Green New Deal, College loan forgiveness and free college for all, Medicare for all?

[Peacetrain]

listening to MSNBC, and Sen Sanders was asked something along those lines.. and I did not hear an answer.. and I would ask Sen Warren the same thing.. I know it is with taxation on those above a certain income level.. (hey they have had all the breaks, I am on board with a few breaks for the rest of us)

But here is the question.. and I am serious.. let us say, it all comes to fruition.. (and God know we are desperate for infra structure .. all of it.. and we have these various taxes on those who have benefited the most.. ).. how do we keep them from just giving themselves another tax cut, and then it all rolls down on top of us again?

We have to look at this on the long view not just today, or the the next 5 years.. but what is down the line.

[empedocles]

1. ''Green New Deal, College loan forgiveness and free college for all, Medicare for all'

Sounds like the raw meat for Republican campaign theme/slogan/meme/jokes/smirks

[Peacetrain]

2. It does...and that concerns me..BUT, we can move past that if we have our ducks in a row

Everything we are going to say and do is going to end up with the republicans running ads against it.. Club for Growth is going to target VP Biden during the debates.. this is a realtiy.. we have some great ideas.. and we have to present them in a way that the average person see how we accomplish this..

[empedocles]

4. ducks in a row for 2021

[BlueWI]

15. These proposals are fairly popular among the general public.

What do we stand for as Democrats? What efforts can we make to influence political narratives and make policy changes happen? Threads like this add to the opposition against items that our own voters favor.

[empedocles]

18. You mean fairly popular among general Progressive Democrats?

[Turin_C3PO]

35. No.

In polls, many progressive proposals are popular among the public, universal healthcare being one of them.

[mr_liberal]

52. Only until the find out the details and how much it would cost then they turn against it.

And that's what would happen in the general election.

[BlueWI]

65. In the general public, according to survey data.

MFA and in principle (since it's only a road map) the Green New Deal are both popular. Different phrasing yields varied results, but even if you use Obamacare as a comparison, MFA and the Green Deal are popular ideas (59-80% support) and IMO, they are good policy directions, to act on climate change and work towards universal coverage.

The polling for tuition free state college is also popular. As you may remember, Obama proposed free community college access, and it didn't get the derision that the Sanders plan gets on this site, although the community college initiative seems to have sunk deeply in the Democratic legislative agenda, for whatever reason.

Do a quick internet search and you'll see the polling results, if you like.

[Vegas Roller]

56. Any program is popular until someone has to pay for it.

A vast majority of Americans like the programs but they don't want to pay for them.

"We paying for THEM" systems never work.

Social Security and Medicare work because everyone who puts in money has a carrot of getting it back later.

Senator BS's proposals are nothing but giant sink holes designed to get votes from the naive and/or ill-informed.

[oasis]

3. Who is going to pay for all of that "pie in the sky"?

[shanny]

7. the people with all the money. duh.

[oasis]

9. Right, problem solved. Thanks

[shanny]

73. You're welcome.

Who else? The poor?

[leftofcool]

71. Nope, it will be on the backs of middle class tax payers

Just like it has always been.

[shanny]

72. Nope.

A) there is a vanishingly small middle class* (even Turd Way is realizing that fact) and B) the bar bill required to address this civilisation-threatening event would be more than they (we) could bear anyway.

This is an existential crisis, with a very short timeline. It will require MASSIVE effort by everyone and every part of our society and system. Think the mobilization for WWII. This is more important than that. This is more dangerous than that. This is not "just like it has always been." In fact, this changes everything.

Unless of course we decide to ignore reality and whine about how hard it is, how disruptive it is, how impossible in this political climate.

I'm sure we will do all of those things. But, we can't afford to let it stop us. We are going to have to upset rich people, and the PTB. Or lose.

Our choice.


*which btw was a deliberate goal on the part of the powerful and wealthy, but that's another story

[True Blue American]

38. Thank you

That was my question. The Trump debt has to be taken care of fist.

[LibFarmer]

5. You are right.

The end users always pay all the taxes.

Let's say there is a doctor who makes the physician average of $175,000 a year and pays $50,000 in Federal, State and Local taxes.

If you increase the doctor's taxes to $75,0000, he has to earn the $25,000 he/she lost plus the tax burden on the $25,000 of $11,000 so a total of $36,000 in order to maintain the same standard of living.

