I mean, this is a significant difference in that Warren sees no problem with bosses owning the labor of their workers and profiting off of it. She's a capitalist. She thinks the bourgeoisie are fine. She just thinks society should treat the proletariat better and give them better living conditions and opportunities for social mobility. She acknowledges and is not bothered by the existence of social classes.
She has a different intent. Bernie advocates for progress towards a classless society, or appears to be heading that way. To put up a really terrible analogy, it's like they're both driving down a two lane road. Currently they're going in the same direction, but Bernie is in the left lane and signalling for that upcoming turn. Warren isn't signalling.
It's also a symptom of a pretty slow news cycle for the primaries, because this is largely based on a Fox News story covering the Presidential Forum on Environmental Justice which didn't really have much going on. It basically had Warren and Booker plus some also-rans.
This is weird because generally people complain about Sanders's disinterest in incrementalism.
The complaint isn't "Sanders is being incremental and we hate incrementalism"
It's "On this subject, Sanders is pretending to be revolutionary when he's actually being incremental. The promises and slogans - including 'billionaires should not exist!' - that supposedly distinguish him from the rest of the democratic field are, basically, bullshit he's unwilling or unable to back up, and yet his supporters are using them as a litmus test to 'prove' that Warren is insufficiently egalitarian and/or somehow in the pocket of Big Billionaire because she's not repeating them, even though their policies on this subject are virtually the same, and that is both inaccurate and frustrating."
Every other day of the week this board would be entirely fine with a candidate saying X and advocating less than X is real policy terms as a more manageable goal. Billionaires shouldn't exist. Taxes them heavily is the most reasonable step at the current time.
Senator Warren has a plan to do just that!
Sanders has a better plan to do it more heavily.
Only if "better" and "heavily" means 2% higher.
Pretending like that is some vast improvement seems kind of silly. It's a slightly higher rate, but they both basically want the same thing with respect to their policy.
2% is not the difference between revolution and not revolution
I didnt say it was. Ill take what I can get though and Sanders is offering more aggressive steps towards what I want.
I mean really this is all incredibly silly. Sanders has given an ideal end state and a reasonable achievable first step to get there. Works for me.
I won't contest that the argument is a little silly, but it doesn't strike me as especially honest to start a debate by accusing Warren of only wanting 'minor tweaks' to our current power structure on the grounds that she said she didn't agree with Bernie's 'billionaires should not exist' slogan, persist for several pages in defending the idea that the difference between their positions on that issue is significant and important, and then - instead of making substantive responses to the rebuttals against that idea - respond to overwhelming disagreement by calling the whole thing 'incredibly silly' as though you're the one rising above the squabbling.
Youre grouping together several different coversations, points, and posters here.
No, I'm not; I'm happy to include some evidence to that effect if it'll help jog your memory.
I'm referring to a set of posts most exemplified by this one:
My concern with trying to just make sure everyone has enough etc while not enaging in redistribution for its own sake is that youre basically just leaving the power structure as is with some minor tweaking. That same power structure that caused the problem in the first place.
Day One they start clawing back to the bad old days because that benefitted them and youve left them with billions of dollars to do it with. Its trying to win without actually defeating your enemies.
What I would ask Bernie as a follow-up is: what is the exact number of dollars nobody should be able to exceed, and please tell me how you came to this number? I think this would force him to abandon the dumb artificiality of the question and talk about the core of the point he wants to make.
This is not substantially different than what the GOP does whenever someone wants to raise taxes!
which was in turn in reference to Warren saying she disagreed with Sanders' 'billionaires should not exist', about which you said things like:
I also don't see Warren making an affirmative case that there should be Billionaires in that quote, just not saying saying there shouldn't be Billionaires
Oh come on man
there is an actual difference between not being against something and actually being for something.
Yeah but they exist so either you think that should keep happening or you dont. It doesn't actually matter if you think billionaires should exist but think theyre lame.
again she didn't say that billionaires should exist she just didn't say they shouldn't
This is some really silly semantics.
Only if you're willfully interpreting the question in the narrowest, most literal way possible.
Sanders believes it should be a priority of government policy to ensure that there are no billionaires. Warren disagrees, and does not believe that government policy needs to oriented around ensuring nobody can ever be a billionaire. That's not the same thing as believing that society should be organized in a way that generates billionaires, or believing that billionaire status is inherently moral in some way, or believing that billionaires need to be protected somehow, or otherwise being 'pro-billionaire'.
A person can think 'hey, our society needs a better social safety net and universal healthcare etc, and those things need to be paid for, and the payment method that produces the best outcomes is taxing billionaires substantially more. I want to ensure that everyone in our society has a reasonable standard of living, and if the ultra-wealthy have to become less wealthy as a result, that's perfectly fine. And if the ultra-wealthy still have a billion dollars when we're done, that's also fine as long as all our actual goals are met.' without needing to also be possessed of a specific evangelical belief that billionaires must be rooted out and destroyed at all costs.
She explicitly says people who work hard and come up with something great should get to be billionaires if "they earn it".
She also wants to explicitly tax them significantly.
And they'll still benefit from billions stolen from labor. Its not enough.
Simply put, if Warren does not see the current oligarchic governing structure as a problem in of itself, and you do, it is not silly or nit-picking or anything other than reasonable to go 'oh hey that's why I won't support her over a candidate that does see that as a problem' because those fundamental values and priorities will dictate how that person would govern.
I mean okay but saying that "Warren does not see the current oligarchic governing structure as a problem in of itself" is, uh, a reach
We just got off a couple pages of talking about how she thinks if you work hard and come up with a good idea its ok if youre a billionaire.
She wants a kinder gentler version of the world we live in now, not a different one.
Im confused what your point is supposed to be here. Like I said, it seems like for some reason a lot of people are suddenly against incrementalism.
Sanders wants to take steps towards no billionaires. Warren wants to take a smaller step towards just taxing them more. Idk why its some point that even has to be agrued when socialists prefer the former.
Because what you're saying is disingenuous.
It would be more accurate to say "Sanders wants to take steps towards no billionaires by taxing them more. Warren also wants to take steps towards no billionaires but by taxing them slightly less."
As Warren has made affirnative arguments for when she thinks someone deserves to be a billionaire I'm not sure this has any basis in fact
And yet both of their tax plans will have about the same effect and neither one will eliminate billionaires. So yes, it does appear that we have an argument here that’s not based in fact.
