Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 182603 times)

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4260
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1650 on: December 07, 2019, 09:50:41 AM »

I'm exaggerating because any one of the candidates would be better than Trump but we don't need another pro-Wall Street, pro-corporate, President and that's the corner Buttigieg is in. If he won, many of these progressive policies he's outlined would only exist in the internet archive.

Why not? People are quick to demonize WS, but I'm more worried about the Warren/Sanders type candidates willing to upend the whole table....for something not resembling anything we've tried in the past. Growing business, growing industry-this is how we pull people out of poverty. We are at record level unemployment numbers and labor participation rate is increasing. There are fewer food stamp recipients. Frankly I'm amazed we've gone such a long while without disruption to the economy with the way Trump has barked, but in reality we ARE better off now.

There are two big issues that neo-liberals give lip service to.

The first is income/wealth inequity and the solution is always "a rising tide lifts all boats." That's obviously not working anymore. The gap is widening and the solution is to tax the mutha fuckahs.

The other is climate change. The huge changes needed will disrupt the current business landscape and affect profits. Going after coal is easy because it only angers some miners in Kentucky; imagine trying to add an airfare pollution tax of $200/flight.

Quote
Regarding electability, Biden??? He has name recognition and definitely a "background" support of people who don't pay too much attention to politics, but have you seen his gaffes lately? They'd be hilarious if he was 15 years younger, today that stuff is disturbing considering his age. He is obviously in mental decline. The only reason his numbers haven't tanked is he hasn't had the spotlight to himself-if he gets the nom all that kids playing with his leg hair in the pool talk, his creeping hovering/kissing young girls and children (even older women!) and other weirdness is just going to take over.

The #1 reason that Clinton lost those few states by a sliver was because of African-American turnout. They liked her but she didn't generate much enthusiasm (probably due to being a business-as-usual, pro-corporate, Democrat). Biden can pull those voters in and it could make all the difference.

Re: Biden's gaffes -- Yeah, he's all over the place and he isn't as coiffed as the other candidates.

Turnout has been very high in the last few (state and local) elections so maybe it won't matter who the Democrat nominee is.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1248
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1651 on: December 07, 2019, 10:03:00 AM »

I'm exaggerating because any one of the candidates would be better than Trump but we don't need another pro-Wall Street, pro-corporate, President and that's the corner Buttigieg is in. If he won, many of these progressive policies he's outlined would only exist in the internet archive.

Why not? People are quick to demonize WS, but I'm more worried about the Warren/Sanders type candidates willing to upend the whole table....for something not resembling anything we've tried in the past. Growing business, growing industry-this is how we pull people out of poverty. We are at record level unemployment numbers and labor participation rate is increasing. There are fewer food stamp recipients. Frankly I'm amazed we've gone such a long while without disruption to the economy with the way Trump has barked, but in reality we ARE better off now.

Regarding electability, Biden??? He has name recognition and definitely a "background" support of people who don't pay too much attention to politics, but have you seen his gaffes lately? They'd be hilarious if he was 15 years younger, today that stuff is disturbing considering his age. He is obviously in mental decline. The only reason his numbers haven't tanked is he hasn't had the spotlight to himself-if he gets the nom all that kids playing with his leg hair in the pool talk, his creeping hovering/kissing young girls and children (even older women!) and other weirdness is just going to take over.

I'd say Trump and Biden are at about the same stage of mental decline. You just can't snort that much McDonalds and it not warp your brain by 75. The debates would be some of the saddest/unintelligible yet. Then they both threaten to take their shirts off and wrestle for the presidency, the audience is screaming "No! please don't!". Couple of stage hands come out and give both of them a B12 shot in the rear and then proceed to have a normal debate.

What exactly is Bernie suggesting that hasn't been done?

Breaking up monopolies? We've done that
Reinvigorating union membership? We've done that
Threatening Court Packing? We've done that
Raising taxes on the rich? We've done that
Free Education? We've done that
Free Healthcare? (Other countries have that, soooo. Yeah, we can do that)

Beyond that what are his major planks?
Fully fund the VA to end the backlog (they're currently 50k employees short)
Ban for-profit prisons
End use of three-strikes, mandatory minimums, and death penalty
legalize marijuana
ban facial recognition by police force
set teacher starting pay at 60k
equitable public school funding
eliminate all past due medical debt
cap consumer interest rates at 15%
every post office to offer affordable banking services
For monopolies he's mentioned breaking up Internet IPO's, the giant Banks, and some of the tech companies
Money to rebuild infrastructure (a green one at that)
End all corporate contributions to the DNC
replace the FEC with an actual enforcement agency
And to end my list, Bernie's foreign policy is probably the best in order to keep us out of regime-change wars.