Where does the person get the extra $36,000? From his/her patients of course!! This means either he/she has to charge more or cut down on the amount of time spent on each patient in order to squeeze more patients in the schedule.

What Senator BS thinks is that the doctors would give up their porsches and their European vacations - that would not happen by human nature.

No one has thought this through.

Also, if tuition is free and the government is paying it, all the tuitions would go up in price faster than inflation.

[Voltaire2]

14. Where they gonna go?

Every other country worth living in has some form of universal healthcare.

[LibFarmer]

19. Every other country doesn't have the US rigorous training

and every other country doesn't have the US malpractice insurance rates.

However, your thought of "stick it to the doctors" is noted.

Also, pray for the patients whose doctors are pissed off because their incomes were reduced.

I want surgeons operating on me to be happy and not pissed off.

[Voltaire2]

25. Oh nonsense. Doctors in Europe and other

developed nations are just as highly trained. They might not make as much as some doctors here, but they also don’t carry the huge debt from medical schools.

By all objective measures we deliver mediocre and expensive healthcare. Despite this alleged lack of training.

Doctors will not be pissed off. I was just pointing out that your claim that they would all flee for some other rightwing hellhole is nonsense.

[emmaverybo]

32. England is suffering a doctor shortage. They are bringing in doctors less well trained, unfamiliar

with the system, sometimes having difficulty communicating.

The system is being increasingly privatized, waiting lists for cancer screening, cervical cancer, for instance, are long, hip replacements now considered elective surgery, so many die before wait time elapses, cancer treatment start waits have been extended, ERs inadequate to numbers needing services, many paying out of pocket, or having to pay for private plans in addition.
Problems in other European countries too.

Heard of austerity? And the rise of the right wing as a resistance to high taxes which pay for social
safety net for all?

Canada’s system is a better example of single-payer, but health services do not meet all needs, so some pay for surgery or specialist visits here, and Canada has 291 million less people.

We do have an example before us of a Fed run system: the V.A.

There are several ways to get to universal coverage. You are flat out wrong about doctor training and quality. Many pay for better trained specialists out of pocket.

[Voltaire2]

39. The UK has more doctors per Capita than the US.

Also lots of developed countries with some form of comprehensive universal healthcare have far more doctors Per Capita than we do.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart/u-s-fewer-practicing-doctors-per-1000-people-comparably-wealthy-countries/#item-start

[emmaverybo]

46. Shortages of GPS. Major problems in A + E care. Links:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/10/health/uk-nhs-universal-health-coverage-crisis-point-intl/index.html

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/sep/11/nhs-suffering-worst-ever-staff-cash-crisis-figures-show

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_National_Health_Service_(England)

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-42572110

[Voltaire2]

49. Yes and the U.K. has more doctors Per Capita

than we do. We also have a doctor shortage.

By the way your first link has Trump mouthing the same bullshit.

[emmaverybo]

66. Yes, for his own purposes. All the wrong ones. Canada probably a better model than Europe

single-payer. The problems NHS experiencing are not BS. Many of them stem from how administrated and now the self-interest doctor’s councils might promote.
Trump exploits challenges Brits are facing. But the challenges are real.

[Voltaire2]

70. The talking point is bull.

You can’t point at the NHS to prove that MFA would cause a Docter shortage when our own crappy system already has a worse shortage.

[marylandblue]

27. That's not right, and doctors are a bad example due to insurance and other confounding factors.

Need a more abstract type analysis that economists use.


Take an orange orchard owner who sells oranges at $1. Raise his tax 10% and he will try to sell at $1.10 each, but generally speaking that will reduce sales, so he won't get the full $1.10 he wants, he will only get, say $1.05, so the cost of the tax increase is split between the consumers and sellers. That's a micro analysis.

On a macro level, lower income people tend to.spend more of their income on basics like food and clothing. So if you offer free tuition to poor college students, they will buy more oranges, increasing demand and leading to higher orange prices which lead the orange growers to grow more oranges.

The second paragraph is basically Keynesian economics, which went out of fashion with Reagan, but partly came back with Obama's 2009 stimulus package. Now Warren is going full Keynes, relying on wealth redistribution to greatly increase demand, which will increase wealth even more and most people end up wealthier than they started.

If I've convinced you, consider voting for Warren. If I haven't, consider listening to Warren or learning more about macroeconomics.

[wasupaloopa]

78. Doctors can't just spend less time or charge more. Insurance reimburses by procedure code.

Each procedure has a reimbursement rate and a time the procedure should take. Reporting more procedures than is needed is fraud.