I am a big supporter of Andrew Yang. Far and away, I favor him to the other candidates. When I talk to friends and associates, they often don't see what I consider to be the foundation of his approach to problem solving: empowering people with the freedom of choice. Andrew Yang isn't about telling people how to live. He's about empowering people to live the way they want.
A $1k/mo. UBI acts like dozens of different social programs all at once. Childcare, transition assistance, financial assistance to union workers on strike, job training, food stamps, heating oil, or the cost of taking your kids to a museum; it’s whatever social program you need this month. Instead of telling people how they have to live, having reporting requirements, case managers, forms, and approvals, we invest in people and let them decide what they need most and how they’ll get it.
But it runs deeper than that. Yang has big plans for what would be available to Americans, but it’s all opt in. He’s often said that he would “never pull the rug out from under anyone”. He wants a UBI for all citizens and for everyone to be on Medicare. But he doesn’t want to force anyone onto them or off of what they have now. He wants to make those programs the best possible choice for everyone, make them available to everyone, and let people transition when and how they choose.
That connects to the other thing I love about him: universality; his policies apply to everyone. It genuinely saddens me every time I hear someone ask why his Universal Basic Income program needs to be universal, because they always follow it up with a list of people they want to keep out. Economically, it’s more effective and more efficient to eliminate the bureaucracy of reporting and monitoring. (It’s also a more positive experience for people on the program.) But, more importantly, Andrew Yang’s UBI, the “Freedom Dividend”, is designed as a right of citizenship. Because this country is ours. It belongs to us; all of us.
This is weird because generally people complain about Sanders's disinterest in incrementalism.
The complaint isn't "Sanders is being incremental and we hate incrementalism"
It's "On this subject, Sanders is pretending to be revolutionary when he's actually being incremental. The promises and slogans - including 'billionaires should not exist!' - that supposedly distinguish him from the rest of the democratic field are, basically, bullshit he's unwilling or unable to back up, and yet his supporters are using them as a litmus test to 'prove' that Warren is insufficiently egalitarian and/or somehow in the pocket of Big Billionaire because she's not repeating them, even though their policies on this subject are virtually the same, and that is both inaccurate and frustrating."
Every other day of the week this board would be entirely fine with a candidate saying X and advocating less than X is real policy terms as a more manageable goal. Billionaires shouldn't exist. Taxes them heavily is the most reasonable step at the current time.
Senator Warren has a plan to do just that!
Sanders has a better plan to do it more heavily.
Only if "better" and "heavily" means 2% higher.
Pretending like that is some vast improvement seems kind of silly. It's a slightly higher rate, but they both basically want the same thing with respect to their policy.
2% is not the difference between revolution and not revolution
I didnt say it was. Ill take what I can get though and Sanders is offering more aggressive steps towards what I want.
I mean really this is all incredibly silly. Sanders has given an ideal end state and a reasonable achievable first step to get there. Works for me.
I won't contest that the argument is a little silly, but it doesn't strike me as especially honest to start a debate by accusing Warren of only wanting 'minor tweaks' to our current power structure on the grounds that she said she didn't agree with Bernie's 'billionaires should not exist' slogan, persist for several pages in defending the idea that the difference between their positions on that issue is significant and important, and then - instead of making substantive responses to the rebuttals against that idea - respond to overwhelming disagreement by calling the whole thing 'incredibly silly' as though you're the one rising above the squabbling.
Youre grouping together several different coversations, points, and posters here.
No, I'm not; I'm happy to include some evidence to that effect if it'll help jog your memory.
I'm referring to a set of posts most exemplified by this one:
My concern with trying to just make sure everyone has enough etc while not enaging in redistribution for its own sake is that youre basically just leaving the power structure as is with some minor tweaking. That same power structure that caused the problem in the first place.
Day One they start clawing back to the bad old days because that benefitted them and youve left them with billions of dollars to do it with. Its trying to win without actually defeating your enemies.
What I would ask Bernie as a follow-up is: what is the exact number of dollars nobody should be able to exceed, and please tell me how you came to this number? I think this would force him to abandon the dumb artificiality of the question and talk about the core of the point he wants to make.
This is not substantially different than what the GOP does whenever someone wants to raise taxes!
which was in turn in reference to Warren saying she disagreed with Sanders' 'billionaires should not exist', about which you said things like:
I also don't see Warren making an affirmative case that there should be Billionaires in that quote, just not saying saying there shouldn't be Billionaires
Oh come on man
there is an actual difference between not being against something and actually being for something.
Yeah but they exist so either you think that should keep happening or you dont. It doesn't actually matter if you think billionaires should exist but think theyre lame.
again she didn't say that billionaires should exist she just didn't say they shouldn't
This is some really silly semantics.
Only if you're willfully interpreting the question in the narrowest, most literal way possible.
Sanders believes it should be a priority of government policy to ensure that there are no billionaires. Warren disagrees, and does not believe that government policy needs to oriented around ensuring nobody can ever be a billionaire. That's not the same thing as believing that society should be organized in a way that generates billionaires, or believing that billionaire status is inherently moral in some way, or believing that billionaires need to be protected somehow, or otherwise being 'pro-billionaire'.
A person can think 'hey, our society needs a better social safety net and universal healthcare etc, and those things need to be paid for, and the payment method that produces the best outcomes is taxing billionaires substantially more. I want to ensure that everyone in our society has a reasonable standard of living, and if the ultra-wealthy have to become less wealthy as a result, that's perfectly fine. And if the ultra-wealthy still have a billion dollars when we're done, that's also fine as long as all our actual goals are met.' without needing to also be possessed of a specific evangelical belief that billionaires must be rooted out and destroyed at all costs.
She explicitly says people who work hard and come up with something great should get to be billionaires if "they earn it".
She also wants to explicitly tax them significantly.
And they'll still benefit from billions stolen from labor. Its not enough.
Simply put, if Warren does not see the current oligarchic governing structure as a problem in of itself, and you do, it is not silly or nit-picking or anything other than reasonable to go 'oh hey that's why I won't support her over a candidate that does see that as a problem' because those fundamental values and priorities will dictate how that person would govern.
I mean okay but saying that "Warren does not see the current oligarchic governing structure as a problem in of itself" is, uh, a reach
We just got off a couple pages of talking about how she thinks if you work hard and come up with a good idea its ok if youre a billionaire.
She wants a kinder gentler version of the world we live in now, not a different one.
