effectively saws off when both arguments for and against are presented. That having been said, it's abundantly clear we retain a very solid majoritarian support at a base of 70% vs the comparatively thin 55% at the time of the Kaiser study after these adjustments.

    And if you want to believe sources like:

    Who try to preach differently to you, then you are listening to the far-left advocacy movement, rather than the best available data. I could just as easily go to Drudgereport's internal polling or Breitbart, or Alex Jones to "prove" that the American people are massively in support of a border wall.
    I judge the merits of the argument and data; the source merely determines the level of scrutiny it should be subject to. If Fox slaps me upside the head with solid facts and argumentation then its bias doesn't inherently preclude their validity; Tucker Carlson of all people has actually persuaded me a couple of times. In this case, the Jacobin article, features a compelling analysis that dispels the ridiculous 40% idea. Meanwhile, the WSJ, certainly no left wing rag, acknowledged the ballpark of Gerald's numbers.

    ....I"m not positive you want to cite this.....
    I'm not sure I would buy into the specific tax structuring plan proposed by Kenneth Thorpe, whose analysis Gerald finds fault with (and physicians: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david...b_9113192.html | https://prospect.org/article/critics...verstate-costs | yes, Huffingtonpost etc, but they get down to the brass tacks and figures immediately) in the first place (largely in the form of under and overestimation, and unsupported estimates vis a vis precedence). It is largely included and cited to demonstrate that even critics of Gerald haven't come up with numbers as ludicrously high as $32 trillion. But yes, if you were to structure a taxation regime as Kenneth Thorpe proposes, and assume his numbers are correct, it could conceivably cost people who are on private insurance more. However, that precludes the facts that A: you would have to choose to lean heavily on the end user for financing as opposed to other sources, B: ignores the fact that the quality of such public insurance would be more comprehensive than most private plans, don't involve any kind of co-pays/deductibles, and transitions seamlessly between jobs, and C: direct costs to the employer are eliminated which should very much feature dividends to the economy, or at the least help offset the increment of taxation.

    Overall the bottom line here, even with Thorpe's disputable numbers and assumptions in place, is that American people end up paying overall much less on healthcare per that $26 trillion over 10 year figure vs the current $35 trillion, assuming _no_ growth in spending over the next 10 years (yeah right), or ~$43.4 trillion assuming a reasonable 4% growth in spending per year over that 10 year period.


    So, it's sort of like saying that the American people are 100% in favor of invading Iraq, until it cost a lot of casualties and time and money and we got bogged down, but we shouldn't look at that, we should instead just declare the Iraq war to have been wildly popular.
    First of all, I'm simply stating the fact of its popularity which is contrary to your assertion, including when counterarguments are presented, i.e. if we're to extrapolate the Kaiser's exploration on arguments for/against, support would remain solidly majoritarian with the current 70% base. That said, I'm all for duplicating that research so we can get a more accurate and contemporary finger on the pulse of public opinion.

    Second, no, it's not comparable at all. I mean for starters, one is a tarpit war and the other is a proven govt program. The latter has a long legacy of success and efficiency all over the world, whereas the precedent of the former in terms of comparable situations is generally awful (Soviet occupation of Afghanistan as an example).


    You sound much like me, circa 2010.
    I guess we'll just have to see how it all pans out.
    Last edited by Surrealistik; 01-16-19 at 02:42 PM.
    "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." -Alberto Brandolini

  3. #123
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Flori-duh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    2,637

    Re: Have the extremes fully taken over?

    Sadly yes they have overtaken the GOP. The GOP allowed the tea party to flourish because they thought it was a good weapon against Obama. The tea party turned into the freedom caucus which now won't even agree with mainstream republicans, whatever they are? Build the wall! Lock her up! Yeah, the GOP let the inmates run the asylum and now it's a mess.

    On the other hand I think the democratic party is stuck in its old ways of thinking and needs to listen to some of the younger more progressive members that were recently elected.

  4. #124
    Professor

    Vadinho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    1,617

    Re: Have the extremes fully taken over?

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Dog View Post
    I don't expect political hacks to have real arguments. They usually make a quick comment that means relatively little. They don't refute EVIDENCE with links and think their emotions somehow are evidence of, well nothing.

    You have a good one.
    I refuse to spend time educating folks online, its a waste of time. But do continue, I enjoy the laughs.
    Your mother swims after cruise ships.

  5. #125
    King Of The Dog Pound

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    36,218

    Re: Have the extremes fully taken over?

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Dog View Post
    I don't expect political hacks to have real arguments. They usually make a quick comment that means relatively little. They don't refute EVIDENCE with links and think their emotions somehow are evidence of, well nothing.

    You have a good one.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vadinho View Post
    I refuse to spend time educating folks online, its a waste of time. But do continue, I enjoy the laughs.
    Thanks for making my point.

Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •