Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Yo, can we talk about this? Because this is fucking beautiful:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sanders-rolls-out-bezos-act-that-would-tax-companies-for-welfare-their-employees-receive-2018-09-05
It's a year old, but damn, if something like this became law, can you imagine? A 100% tax on corporations equal to the full amount the government pays their employees in welfare. Because if you have a job, you shouldn't NEED welfare.



Around the Network
HylianSwordsman said:
Yo, can we talk about this? Because this is fucking beautiful:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sanders-rolls-out-bezos-act-that-would-tax-companies-for-welfare-their-employees-receive-2018-09-05
It's a year old, but damn, if something like this became law, can you imagine? A 100% tax on corporations equal to the full amount the government pays their employees in welfare. Because if you have a job, you shouldn't NEED welfare.

By far one of my favorite plans of his. 



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

HylianSwordsman said:
Yo, can we talk about this? Because this is fucking beautiful:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sanders-rolls-out-bezos-act-that-would-tax-companies-for-welfare-their-employees-receive-2018-09-05
It's a year old, but damn, if something like this became law, can you imagine? A 100% tax on corporations equal to the full amount the government pays their employees in welfare. Because if you have a job, you shouldn't NEED welfare.



 

HylianSwordsman said:

I'm surprised no one talked about the climate change town hall debate:

https://www.vox.com/2019/9/5/20850009/cnn-climate-town-hall-2020-presidential-democrats-winners-and-losers

I agree with pretty much every point of this article. It was a pretty well done town hall, Jay Inslee got pretty much everything he wanted out of his candidacy except the presidency himself, there were good, knowledgeable questions being asked that got to the meat of the subject (sometimes literally), and it was a good move for CNN and the Democratic party to hold it. Bernie kicked ass, showing masterful knowledge of the subject matter and the details of his plan. Warren did well too, and had a few good lines. Biden looked like a fool and is being portrayed as one all over because he was stupid enough to schedule an oil and gas fundraiser with the super rich right after this town hall. He's looking more obsolete by the second.

Edit: Also, while the Dems do get to look good for doing this, the credit is being rightfully given to the Sunrise Movement for successfully pushing for this.

It was 7 hours. I doubt anyone wanted to watch it all. I did see some clips on youtube and overall it looks promising but some candidates said some crazy stuff. Like Warren promising to build no more nuclear power and Bernie wanting population control.



HylianSwordsman said:
Yo, can we talk about this? Because this is fucking beautiful:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sanders-rolls-out-bezos-act-that-would-tax-companies-for-welfare-their-employees-receive-2018-09-05
It's a year old, but damn, if something like this became law, can you imagine? A 100% tax on corporations equal to the full amount the government pays their employees in welfare. Because if you have a job, you shouldn't NEED welfare.

This is pretty ironic considering that his own staffers were struggling to make ends meet a few weeks ago.

Last edited by jason1637 - on 08 September 2019

Around the Network

At the end of the day, stuff like the climate debate was always going to attract the attention of hardline echo-chamber groups like Justice Dems and Sunrise Movement. Whatever was said won't matter, and in the end of the day, Biden will still fight hard to combat climate change, no matter what random 16-year olds think.



morenoingrato said:
At the end of the day, stuff like the climate debate was always going to attract the attention of hardline echo-chamber groups like Justice Dems and Sunrise Movement. Whatever was said won't matter, and in the end of the day, Biden will still fight hard to combat climate change, no matter what random 16-year olds think.

If Biden wins the nomination, of course. I don't think he will do as much as Sanders or Warren would do, but he would do some things to mitigate the change for sure.



Steyer has qualified for the 4th debate. And Gabbard is one poll away. Another two-nighter incoming, it seems.



 

 

 

 

 

jason1637 said:

Debate positions.

Not a bad lineup to be honest. While Biden is a bit of a conservative/moderate, he is still a left leaning one.

Now, I don't mean to rant, but:

I get a little surprised when I see Andrew Yang criticized as being a right-winger. This is clearly not the case as he is pushing for the most massive boost to low-income/no-income earners of anyone in US history. He's one of my favourites, probably 4th or 5th... I'll say tied for 4th with Castro.

I am a big supporter of Elizabeth Warren's no-more-corporate-bullshit approach - breaking up big tech would be healthy for the Western economy, and if Warren brings in the US Wealth-Tax then I can see EU countries following very shortly after. The big issue with wealth taxation in the past is that it is done in some countries but not others, and wealthy people can simply move their assets or accounts. I think an agreement across developed nations for a 2% Wealth tax would work wonders for public funding.