Im confused what your point is supposed to be here. Like I said, it seems like for some reason a lot of people are suddenly against incrementalism.
Sanders wants to take steps towards no billionaires. Warren wants to take a smaller step towards just taxing them more. Idk why its some point that even has to be agrued when socialists prefer the former.
Because what you're saying is disingenuous.
It would be more accurate to say "Sanders wants to take steps towards no billionaires by taxing them more. Warren also wants to take steps towards no billionaires but by taxing them slightly less."
As Warren has made affirnative arguments for when she thinks someone deserves to be a billionaire I'm not sure this has any basis in fact
And yet both of their tax plans will have about the same effect and neither one will eliminate billionaires. So yes, it does appear that we have an argument here that’s not based in fact.
I have not argued that Sanders's tax plan will do any such thing, only that its a step on that path, while for Warren it is not, as by her own admission she thinks you can earn a billion dollars.
This is weird because generally people complain about Sanders's disinterest in incrementalism.
The complaint isn't "Sanders is being incremental and we hate incrementalism"
It's "On this subject, Sanders is pretending to be revolutionary when he's actually being incremental. The promises and slogans - including 'billionaires should not exist!' - that supposedly distinguish him from the rest of the democratic field are, basically, bullshit he's unwilling or unable to back up, and yet his supporters are using them as a litmus test to 'prove' that Warren is insufficiently egalitarian and/or somehow in the pocket of Big Billionaire because she's not repeating them, even though their policies on this subject are virtually the same, and that is both inaccurate and frustrating."
Every other day of the week this board would be entirely fine with a candidate saying X and advocating less than X is real policy terms as a more manageable goal. Billionaires shouldn't exist. Taxes them heavily is the most reasonable step at the current time.
Senator Warren has a plan to do just that!
Sanders has a better plan to do it more heavily.
Only if "better" and "heavily" means 2% higher.
Pretending like that is some vast improvement seems kind of silly. It's a slightly higher rate, but they both basically want the same thing with respect to their policy.
2% is not the difference between revolution and not revolution
I didnt say it was. Ill take what I can get though and Sanders is offering more aggressive steps towards what I want.
I mean really this is all incredibly silly. Sanders has given an ideal end state and a reasonable achievable first step to get there. Works for me.
I won't contest that the argument is a little silly, but it doesn't strike me as especially honest to start a debate by accusing Warren of only wanting 'minor tweaks' to our current power structure on the grounds that she said she didn't agree with Bernie's 'billionaires should not exist' slogan, persist for several pages in defending the idea that the difference between their positions on that issue is significant and important, and then - instead of making substantive responses to the rebuttals against that idea - respond to overwhelming disagreement by calling the whole thing 'incredibly silly' as though you're the one rising above the squabbling.
Youre grouping together several different coversations, points, and posters here.
No, I'm not; I'm happy to include some evidence to that effect if it'll help jog your memory.
I'm referring to a set of posts most exemplified by this one:
My concern with trying to just make sure everyone has enough etc while not enaging in redistribution for its own sake is that youre basically just leaving the power structure as is with some minor tweaking. That same power structure that caused the problem in the first place.
Day One they start clawing back to the bad old days because that benefitted them and youve left them with billions of dollars to do it with. Its trying to win without actually defeating your enemies.
What I would ask Bernie as a follow-up is: what is the exact number of dollars nobody should be able to exceed, and please tell me how you came to this number? I think this would force him to abandon the dumb artificiality of the question and talk about the core of the point he wants to make.
This is not substantially different than what the GOP does whenever someone wants to raise taxes!
which was in turn in reference to Warren saying she disagreed with Sanders' 'billionaires should not exist', about which you said things like:
I also don't see Warren making an affirmative case that there should be Billionaires in that quote, just not saying saying there shouldn't be Billionaires
Oh come on man
there is an actual difference between not being against something and actually being for something.
Yeah but they exist so either you think that should keep happening or you dont. It doesn't actually matter if you think billionaires should exist but think theyre lame.
again she didn't say that billionaires should exist she just didn't say they shouldn't
This is some really silly semantics.
Only if you're willfully interpreting the question in the narrowest, most literal way possible.
Sanders believes it should be a priority of government policy to ensure that there are no billionaires. Warren disagrees, and does not believe that government policy needs to oriented around ensuring nobody can ever be a billionaire. That's not the same thing as believing that society should be organized in a way that generates billionaires, or believing that billionaire status is inherently moral in some way, or believing that billionaires need to be protected somehow, or otherwise being 'pro-billionaire'.
A person can think 'hey, our society needs a better social safety net and universal healthcare etc, and those things need to be paid for, and the payment method that produces the best outcomes is taxing billionaires substantially more. I want to ensure that everyone in our society has a reasonable standard of living, and if the ultra-wealthy have to become less wealthy as a result, that's perfectly fine. And if the ultra-wealthy still have a billion dollars when we're done, that's also fine as long as all our actual goals are met.' without needing to also be possessed of a specific evangelical belief that billionaires must be rooted out and destroyed at all costs.
She explicitly says people who work hard and come up with something great should get to be billionaires if "they earn it".
She also wants to explicitly tax them significantly.
And they'll still benefit from billions stolen from labor. Its not enough.
Simply put, if Warren does not see the current oligarchic governing structure as a problem in of itself, and you do, it is not silly or nit-picking or anything other than reasonable to go 'oh hey that's why I won't support her over a candidate that does see that as a problem' because those fundamental values and priorities will dictate how that person would govern.
I mean okay but saying that "Warren does not see the current oligarchic governing structure as a problem in of itself" is, uh, a reach
We just got off a couple pages of talking about how she thinks if you work hard and come up with a good idea its ok if youre a billionaire.
She wants a kinder gentler version of the world we live in now, not a different one.
Im confused what your point is supposed to be here. Like I said, it seems like for some reason a lot of people are suddenly against incrementalism.
Sanders wants to take steps towards no billionaires. Warren wants to take a smaller step towards just taxing them more. Idk why its some point that even has to be agrued when socialists prefer the former.
Because what you're saying is disingenuous.
It would be more accurate to say "Sanders wants to take steps towards no billionaires by taxing them more. Warren also wants to take steps towards no billionaires but by taxing them slightly less."
As Warren has made affirnative arguments for when she thinks someone deserves to be a billionaire I'm not sure this has any basis in fact
And yet both of their tax plans will have about the same effect and neither one will eliminate billionaires. So yes, it does appear that we have an argument here that’s not based in fact.
