Democratic Socialism in the U.S and How to Pay for It?

[New haven america]

It's a smart answer and you decided to reply with a stupid answer.

It literally made me vomit in my mouth.

That's also a stupid response.

[Kramanica]

It literally made me vomit in my mouth.

That's also a stupid response.

It was necessary.

[New haven america]

That's also a stupid response.

It was necessary.

Necessarily stupid.

[Torrocca]

Sorry, friendo, but you don't have Jeb! and his Popular American Liberation Army on your side for this round. :^)

"I felt a great disturbance in the InfoWars, as if millions of frogs suddenly croaked out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened."

[Kramanica]

It was necessary.

Necessarily stupid.

You're just made that you can't come up with banter like this.

Don't h8.

[Kramanica]

"I felt a great disturbance in the InfoWars, as if millions of frogs suddenly croaked out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened."

"Torrocca, I am your father."

[Torrocca]

"I felt a great disturbance in the InfoWars, as if millions of frogs suddenly croaked out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened."

"Torrocca, I am your father."

"No, nooo! that's not true... that's IMPOSSIBLE!"

[Costa Fierro]

I still think it's too low. Income tax in the UK used to be at 83% before Thatcher, and at (lol) 99.75% during the war. I would think 60% for the highest earners would be a reasonable ballpark figure, decreasing for those who earn less with none paid by people near or under the poverty line.

I think there's a fine line between taxing people too much to the point where the highest earners simply up sticks and leave the country, and taxing them too little. 40% I would think is a sweet spot, perhaps 45%.

Yes, that would mean that unfortunately.

The limiting factor in any long-term changes in the United States is the willingness (or lack thereof) of it's politicians to commit to change.

Being what? A nuclear apocalypse after which the state has to pay for everyone to have their third head removed? 14x the US government's revenue is a massive figure, I simply can't fathom how the introduction of something which has been introduced in plenty of other places without anywhere near that level of financial strain would do this to the world's largest economy.

No, the idea that it becomes to massive and too costly to be practical. The worst case scenarios are coined by those who have a vested interest in maintaining the current system, because the apparent orthodoxy is that the "free market keeps prices low thanks to competition".

[New haven america]

Necessarily stupid.

You're just made that you can't come up with banter like this.

Your sentence can't even spell the word "Mad" right.

[The Lone Alliance]

Really I lean left and I can't even see how they could pay for all that, really the only thing that could really make medicaid for all workable is if you went after hospital and doctor mark ups and while that would be a nice thing that entire system is so ingrained that trying to make a hospital stop charging 600$ for a bandaid will likely get the entire medical industry going postal.

We do at least need a trillion sank into infanstructure and I can see that being doable, but in order to really get a socialized health care system in the US you're going to have to do a lot more than just reform insurance you're likely going to have to completely restructure the entire healthcare industry in general and that's a lot of money, and while restructuring it to make it less price gougy might make healthcare cheaper it'll like have some drastic side effects on down the road... if Doctors and stuff just don't decide to up and go on strike because you're going after their profits.

[Costa Fierro]

Really I lean left and I can't even see how they could pay for all that, really the only thing that could really make medicaid for all workable is if you went after hospital and doctor mark ups and while that would be a nice thing that entire system is so ingrained that trying to make a hospital stop charging 600$ for a bandaid will likely get the entire medical industry going postal.

I would think a better idea would be to have a different system whereby people all had basic healthcare plans that covered emergency care, emergency treatment and other essential care that was paid for by contributions by those who were employed and the employers, with the government subsidising healthcare and pharmaceuticals.

This of course assumes that one, I've accidentally described Medicaid/Medicare and that subsidising anything other than corporations is something Congress could do.

if Doctors and stuff just don't decide to up and go on strike because you're going after their profits.

Why would they?

[The Lone Alliance]

Really I lean left and I can't even see how they could pay for all that, really the only thing that could really make medicaid for all workable is if you went after hospital and doctor mark ups and while that would be a nice thing that entire system is so ingrained that trying to make a hospital stop charging 600$ for a bandaid will likely get the entire medical industry going postal.

I would think a better idea would be to have a different system whereby people all had basic healthcare plans that covered emergency care, emergency treatment and other essential care that was paid for by contributions by those who were employed and the employers, with the government subsidising healthcare and pharmaceuticals.

This of course assumes that one, I've accidentally described Medicaid/Medicare and that subsidising anything other than corporations is something Congress could do.

Yes and apparently that'll cost trillions and trillions of dollars. And you fail to realize that healthcare and pharmaceuticals are corporations as well, powerful ones in the US.

Perhaps the most powerful lobbying industry in the US is in the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry.

Why would they?

Because I'd be stripping the medical industry of much of it's wealth.

My plan would more or less take a hatchet to the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry. No more $200 for a pill that cost 20 cents to make. No more 500 dollar bandaids. Such a thing is liable to royally piss off the health care industry.

[Costa Fierro]

Yes and apparently that'll cost trillions and trillions of dollars. Hence the problem.

Not really. The main costs of insurance would be borne by employers and individuals. The main costs of subsidies would be by the government. And I don't believe it'd cost trillions, but who knows given how messy the system is.

Because I'd be stripping the medical industry of much of it's wealth.

I don't think doctors would strike if income was guaranteed. Instead of the person paying upfront, it'd be insurance. That's usually how it works.

My plan would more or less take a hatchet to the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry. No more $200 for a pill that cost 20 cents to make. No more 500 dollar bandaids. Such a thing is liable to royally piss off the health care industry.