Bernie Sanders is my #2 pick, his policy positions are almost as good as Elizabeth Warren. What puts him behind her, for me, is that he tends to be very vague in what he is talking about, he lacks the precision of Elizabeth Warren. He's no more a socialist than Ron Paul is a libertarian. Bernie Sanders is a social democrat, just like Elizabeth Warren, which is a capitalist (and Ron Paul is/was a neoliberal). Normally, this wouldn't bother me at all, but people in this forum have actually tried to argue that he is a "market socialist" and have linked the wikipedia article - three problems with calling Bernie Sanders a market socialist: 1. Bernie Sanders has never called himself a market socialist, he has called himself a democratic socialist; 2. The core mechanic of market socialism still abolishes the capitalist stock market, which Bernie Sanders doesn't advocate; 3. Bernie Sanders favours big FDR-style social democratic government programs, which Market Socialism is against.

My third favourite is probably Cory Booker, he put a lot of people off recently with his support of nuclear power; but he was describing Thorium reactor technology (though he didn't use the word Thorium). Fusion reactors are also a potential for the future. But he is the healthiest seeming of all of the candidates, and so I trust his healthcare stance - he advocates local level healthcare improvements (which seems to be something the US is anemic on); healthy food, encouragement for exercise, pedestrian activities, etc... Since people have worried that donors giving to progressives will change their stances, Booker has proven otherwise in how he has voted against the interests of pharmaceutical corporations while also receiving donations from them. I don't think anyone is going to be corrupted by corporate donations, the problem with corporate donations is that they tend to heavily favour pro-corporate politicians, and that is why they should be banned: but playing the game (as Booker has done) and taking their money to work against them is something I support a lot more than the "refusal on principle" approach of Warren and Sanders (which I think is plain foolish).

I'll end my rant here.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Jumpin said:
jason1637 said:

Debate positions.

Not a bad lineup to be honest. While Biden is a bit of a conservative/moderate, he is still a left leaning one.

Now, I don't mean to rant, but:

I get a little surprised when I see Andrew Yang criticized as being a right-winger. This is clearly not the case as he is pushing for the most massive boost to low-income/no-income earners of anyone in US history. He's one of my favourites, probably 4th or 5th... I'll say tied for 4th with Castro.

I am a big supporter of Elizabeth Warren's no-more-corporate-bullshit approach - breaking up big tech would be healthy for the Western economy, and if Warren brings in the US Wealth-Tax then I can see EU countries following very shortly after. The big issue with wealth taxation in the past is that it is done in some countries but not others, and wealthy people can simply move their assets or accounts. I think an agreement across developed nations for a 2% Wealth tax would work wonders for public funding.

Bernie Sanders is my #2 pick, his policy positions are almost as good as Elizabeth Warren. What puts him behind her, for me, is that he tends to be very vague in what he is talking about, he lacks the precision of Elizabeth Warren. He's no more a socialist than Ron Paul is a libertarian. Bernie Sanders is a social democrat, just like Elizabeth Warren, which is a capitalist (and Ron Paul is/was a neoliberal). Normally, this wouldn't bother me at all, but people in this forum have actually tried to argue that he is a "market socialist" and have linked the wikipedia article - three problems with calling Bernie Sanders a market socialist: 1. Bernie Sanders has never called himself a market socialist, he has called himself a democratic socialist; 2. The core mechanic of market socialism still abolishes the capitalist stock market, which Bernie Sanders doesn't advocate; 3. Bernie Sanders favours big FDR-style social democratic government programs, which Market Socialism is against.

My third favourite is probably Cory Booker, he put a lot of people off recently with his support of nuclear power; but he was describing Thorium reactor technology (though he didn't use the word Thorium). Fusion reactors are also a potential for the future. But he is the healthiest seeming of all of the candidates, and so I trust his healthcare stance - he advocates local level healthcare improvements (which seems to be something the US is anemic on); healthy food, encouragement for exercise, pedestrian activities, etc... Since people have worried that donors giving to progressives will change their stances, Booker has proven otherwise in how he has voted against the interests of pharmaceutical corporations while also receiving donations from them. I don't think anyone is going to be corrupted by corporate donations, the problem with corporate donations is that they tend to heavily favour pro-corporate politicians, and that is why they should be banned: but playing the game (as Booker has done) and taking their money to work against them is something I support a lot more than the "refusal on principle" approach of Warren and Sanders (which I think is plain foolish).

I'll end my rant here.

What? How could you call him a social democrat and then say that one of the reasons he's not a market socialist is because he's never called himself a market socialist but a democratic socialist? If we're going by what he's called himself then he's a democratic socialist not a social democrat. If we're not going by what he's called himself then I guess some people could call him a market socialist because reasons just as you did when you stated he's a social democrat. I just find that very inconsistent on your part. Nevertheless, for me, I'll just go by what he self-identifies as, which is a democratic socialist.

How is Sanders more vague compared to Warren? I've followed both of them and have looked at both of their policy proposals and they both seem to have about the same amount of detail to me. Could you give me examples because I'm honestly not sure what you mean by that and would like to understand? Here's Sanders' issues page on his website and here's Warren's for quick reference.

Last edited by tsogud - on 09 September 2019