I have not argued that Sanders's tax plan will do any such thing, only that its a step on that path, while for Warren it is not, as by her own admission she thinks you can earn a billion dollars.
They both do just about the same amount to eliminate billionaires and it’s silly for you to insist that for Bernie it’s a step towards his ultimate goal and for Warren it’s somehow less so.
This is weird because generally people complain about Sanders's disinterest in incrementalism.
The complaint isn't "Sanders is being incremental and we hate incrementalism"
It's "On this subject, Sanders is pretending to be revolutionary when he's actually being incremental. The promises and slogans - including 'billionaires should not exist!' - that supposedly distinguish him from the rest of the democratic field are, basically, bullshit he's unwilling or unable to back up, and yet his supporters are using them as a litmus test to 'prove' that Warren is insufficiently egalitarian and/or somehow in the pocket of Big Billionaire because she's not repeating them, even though their policies on this subject are virtually the same, and that is both inaccurate and frustrating."
Every other day of the week this board would be entirely fine with a candidate saying X and advocating less than X is real policy terms as a more manageable goal. Billionaires shouldn't exist. Taxes them heavily is the most reasonable step at the current time.
Senator Warren has a plan to do just that!
Sanders has a better plan to do it more heavily.
Only if "better" and "heavily" means 2% higher.
Pretending like that is some vast improvement seems kind of silly. It's a slightly higher rate, but they both basically want the same thing with respect to their policy.
2% is not the difference between revolution and not revolution
I didnt say it was. Ill take what I can get though and Sanders is offering more aggressive steps towards what I want.
I mean really this is all incredibly silly. Sanders has given an ideal end state and a reasonable achievable first step to get there. Works for me.
I won't contest that the argument is a little silly, but it doesn't strike me as especially honest to start a debate by accusing Warren of only wanting 'minor tweaks' to our current power structure on the grounds that she said she didn't agree with Bernie's 'billionaires should not exist' slogan, persist for several pages in defending the idea that the difference between their positions on that issue is significant and important, and then - instead of making substantive responses to the rebuttals against that idea - respond to overwhelming disagreement by calling the whole thing 'incredibly silly' as though you're the one rising above the squabbling.
Youre grouping together several different coversations, points, and posters here.
No, I'm not; I'm happy to include some evidence to that effect if it'll help jog your memory.
I'm referring to a set of posts most exemplified by this one:
My concern with trying to just make sure everyone has enough etc while not enaging in redistribution for its own sake is that youre basically just leaving the power structure as is with some minor tweaking. That same power structure that caused the problem in the first place.
Day One they start clawing back to the bad old days because that benefitted them and youve left them with billions of dollars to do it with. Its trying to win without actually defeating your enemies.
What I would ask Bernie as a follow-up is: what is the exact number of dollars nobody should be able to exceed, and please tell me how you came to this number? I think this would force him to abandon the dumb artificiality of the question and talk about the core of the point he wants to make.
This is not substantially different than what the GOP does whenever someone wants to raise taxes!
which was in turn in reference to Warren saying she disagreed with Sanders' 'billionaires should not exist', about which you said things like:
I also don't see Warren making an affirmative case that there should be Billionaires in that quote, just not saying saying there shouldn't be Billionaires
Oh come on man
there is an actual difference between not being against something and actually being for something.
Yeah but they exist so either you think that should keep happening or you dont. It doesn't actually matter if you think billionaires should exist but think theyre lame.
again she didn't say that billionaires should exist she just didn't say they shouldn't
This is some really silly semantics.
Only if you're willfully interpreting the question in the narrowest, most literal way possible.
Sanders believes it should be a priority of government policy to ensure that there are no billionaires. Warren disagrees, and does not believe that government policy needs to oriented around ensuring nobody can ever be a billionaire. That's not the same thing as believing that society should be organized in a way that generates billionaires, or believing that billionaire status is inherently moral in some way, or believing that billionaires need to be protected somehow, or otherwise being 'pro-billionaire'.
A person can think 'hey, our society needs a better social safety net and universal healthcare etc, and those things need to be paid for, and the payment method that produces the best outcomes is taxing billionaires substantially more. I want to ensure that everyone in our society has a reasonable standard of living, and if the ultra-wealthy have to become less wealthy as a result, that's perfectly fine. And if the ultra-wealthy still have a billion dollars when we're done, that's also fine as long as all our actual goals are met.' without needing to also be possessed of a specific evangelical belief that billionaires must be rooted out and destroyed at all costs.
She explicitly says people who work hard and come up with something great should get to be billionaires if "they earn it".
She also wants to explicitly tax them significantly.
And they'll still benefit from billions stolen from labor. Its not enough.
Simply put, if Warren does not see the current oligarchic governing structure as a problem in of itself, and you do, it is not silly or nit-picking or anything other than reasonable to go 'oh hey that's why I won't support her over a candidate that does see that as a problem' because those fundamental values and priorities will dictate how that person would govern.
I mean okay but saying that "Warren does not see the current oligarchic governing structure as a problem in of itself" is, uh, a reach
We just got off a couple pages of talking about how she thinks if you work hard and come up with a good idea its ok if youre a billionaire.
She wants a kinder gentler version of the world we live in now, not a different one.
Im confused what your point is supposed to be here. Like I said, it seems like for some reason a lot of people are suddenly against incrementalism.
Sanders wants to take steps towards no billionaires. Warren wants to take a smaller step towards just taxing them more. Idk why its some point that even has to be agrued when socialists prefer the former.
Because what you're saying is disingenuous.
It would be more accurate to say "Sanders wants to take steps towards no billionaires by taxing them more. Warren also wants to take steps towards no billionaires but by taxing them slightly less."
As Warren has made affirnative arguments for when she thinks someone deserves to be a billionaire I'm not sure this has any basis in fact
And yet both of their tax plans will have about the same effect and neither one will eliminate billionaires. So yes, it does appear that we have an argument here that’s not based in fact.
I have not argued that Sanders's tax plan will do any such thing, only that its a step on that path, while for Warren it is not, as by her own admission she thinks you can earn a billion dollars.
They both do just about the same amount to eliminate billionaires and it’s silly for you to insist that for Bernie it’s a step towards his ultimate goal and for Warren it’s somehow less so.
Im "insisting" they have different end goals because they do and that difference is significant to me and a lot of others. Idk how many ways to describe this.