To earn more they have to work more

[Magoo48]

6. The future is unknown to us all. Do we stand paralyzed by fear and do nothing? No.

We write and pass the best legislation we can. We protect our successful legislation the best we can. I for one will not live in fear of future conservative/authoritarian corruption.

[Uncle Joe]

8. If Democrats cut taxes to $1 for every American and

allowed wild packs of wolves to handle our health care, Republicans would still try to cut taxes so the wolves could have change to go with their meals.

Every progressive piece of legislation in the history of the U.S. would never have passed if they had worried about Republicans wanting to cut taxes.

That struggle with the Republicans will be eternal regardless of the state of our society.

You can't drown a strong, democratic and vibrant "We the People" government and it's far more difficult to morph into a corporate supremacist/oligarchic/authoritarian state.

Thanks for the thread Peacetrain.

[customerserviceguy]

10. So, how is all this free stuff going to be paid for?

Taxes on "the rich" or just put on the Chinese credit card?

[Voltaire2]

12. Is there a problem with taxes on the rich?

[customerserviceguy]

17. Yes, several

For starters, politically speaking, it won't happen. There will always be enough GOP'ers in the Senate to prevent a 60 vote filibuster cutoff. And with a so called wealth tax, a new constitutional amendment would be needed, all it takes is thirteen states to say, "No", and there's no amendment.

Even if all of those mountainous obstacles could be overcome, we then have the situation where the wealthy are just going to leave if it happens.

[Trenzalore]

22. Where are they going to go?

Seems like Europe and Canada have the ability to pay for these things and the money is coming from somewhere.

[Voltaire2]

26. Somalia?

[Trenzalore]

28. West Coast has some of the highest taxes

Based on the real estate prices rich people still seem to want to live there.

[customerserviceguy]

36. They'll find some island

I hear the Caymans are highly receptive to having rich immigrants.

[Trenzalore]

40. Their assets are still here

[customerserviceguy]

41. And in many cases

they can be quickly sold. Yes, the beach house might be tough to sell in the off season, but there's an argument to be made that real estate taxes are already a tax on wealth on such items.

I'm sure that the effective date of any wealth tax will give ample time for the wealthy to unload their domestic assets.

[Vegas Roller]

58. Anyone who knows how can get a Caribbean citizenship

renounce American citizenship, for a Caribbean subsidiary and get paid there.

The assets can be rolled over into several trusts and fiduciaries.

[marylandblue]

29. First, vote for Democratic Senators in competitive or donate to them.

If we take the Senate, the mere threat of eliminating the filibuster will reduce that problem, and of course, we could always just pull the trigger in it. Makes more sense to me than expecting Repubs to play nice again.

On the Constitutionality of it, that remains to be seen. Can't be certain how the SCOTUS will rule, or even who will be on it by the time this gets to them, but we already do have a wealth tax - the inheritance tax, and it made it through the SCOTUS over 100 years ago.

Also, we can rejigger the capital gains tax to simulate a wealth tax and that would work almost as well.

[customerserviceguy]

37. There's a couple of key differences between the inheritance tax and any proposed wealth tax

First, the inheritance tax is levied when the owner of the wealth dies. Thus, it only happens once, and the wealth taxes I've seen are annual, and would be levied multiple times.

Also, there is SCOTUS precedent involving taxes that are not specifically allowed in the Constitution, I would expect all reich-wing Justices to cite it in striking down a wealth tax.

As for rejiggering the capital gains tax, OK, but good luck on that.

[marylandblue]

43. Sure, it's just not a given that it's Unconstitutional.

As a separate issue, history doesn't move in a smooth line. Everyone once in a while, there are sudden shifts in what is politically possible. I believe we are on the verge of such a shift. If so, we will be very surprised at the results of the next election. That could be either really good or really, really bad.

[customerserviceguy]

44. Being as we have a history

where the income tax was considered unconstitutional, and we have at least five Justices who are more than inclined to think a wealth tax is unconstitutional, I would hold very little hope that a wealth tax bill, even if somehow it could get through the Senate, would become the law of the land.

[marylandblue]

47. If we take the Senate, we might get a wealth tax through.

If that's unconstitutional, like I said, we can do a similar thing with a change in the capital gains tax.

If we don't take the Senate, nothing gets through, and eventually the country dies of paralysis.