$200 for pills is ridiculous still.

[Kramanica]

"Torrocca, I am your father."

"No, nooo! that's not true... that's IMPOSSIBLE!"

"Search your feelings. You know it to be. Join me and I shall complete your training."

[Kramanica]

You're just made that you can't come up with banter like this.

Your sentence can't even spell the word "Mad" right.

Weren't you the one whining about autocorrect? :')

[Big Jim P]

As long as we're not actually stupid enough to embrace socialism (democratic or otherwise), then there is nothing to pay for.

[Oil exporting People]

1. And as I said before, I'm surprised they let you out.
2. I like how you pretend to be smart, without actually knowing what you're talking about. Excluding a small dip in 2014(That still stayed within the $600 billion range), since 2008 the US' military spending has consistently remained above $600 billion and has been growing since 2016. Furthermore, bull fucking shit, US military spending has never been at Pre-9/11 numbers since 9/11 (If you couldn't guess). If we have less combat ready brigades then we did in 2003, it's not because of a lack of money, it's because of military's inability to actually conduct itself and operate to the best of its abilities, doesn't that seem like a bigger issue?

I don't pretend because I am, as I can tell the difference between real terms and nominal terms. Your repeated citation of $600 Billion is a nominal figure, because of this thing called inflation; if defense spending has been stuck at $600 Billion since 2008 then it's not worth $600 Billion in real terms now. Now, to repeat myself, Defense outlays are at around 15% of federal spending, which is actually lower than it was before September 11th. Since 2010, defense spending as % of GDP has declined from 4.7% to 3.3% in 2015. These are measurements in real terms, not a nominal figure.

3. And this post proves how you're wrong, ain't that nice?
4. Yet again, read thoroughly.

Just because you claim I'm wrong does not make it so, especially given you're attempting to retroactively change the meaning of a post that any rational observer could see the holes in.

[Oil exporting People]

Most rich people are actually born into their wealth, and it's becoming increasingly rarer for people to actually earn their wealth.

80% of Millionaires Are First Generation Millionaires; in other words, only 20% are actually born into wealth.

[New haven america]

Your sentence can't even spell the word "Mad" right.

Weren't you the one whining about autocorrect? :')

But this isn't an argument, this is talking about why your reactions are stupid.

Like the above reaction.

[New haven america]

Most rich people are actually born into their wealth, and it's becoming increasingly rarer for people to actually earn their wealth.

80% of Millionaires Are First Generation Millionaires; in other words, only 20% are actually born into wealth.

We already went over why this claim is BS pages ago, go read.

[Oil exporting People]

80% of Millionaires Are First Generation Millionaires; in other words, only 20% are actually born into wealth.

We already went over why this claim is BS pages ago, go read.

No, no it is not and again, just because you say something is false does not make it so. Either cite a source or admit you were wrong.

[New haven america]

We already went over why this claim is BS pages ago, go read.

1.No, no it is not and again, 2. just because you say something is false does not make it so. 3.Either cite a source or admit you were wrong.

1. Yes, yes it is
2. Yeah, we had a discussion about that pages ago, go read.
3. Except I did cite a source, a person, actually, pages ago. Yet again, go read.

[Oil exporting People]

1.No, no it is not and again, 2. just because you say something is false does not make it so. 3.Either cite a source or admit you were wrong.

1. Yes, yes it is
2. Yeah, we had a discussion about that pages ago, go read.
3. Except I did cite a source, a person, actually, pages ago. Yet again, go read.

I went back all the way to page 10, you've made exactly no citations for your claim and the only post I could see where you cited a "person" was this:

You are aware that those "Self-made Millionaires/Billionaires" aren't really self made, correct?

Usually what happens is that they have parents or family who are upper-middle class who can support them and get them services and training that other people can't get a hold of, causing their children/grandchildren/family to get a massive leg up in society, and keep their wealth solely with the family.

Kylie Jenner's probably the most recent example, she's technically a "Self-made Billionaire" even though she's really just piggybacking off the work of her parents and siblings (Her mom specifically).

Since you're evidently unaware of it, because Kylie Jenner exists as a billionaire does not prove your point. Now, either cite a source verifying your claim or admit you were wrong.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

You are aware that those "Self-made Millionaires/Billionaires" aren't really self made, correct?

Usually what happens is that they have parents or family who are upper-middle class who can support them and get them services and training that other people can't get a hold of, causing their children/grandchildren/family to get a massive leg up in society, and keep their wealth solely with the family.

Kylie Jenner's probably the most recent example, she's technically a "Self-made Billionaire" even though she's really just piggybacking off the work of her parents and siblings (Her mom specifically).

Since you're evidently unaware of it, because Kylie Jenner exists as a billionaire does not prove your point. Now, either cite a source verifying your claim or admit you were wrong.

1. The plural of anecdote is not data
2. 60% of wealth in the US is inherited, plus wealthier families can afford better education for their children. Would Donald Trump have got to where he is today with a small loan of $100 rather than a small loan of $1,000,000?

[Uxupox]

Since you're evidently unaware of it, because Kylie Jenner exists as a billionaire does not prove your point. Now, either cite a source verifying your claim or admit you were wrong.

1. The plural of anecdote is not data
2. 60% of wealth in the US is inherited, plus wealthier families can afford better education for their children. Would Donald Trump have got to where he is today with a small loan of $100 rather than a small loan of $1,000,000?

# 2 is simply not true.