This is weird because generally people complain about Sanders's disinterest in incrementalism.
The complaint isn't "Sanders is being incremental and we hate incrementalism"
It's "On this subject, Sanders is pretending to be revolutionary when he's actually being incremental. The promises and slogans - including 'billionaires should not exist!' - that supposedly distinguish him from the rest of the democratic field are, basically, bullshit he's unwilling or unable to back up, and yet his supporters are using them as a litmus test to 'prove' that Warren is insufficiently egalitarian and/or somehow in the pocket of Big Billionaire because she's not repeating them, even though their policies on this subject are virtually the same, and that is both inaccurate and frustrating."
Every other day of the week this board would be entirely fine with a candidate saying X and advocating less than X is real policy terms as a more manageable goal. Billionaires shouldn't exist. Taxes them heavily is the most reasonable step at the current time.
Senator Warren has a plan to do just that!
Sanders has a better plan to do it more heavily.
Only if "better" and "heavily" means 2% higher.
Pretending like that is some vast improvement seems kind of silly. It's a slightly higher rate, but they both basically want the same thing with respect to their policy.
2% is not the difference between revolution and not revolution
I didnt say it was. Ill take what I can get though and Sanders is offering more aggressive steps towards what I want.
I mean really this is all incredibly silly. Sanders has given an ideal end state and a reasonable achievable first step to get there. Works for me.
I won't contest that the argument is a little silly, but it doesn't strike me as especially honest to start a debate by accusing Warren of only wanting 'minor tweaks' to our current power structure on the grounds that she said she didn't agree with Bernie's 'billionaires should not exist' slogan, persist for several pages in defending the idea that the difference between their positions on that issue is significant and important, and then - instead of making substantive responses to the rebuttals against that idea - respond to overwhelming disagreement by calling the whole thing 'incredibly silly' as though you're the one rising above the squabbling.
Youre grouping together several different coversations, points, and posters here.
No, I'm not; I'm happy to include some evidence to that effect if it'll help jog your memory.
I'm referring to a set of posts most exemplified by this one:
My concern with trying to just make sure everyone has enough etc while not enaging in redistribution for its own sake is that youre basically just leaving the power structure as is with some minor tweaking. That same power structure that caused the problem in the first place.
Day One they start clawing back to the bad old days because that benefitted them and youve left them with billions of dollars to do it with. Its trying to win without actually defeating your enemies.
What I would ask Bernie as a follow-up is: what is the exact number of dollars nobody should be able to exceed, and please tell me how you came to this number? I think this would force him to abandon the dumb artificiality of the question and talk about the core of the point he wants to make.
This is not substantially different than what the GOP does whenever someone wants to raise taxes!
which was in turn in reference to Warren saying she disagreed with Sanders' 'billionaires should not exist', about which you said things like:
I also don't see Warren making an affirmative case that there should be Billionaires in that quote, just not saying saying there shouldn't be Billionaires
Oh come on man
there is an actual difference between not being against something and actually being for something.
Yeah but they exist so either you think that should keep happening or you dont. It doesn't actually matter if you think billionaires should exist but think theyre lame.
again she didn't say that billionaires should exist she just didn't say they shouldn't
This is some really silly semantics.
Only if you're willfully interpreting the question in the narrowest, most literal way possible.
Sanders believes it should be a priority of government policy to ensure that there are no billionaires. Warren disagrees, and does not believe that government policy needs to oriented around ensuring nobody can ever be a billionaire. That's not the same thing as believing that society should be organized in a way that generates billionaires, or believing that billionaire status is inherently moral in some way, or believing that billionaires need to be protected somehow, or otherwise being 'pro-billionaire'.
A person can think 'hey, our society needs a better social safety net and universal healthcare etc, and those things need to be paid for, and the payment method that produces the best outcomes is taxing billionaires substantially more. I want to ensure that everyone in our society has a reasonable standard of living, and if the ultra-wealthy have to become less wealthy as a result, that's perfectly fine. And if the ultra-wealthy still have a billion dollars when we're done, that's also fine as long as all our actual goals are met.' without needing to also be possessed of a specific evangelical belief that billionaires must be rooted out and destroyed at all costs.
She explicitly says people who work hard and come up with something great should get to be billionaires if "they earn it".
She also wants to explicitly tax them significantly.
And they'll still benefit from billions stolen from labor. Its not enough.
Simply put, if Warren does not see the current oligarchic governing structure as a problem in of itself, and you do, it is not silly or nit-picking or anything other than reasonable to go 'oh hey that's why I won't support her over a candidate that does see that as a problem' because those fundamental values and priorities will dictate how that person would govern.
I mean okay but saying that "Warren does not see the current oligarchic governing structure as a problem in of itself" is, uh, a reach
We just got off a couple pages of talking about how she thinks if you work hard and come up with a good idea its ok if youre a billionaire.
She wants a kinder gentler version of the world we live in now, not a different one.
Im confused what your point is supposed to be here. Like I said, it seems like for some reason a lot of people are suddenly against incrementalism.
Sanders wants to take steps towards no billionaires. Warren wants to take a smaller step towards just taxing them more. Idk why its some point that even has to be agrued when socialists prefer the former.
Because what you're saying is disingenuous.
It would be more accurate to say "Sanders wants to take steps towards no billionaires by taxing them more. Warren also wants to take steps towards no billionaires but by taxing them slightly less."
As Warren has made affirnative arguments for when she thinks someone deserves to be a billionaire I'm not sure this has any basis in fact
And yet both of their tax plans will have about the same effect and neither one will eliminate billionaires. So yes, it does appear that we have an argument here that’s not based in fact.
I have not argued that Sanders's tax plan will do any such thing, only that its a step on that path, while for Warren it is not, as by her own admission she thinks you can earn a billion dollars.
They both do just about the same amount to eliminate billionaires and it’s silly for you to insist that for Bernie it’s a step towards his ultimate goal and for Warren it’s somehow less so.
Im "insisting" they have different end goals because they do and that difference is significant to me and a lot of others. Idk how many ways to describe this.
I completely understand your position. But it’s absurd to call a 2-3% difference in their tax plans “significant”. Their plans are basically the same. And that’s the point others are getting at.
Yang plan doesn't apply to non citizens, which I understand logistically why he wouldn't want to, but there's a huge, real danger of it causing an even bigger class divide between citizens and immigrants (which includes legal residents and legal immigrants) who would be paying into said program.