[Vegas Roller]

60. Why is the wealth tax such an aphrodisiac to some?

People accumulate wealth by living frugally and saving. They have already paid income taxes on what they are accumulating.

Why tax the same money over and over for Senator BS's sinkholes which are nothing but political stunts to get votes?

[marylandblue]

64. Because our society privileges unearned wealth over earned imcome

Resulting in a few people at the top accumulating most of the wealth while paying little or no tax, which often leads to repressive societies.

I am, and always have been, a redistributionist. Money naturally flows to the top, it always has. Money controls government to help keep the wealth flowing to the top. Healthy democracies redistribute some of that wealth back to the bottom to prevent extreme poverty. Authoritarianism and extreme disparities of wealth was the norm prior to the 20th Century. Lets not go back to that again.

[Vegas Roller]

67. The rich should pay their fair share

but never a confiscatory tax.

Redistribution didn't work out so well for communists and socialists.

[marylandblue]

69. All taxes are confiscatory, and I'm not talking about communism or socialism,

which are not redistribution schemes but economic systems. What I am talking about are really just a question of what is a fair share and what types of wealth we are going to tax.

[questionseverything]

51. we taxed possions in this country long before we taxed income

so I don't get why we need an amendment

not every wealthy person is a jerk, buffet wants to be taxed more right?

I love warrens idea of 2 cents for every dollar over 50 million......if you think congresscritters are gonna vote against that you are mistaken.....they would know they would look like monsters

[customerserviceguy]

53. Yes, Warren Buffet is OK with this

the problem is, he's the exception to the rule.

And I'm not mistaken when it comes to GOP congresscritters.

[questionseverything]

54. well we are working on votin out those congresscritters too

it is less than 2% some of them win by ,before now and trump has lost some of them


but I think you are wrong rep congrsscritters love pretending to be for the working man


2 cents after the first 50 million would be hard to vote against



btw whats your solution?

[customerserviceguy]

55. Good luck

There are areas of this country that will never vote for other than a GOP'er for Congress.

My solution is to not make promises that cannot possibly be kept.

[questionseverything]

59. the primaries are exactly the time for big ideas

do I think all these ideas will happen? no

but do I think we can move in a better direction that benefits more of us?

hell yes

[Demsrule86]

75. And then we get to the general and these big ideas cost us the election...when we are portrayed as

big spending socialists.

[Voltaire2]

11. We don't let them get control.

But if they do vote new tax cuts they just run bigger deficits. So far there is zero evidence that huge deficits are an actual problem.

[LibFarmer]

20. Even then

a lot of the Democrats would be from red states and moderate. They won't go for a unicorn plan.

Barack Obama had 60 Democratic senators but still three Democratic senators opposed the ACA and weakened it. Ben Nelson of NE, Joe Lieberman of CT (both states where many insurance companies are located) and Max Baucus of MT - a very red state.

The world is not made up of (Democratic) Socialists everywhere.

Even in Vermont, single payer failed to be enacted.

[marylandblue]

30. They went for the unicorn of supply side economics 40 years ago.

Who's to say they won't go for a different unicorn? Nobody believed people would vote for "voodoo economics" as Bush Sr. called it, but they did, and we've come to the end of that road. Where to now? More of the same, only in a Democratic version?

[questionseverything]

57. just want to point out the aca never needed 60 votes

it was passed thru reconciliation.....that's 50 plus 1


and single payer cannot be enacted by the states because states can not print their own money...huge difference

[LibFarmer]

61. But the original plan was to pass ACA outright

Only because it was enacted via BR (due to a lack of votes) that most of the provisions of the ACA were not implemented until 2014.

[Demsrule86]

62. The ACA was not passed in Reconciliation...the GOP tried to get rid of it that way. 60 votes were

needed.

"The Jan. 9 news article “ Obama vetoes bill aimed at repealing health law ” repeated a commonly held misconception about the process used to pass the Affordable Care Act in 2010: “To pass the Obamacare repeal bill, Republican lawmakers used the complex budget procedure known as reconciliation to avoid a filibuster in this case — the same procedure Democrats used to pass the bill in 2009 when they controlled both the House and Senate.” The Senate did not use the reconciliaton process to pass the ACA. The act, comprising 906 pages, is the basic comprehensive substance of Obamacare. It was passed on a bill that was filibustered, and a supermajority vote of 60 was required to end that filibuster (by invoking cloture under Senate Rule 22). It was signed by the president on March 23, 2010, and became Public Law 111-148."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamacare-was-not-passed-using-budget-reconciliation/2016/01/22/e72d321a

[Demsrule86]

76. No the ACA did need 60 votes...and MFA could not be passed in reconciliation...

Improving he ACA and a public option are possible though.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. The good (?) news is that these things will not happen any time soon...