I am a big supporter of Andrew Yang. Far and away, I favor him to the other candidates. When I talk to friends and associates, they often don't see what I consider to be the foundation of his approach to problem solving: empowering people with the freedom of choice. Andrew Yang isn't about telling people how to live. He's about empowering people to live the way they want.
A $1k/mo. UBI acts like dozens of different social programs all at once. Childcare, transition assistance, financial assistance to union workers on strike, job training, food stamps, heating oil, or the cost of taking your kids to a museum; it’s whatever social program you need this month. Instead of telling people how they have to live, having reporting requirements, case managers, forms, and approvals, we invest in people and let them decide what they need most and how they’ll get it.
But it runs deeper than that. Yang has big plans for what would be available to Americans, but it’s all opt in. He’s often said that he would “never pull the rug out from under anyone”. He wants a UBI for all citizens and for everyone to be on Medicare. But he doesn’t want to force anyone onto them or off of what they have now. He wants to make those programs the best possible choice for everyone, make them available to everyone, and let people transition when and how they choose.
That connects to the other thing I love about him: universality; his policies apply to everyone. It genuinely saddens me every time I hear someone ask why his Universal Basic Income program needs to be universal, because they always follow it up with a list of people they want to keep out. Economically, it’s more effective and more efficient to eliminate the bureaucracy of reporting and monitoring. (It’s also a more positive experience for people on the program.) But, more importantly, Andrew Yang’s UBI, the “Freedom Dividend”, is designed as a right of citizenship. Because this country is ours. It belongs to us; all of us.
An extra 2k a month covers about 3/4 of my childcare costs, which despite both holding middle class jobs would still be nice for me and my family and would effect our quality of life. But I don't think it's money well spent.
People who make twice as much or more then us need to be given money from the government about as much as they need another hole in their heads.
Especially when it all comes at the cost of destroying the social safety net and replacing it with something worse.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
+5
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I care less about the actual plans than the message. Plans change, especially when they have to go through congress. I'd be interested to know how comfortable voters are with having billionaires
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I am a big supporter of Andrew Yang. Far and away, I favor him to the other candidates. When I talk to friends and associates, they often don't see what I consider to be the foundation of his approach to problem solving: empowering people with the freedom of choice. Andrew Yang isn't about telling people how to live. He's about empowering people to live the way they want.
A $1k/mo. UBI acts like dozens of different social programs all at once. Childcare, transition assistance, financial assistance to union workers on strike, job training, food stamps, heating oil, or the cost of taking your kids to a museum; it’s whatever social program you need this month. Instead of telling people how they have to live, having reporting requirements, case managers, forms, and approvals, we invest in people and let them decide what they need most and how they’ll get it.
But it runs deeper than that. Yang has big plans for what would be available to Americans, but it’s all opt in. He’s often said that he would “never pull the rug out from under anyone”. He wants a UBI for all citizens and for everyone to be on Medicare. But he doesn’t want to force anyone onto them or off of what they have now. He wants to make those programs the best possible choice for everyone, make them available to everyone, and let people transition when and how they choose.
That connects to the other thing I love about him: universality; his policies apply to everyone. It genuinely saddens me every time I hear someone ask why his Universal Basic Income program needs to be universal, because they always follow it up with a list of people they want to keep out. Economically, it’s more effective and more efficient to eliminate the bureaucracy of reporting and monitoring. (It’s also a more positive experience for people on the program.) But, more importantly, Andrew Yang’s UBI, the “Freedom Dividend”, is designed as a right of citizenship. Because this country is ours. It belongs to us; all of us.
The problem is $1,000 a month isn't anywhere near sufficient a UBI, which ideally would be setting a floor for "A human being can have a decent to good standard of living on this without fear of precarity"
at $1,000 a month, it's still precarity and does doesn't do anywhere near freeing people in this country from the dangers of joblessness. I'm not sure it even covers rent in a lot of the country anymore.
What is yang's solution to everyone's rent going up $1000
One thing he'll do is work to establish more low cost housing, in general, by lifting some zoning restrictions. But the consequence of putting $1000/month in people's hands is that it actually makes us harder to exploit. People could afford to move to a wider range of locations and even if every landlord within 100 miles all tried to raise rents, people could pool the money and rent or buy a house. By putting more options on the table, it makes the whole market more competitive, keeping prices down.
Is there some reason Warren and Sanders are both hitting the idea of a wealth tax so hard, rather than getting the money from the super rich other ways, such as raising capital gains taxes?
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
It doesn't really matter if it's 2% or 2 cents. If people think that 6% is better than 8%, that's useful info. It means that people don't want 10% or 12% or 90%. We think 6% is enough for the foreseeable future.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Is there some reason Warren and Sanders are both hitting the idea of a wealth tax so hard, rather than getting the money from the super rich other ways, such as raising capital gains taxes?
Its just been a point of contention since a recent quote of Warren's
What is yang's solution to everyone's rent going up $1000
One thing he'll do is work to establish more low cost housing, in general, by lifting some zoning restrictions. But the consequence of putting $1000/month in people's hands is that it actually makes us harder to exploit. People could afford to move to a wider range of locations and even if every landlord within 100 miles all tried to raise rents, people could pool the money and rent or buy a house. By putting more options on the table, it makes the whole market more competitive, keeping prices down.
But I mean
$1000 isn't enough to do that.
It needs to be higher. Like, "equivalent to a living wage" higher.
UBI can't be a supplement to work, it has to set a floor for a standard of living.
Is there some reason Warren and Sanders are both hitting the idea of a wealth tax so hard, rather than getting the money from the super rich other ways, such as raising capital gains taxes?
Lots of money is just sitting there, right? So capital gains or other transactional-based wouldn't actually touch billions of dollars? Not 100% sure this is correct though.
As far as I know, capital gains tax would be changed, but I'm too lazy to find out exactly how.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
What is yang's solution to everyone's rent going up $1000
One thing he'll do is work to establish more low cost housing, in general, by lifting some zoning restrictions. But the consequence of putting $1000/month in people's hands is that it actually makes us harder to exploit. People could afford to move to a wider range of locations and even if every landlord within 100 miles all tried to raise rents, people could pool the money and rent or buy a house. By putting more options on the table, it makes the whole market more competitive, keeping prices down.
What's stopping people from pooling funds and renting or buying now, in a world without artificially inflated rents?
Is there some reason Warren and Sanders are both hitting the idea of a wealth tax so hard, rather than getting the money from the super rich other ways, such as raising capital gains taxes?
Lot of wealth just sits around and does jack, pooling away from the labor that generates it and into the bank accounts and company shares of the people who own the labor of their employees.
So you have to recirculate that to promote a healthier economic ecosystem, which also has the benefit of removing what is a major source of societal power from an aristocratic/oligarchal class.
Yang plan doesn't apply to non citizens, which I understand logistically why he wouldn't want to, but there's a huge, real danger of it causing an even bigger class divide between citizens and immigrants (which includes legal residents and legal immigrants) who would be paying into said program.
That was actually one of the first questions I had. That and what to do about people who don't opt in. But his plan includes a path to citizenship for *everyone* who wants it. And he's said existing programs can be re-balanced to protect those that stay on.
What is yang's solution to everyone's rent going up $1000
One thing he'll do is work to establish more low cost housing, in general, by lifting some zoning restrictions. But the consequence of putting $1000/month in people's hands is that it actually makes us harder to exploit. People could afford to move to a wider range of locations and even if every landlord within 100 miles all tried to raise rents, people could pool the money and rent or buy a house. By putting more options on the table, it makes the whole market more competitive, keeping prices down.
What's stopping people from pooling funds and renting or buying now, in a world without artificially inflated rents?
Some people have zero income or less
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
What is yang's solution to everyone's rent going up $1000
One thing he'll do is work to establish more low cost housing, in general, by lifting some zoning restrictions. But the consequence of putting $1000/month in people's hands is that it actually makes us harder to exploit. People could afford to move to a wider range of locations and even if every landlord within 100 miles all tried to raise rents, people could pool the money and rent or buy a house. By putting more options on the table, it makes the whole market more competitive, keeping prices down.
But I mean
$1000 isn't enough to do that.
It needs to be higher. Like, "equivalent to a living wage" higher.
UBI can't be a supplement to work, it has to set a floor for a standard of living.
Problem with UBI is it's not a safety net. It would be better to build (and maintain and secure) basic living spaces for folks that are clean/safe/etc, and make food staples free, and basic medical services free. Let things like UBI/salaries let you buy up to a better living space, or eat better food, or purchase more comfortable medical. Ensure people have basics available for free, period. The spectre of a "choice" is a bad one. If you just give UBI, some people will do just fine, and some will misbudget (for varying reasons). If the UBI is AFTER basics, then if a person blows their whole UBI on strip joints, who cares?
0
Options
valhalla13013 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered Userregular
So a populist would be an anti-elitist? I wish they'd just say that.
Do people not use dictionaries anymore? Populism as a concept has been around for decades if not a century. It simply means appealing to the "common populace." There are multiple ways to go about it depending on the perceived bent of which populace you're discussing.
Saying Trump and Sanders are both populists does not mean they are the same in every other way, and saying that is what people mean is disingenuous.
I am a big supporter of Andrew Yang. Far and away, I favor him to the other candidates. When I talk to friends and associates, they often don't see what I consider to be the foundation of his approach to problem solving: empowering people with the freedom of choice. Andrew Yang isn't about telling people how to live. He's about empowering people to live the way they want.
A $1k/mo. UBI acts like dozens of different social programs all at once. Childcare, transition assistance, financial assistance to union workers on strike, job training, food stamps, heating oil, or the cost of taking your kids to a museum; it’s whatever social program you need this month. Instead of telling people how they have to live, having reporting requirements, case managers, forms, and approvals, we invest in people and let them decide what they need most and how they’ll get it.
But it runs deeper than that. Yang has big plans for what would be available to Americans, but it’s all opt in. He’s often said that he would “never pull the rug out from under anyone”. He wants a UBI for all citizens and for everyone to be on Medicare. But he doesn’t want to force anyone onto them or off of what they have now. He wants to make those programs the best possible choice for everyone, make them available to everyone, and let people transition when and how they choose.
That connects to the other thing I love about him: universality; his policies apply to everyone. It genuinely saddens me every time I hear someone ask why his Universal Basic Income program needs to be universal, because they always follow it up with a list of people they want to keep out. Economically, it’s more effective and more efficient to eliminate the bureaucracy of reporting and monitoring. (It’s also a more positive experience for people on the program.) But, more importantly, Andrew Yang’s UBI, the “Freedom Dividend”, is designed as a right of citizenship. Because this country is ours. It belongs to us; all of us.
An extra 2k a month covers about 3/4 of my childcare costs, which despite both holding middle class jobs would still be nice for me and my family and would effect our quality of life. But I don't think it's money well spent.
People who make twice as much or more then us need to be given money from the government about as much as they need another hole in their heads.
Especially when it all comes at the cost of destroying the social safety net and replacing it with something worse.
To be clear, the existing social safety net would remain intact. That's what I love. I think this is a better option and I think 90+% of Americans will agree, but we all get to choose if we think it's better or worse for each of us. I'm betting most families would prefer to get checks free and clear every month rather than live in fear of having things taken away because they made too much money recently or didn't file a form in time. And a universal program will be protected by universal popularity. That's what happened in Alaska. This is also a safety net that immediately and automatically protects someone who didn't need it as much last month, but they just lost their job.
As for the wealthiest Americans, they'll be paying way more into the system then they are getting out of it, just as a consequence of the VAT.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
So a populist would be an anti-elitist? I wish they'd just say that.
Do people not use dictionaries anymore? Populism as a concept has been around for decades if not a century. It simply means appealing to the "common populace." There are multiple ways to go about it depending on the perceived bent of which populace you're discussing.
Saying Trump and Sanders are both populists does not mean they are the same in every other way, and saying that is what people mean is disingenuous.
Again, there were populist factions in the Roman Republic. It's a rhetorical style, it isn't really about the content of said rhetoric
6. As you may know, it has been recently reported that Michael Bloomberg is preparing for a possible candidacy in the Democratic presidential primary. Would you definitely vote for him in the Democratic primary, consider voting for him in the Democratic primary, or would you definitely not vote for him in the Democratic primary? (Question asked 11/8/2019 - 11/10/2019)
Posts
She has a different intent. Bernie advocates for progress towards a classless society, or appears to be heading that way. To put up a really terrible analogy, it's like they're both driving down a two lane road. Currently they're going in the same direction, but Bernie is in the left lane and signalling for that upcoming turn. Warren isn't signalling.