The current mix of public and private loans, scholarships, grants, and whatever else is a complex thing to just up and change. And any changes will meet resistance, which is partly how we got where we are now.

Free college is a great idea, and has been tried. I went to City College of NY, part of the City University, and it was almost completely free. 26 bucks a semester and a few lab fees and books was it. Problem was, though, that it was very selective and when it was decided everyone should have a shot, it was expanded-- standards then went out the door and tuition started.

The last free private college, in NYC, Cooper Union, started tuition a few years ago because its funding just wasn't cutting it any more. Argue all you want about why, but a college education is pretty damn expensive-- first you have to do something about that.

Medicare for all? Catchy sound bite, but really? Under present payment schedules, watch for hospital closings because they can't make expenses. And even more doctors heading for higher paying specialties. Many doctors are in it for the healing, but a lot want to be Dermatologist to the Stars.

Unlike the VA, Medicare doesn't negotiate drug prices, so that has to be dealt with. And with all the government plans out there, plus the private employer plans, unions, and others, this would mean a lot of work. And that work would not be universally appreciated.

[USALiberal]

16. I would suggest people stop paying student loans now! Nt

[Trenzalore]

23. If I did that I would end up on an exclusion list.

My employer would have no choice but to fire me.

[emmaverybo]

33. The compounded interest continues. You go into default which has many consequences. If you

are on social security, you will have 15 percent deducted before you ever see your check or your
auto deposit.

[Trenzalore]

24. Absent a big change in the Senate

None of these proposals are going to happen.

It will also take a full 8 years to undo the regulatory pull back Trump has engaged in with the agencies with the waiting period and comment periods that will be put in place to restore previous regulations.

I don't think we have to lower our expectations on the quality of the individual we choose to go against Trump but there should be serious lowered expectations on what can be accomplished given how the US is set up politically.

[marylandblue]

31. It doesn't have to take 8 years to do that. If you know what you are doing, it can be much faster.

[Demsrule86]

74. How exactly?

[marylandblue]

77. Like I said, you have to know what you are doing.

Do you know why it takes so long to write a regulation to begin with?

[progressoid]

34. America has spent $5.9 trillion on wars in the Middle East and Asia since 2001

The GOP successfully convinced their voters (and a fair amount of Democratic voters) that we needed to go into debt to fight the TERRORISTS!

It's a matter of messaging the costs to the American voter.


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/14/us-has-spent-5point9-trillion-on-middle-east-asia-wars-since-2001-study.html

[customerserviceguy]

45. But they were sneaky

We have the burden of having to be upfront.

[FloridaBlues]

42. All these plans are great but come with a hefty price tag

My question is what if these tax hikes don't pass congress? Than what is their next plan to get this done. Unless we vote out all republicans and some conservative democrats it's hard to see their plans succeed. Can't do it by executive order.
Anyone know to enlighten me.

[marylandblue]

48. Warren and Sanders both can only win through a major political realignment,

which would open up a lot of options. If no such alignment is in the cards, neither will win the primaries.

[Humanist_Activist]

50. I like how crap that damn near any other industrialized country can pay for...

is "pie in the sky" shit for the richest nation to have ever existed on planet Earth.

What is it about the good ole U.S. of fucking A. that makes things like Universal Health Care, or affordable college so fucking impossible.

All you are saying is "its hard so we shouldn't even try".

[cstanleytech]

68. Well the only way to actually prevent them from giving themselves another tax cut

would be by some sort of amendment to the Constitution but the question is how to word it in such a way that it applies only to the ultra wealthy and not to some little peon thats struggling just to put food on the table and keep a roof over their head.

[guillaumeb]

79. There is never an objection raised when the war budget is raised.

Or when taxes are cut on the rich and connected.

But for anything else, there is an expressed concern for how it is to be paid for.

[Voltaire2]

80. Trillions for war. Austerity for people.

The rules we live by since 1980.

[guillaumeb]

82. Well said.

It could be a bumper sticker for the rich, and the well connected.

[George II]

81. According to the organization that's writing the "green new deal", we're still a year or more....

....from seeing what's actually in that deal.