It's also a symptom of a pretty slow news cycle for the primaries, because this is largely based on a Fox News story covering the Presidential Forum on Environmental Justice which didn't really have much going on. It basically had Warren and Booker plus some also-rans.
And yet both of their tax plans will have about the same effect and neither one will eliminate billionaires. So yes, it does appear that we have an argument here that’s not based in fact.
A $1k/mo. UBI acts like dozens of different social programs all at once. Childcare, transition assistance, financial assistance to union workers on strike, job training, food stamps, heating oil, or the cost of taking your kids to a museum; it’s whatever social program you need this month. Instead of telling people how they have to live, having reporting requirements, case managers, forms, and approvals, we invest in people and let them decide what they need most and how they’ll get it.
But it runs deeper than that. Yang has big plans for what would be available to Americans, but it’s all opt in. He’s often said that he would “never pull the rug out from under anyone”. He wants a UBI for all citizens and for everyone to be on Medicare. But he doesn’t want to force anyone onto them or off of what they have now. He wants to make those programs the best possible choice for everyone, make them available to everyone, and let people transition when and how they choose.
That connects to the other thing I love about him: universality; his policies apply to everyone. It genuinely saddens me every time I hear someone ask why his Universal Basic Income program needs to be universal, because they always follow it up with a list of people they want to keep out. Economically, it’s more effective and more efficient to eliminate the bureaucracy of reporting and monitoring. (It’s also a more positive experience for people on the program.) But, more importantly, Andrew Yang’s UBI, the “Freedom Dividend”, is designed as a right of citizenship. Because this country is ours. It belongs to us; all of us.
I have not argued that Sanders's tax plan will do any such thing, only that its a step on that path, while for Warren it is not, as by her own admission she thinks you can earn a billion dollars.
Biden 20
Warren 16
Buttigieg 15
Sanders 14
Gabbard 6
Yang 4
Klobuchar 3
Steyer 3
Fuck you, New Hampshire.
They both do just about the same amount to eliminate billionaires and it’s silly for you to insist that for Bernie it’s a step towards his ultimate goal and for Warren it’s somehow less so.
Im "insisting" they have different end goals because they do and that difference is significant to me and a lot of others. Idk how many ways to describe this.
Well you see once he uses it as cover to cut social spending all those people can be homeless again soooo
I completely understand your position. But it’s absurd to call a 2-3% difference in their tax plans “significant”. Their plans are basically the same. And that’s the point others are getting at.
Sanders claws back substantially more wealth
An extra 2k a month covers about 3/4 of my childcare costs, which despite both holding middle class jobs would still be nice for me and my family and would effect our quality of life. But I don't think it's money well spent.
People who make twice as much or more then us need to be given money from the government about as much as they need another hole in their heads.
Especially when it all comes at the cost of destroying the social safety net and replacing it with something worse.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Theyre about a month old, if she's released more numbers Id appreciate a link
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
This chart is a good example of "how to present information in a dishonest manner, not with charts!"
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
At these wealth levels thats a lot of money!
The problem is $1,000 a month isn't anywhere near sufficient a UBI, which ideally would be setting a floor for "A human being can have a decent to good standard of living on this without fear of precarity"
at $1,000 a month, it's still precarity and does doesn't do anywhere near freeing people in this country from the dangers of joblessness. I'm not sure it even covers rent in a lot of the country anymore.
One thing he'll do is work to establish more low cost housing, in general, by lifting some zoning restrictions. But the consequence of putting $1000/month in people's hands is that it actually makes us harder to exploit. People could afford to move to a wider range of locations and even if every landlord within 100 miles all tried to raise rents, people could pool the money and rent or buy a house. By putting more options on the table, it makes the whole market more competitive, keeping prices down.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Its just been a point of contention since a recent quote of Warren's
But I mean
$1000 isn't enough to do that.
It needs to be higher. Like, "equivalent to a living wage" higher.
UBI can't be a supplement to work, it has to set a floor for a standard of living.
Lots of money is just sitting there, right? So capital gains or other transactional-based wouldn't actually touch billions of dollars? Not 100% sure this is correct though.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
What's stopping people from pooling funds and renting or buying now, in a world without artificially inflated rents?
Lot of wealth just sits around and does jack, pooling away from the labor that generates it and into the bank accounts and company shares of the people who own the labor of their employees.
So you have to recirculate that to promote a healthier economic ecosystem, which also has the benefit of removing what is a major source of societal power from an aristocratic/oligarchal class.
That was actually one of the first questions I had. That and what to do about people who don't opt in. But his plan includes a path to citizenship for *everyone* who wants it. And he's said existing programs can be re-balanced to protect those that stay on.
Some people have zero income or less
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Problem with UBI is it's not a safety net. It would be better to build (and maintain and secure) basic living spaces for folks that are clean/safe/etc, and make food staples free, and basic medical services free. Let things like UBI/salaries let you buy up to a better living space, or eat better food, or purchase more comfortable medical. Ensure people have basics available for free, period. The spectre of a "choice" is a bad one. If you just give UBI, some people will do just fine, and some will misbudget (for varying reasons). If the UBI is AFTER basics, then if a person blows their whole UBI on strip joints, who cares?
Do people not use dictionaries anymore? Populism as a concept has been around for decades if not a century. It simply means appealing to the "common populace." There are multiple ways to go about it depending on the perceived bent of which populace you're discussing.
Saying Trump and Sanders are both populists does not mean they are the same in every other way, and saying that is what people mean is disingenuous.
To be clear, the existing social safety net would remain intact. That's what I love. I think this is a better option and I think 90+% of Americans will agree, but we all get to choose if we think it's better or worse for each of us. I'm betting most families would prefer to get checks free and clear every month rather than live in fear of having things taken away because they made too much money recently or didn't file a form in time. And a universal program will be protected by universal popularity. That's what happened in Alaska. This is also a safety net that immediately and automatically protects someone who didn't need it as much last month, but they just lost their job.
As for the wealthiest Americans, they'll be paying way more into the system then they are getting out of it, just as a consequence of the VAT.
Again, there were populist factions in the Roman Republic. It's a rhetorical style, it isn't really about the content of said rhetoric
My favorite question from it:
CANDIDATE OF CHOICE Q2............................. Biden Sanders Warren Buttigieg Definitely vote 9% - 1% 2%Bloomberg enters, the top-line becomes:
Warren 15
Sanders 14
Buttigieg 13
Bloomberg 12
Biden 11