Just how much of this is actually controversial? Do we think that somehow an extra 10% on the top income tax bracket is the deciding line capitalism and socialism? The economy is booming, and a very few select people are setting themselves up to continue owning 80% of it.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4128
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1652 on: December 07, 2019, 11:09:43 AM »
What exactly is Bernie suggesting that hasn't been done?

The Federal Jobs Guarantee is a key part of the Sanders platform that, as far as I can tell, doesn't have precedent in the past. 

"Enact a federal jobs guarantee, to ensure that everyone is guaranteed a stable job that pays a living wage. ... In the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, everyone who can work in America should have the right to a decent-paying job. We can and should have a full-employment economy."

The closest precedent is probably the Civilian Conservation Corps back during the great depression. But that was a targeted program that maxed out at 500,000 people (the equivalent percentage of the US population today would be 1.5M people) and didn't pay a living wage (pay was equivalent to about $600/month in today's dollars). Perhaps the most significant difference with this precedent is that nobody was guaranteed a job in the CCC, and the system didn't seek to achieve anything like full employment.

From context it sounds like Sanders thinks a living wage is $15/hour and he would raise the minimum wage to this rate. Right now there are only 89M people in the US working jobs that pay $15/hour or more, 67M people working jobs that don't pay a living wage by Sanders definition, and another 50M or so working age Americans who don't currently have paid work but would be guaranteed a $15/hour job -- if they wanted one -- under the Sanders system. Call it 117 million people to whom Sanders Federal Jobs Guarantee would potentially apply.

Now some of the people currently making $15/hour would see their wages at private sector jobs go up if Sanders raised the minimum wage to $15/hour. Other people making less than $15/hour would see their jobs disappear as the increased salary either made their jobs not economically sustainable, or the rising price of labor increased the speed at which automation was adopted. Some people not participating in the workforce would also likely continue to choose not to work even if they were guaranteed a $15/hour job. Stay at home parents and early retirees would likely both fall into the category of not working and not interested in working even if a good paying job was guaranteed.

But even if only 1/3 of the people covered by Sanders Federal Jobs Guarantee actually chose to, or needed to, take advantage of the program, we're still talking about 40M people (20x the size of the current federal workforce, 2x as many jobs as carrying out the entire Green New Deal is estimated to require by the Sanders Campaign).

Based on data from Teach for America and the Peace Core, the cost of creating and running jobs is around $25,000 per person per year above and beyond actually paying people their salaries and benefits. So call it $55,000* per person, or $2.2 trillion dollars a year for a program that would only be helping the economic fortunes of 12% of all Americans.

Regardless of whether the above sounds like a positive or negative change to you, it would be a Really. Big. Change. and something without any precedent in the past of either the US or any other country I'm aware of. I'm really surprised Sanders' FJG does not get talked about more.

Another Sanders policy proposal that hasn't been done before in the US (and hasn't been accomplished particularly successful in any country) is his wealth tax (2-8% of net worth per year), but you and I have probably already discussed that one to death in other threads.

*$30,000/person/year salary. $25,000/job/year in having a job for people to work for their salary costs. I'm assuming zero cost for fringe benefits since Sanders would also adopt medicare for all which would eliminate the biggest chunk of fringe costs, but presumably the government would still also have to pay the employer portion of payroll tax and possibly make some retirement contributions?

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1653 on: December 07, 2019, 01:58:39 PM »
The other is climate change. The huge changes needed will disrupt the current business landscape and affect profits. Going after coal is easy because it only angers some miners in Kentucky; imagine trying to add an airfare pollution tax of $200/flight.
A typical round trip domestic flight in the US results in ~half ton of CO2 emissions. Ignoring all other alternatives, CO2 can be directly removed from the air for $200/ton (though probably $100 is doable very soon and $50 eventually), so I don't think the $200/flight would be a reasonable tax, except maybe on the longest haul flights out there. Actual carbon taxes that exist in the world are much lower.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1420
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1654 on: December 07, 2019, 03:20:10 PM »
Will we finally have to change to synthesized fuels such as Dimethyl ether?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_ether

Get in on it early and there will be money to be made.  It may make the difference from lean FIRE to fat FIRE.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1248
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1655 on: December 07, 2019, 03:21:21 PM »
The other is climate change. The huge changes needed will disrupt the current business landscape and affect profits. Going after coal is easy because it only angers some miners in Kentucky; imagine trying to add an airfare pollution tax of $200/flight.
A typical round trip domestic flight in the US results in ~half ton of CO2 emissions. Ignoring all other alternatives, CO2 can be directly removed from the air for $200/ton (though probably $100 is doable very soon and $50 eventually), so I don't think the $200/flight would be a reasonable tax, except maybe on the longest haul flights out there. Actual carbon taxes that exist in the world are much lower.

So that would mean an actual carbon tax on flights to pay for carbon removal would be closer to $3-5 per seat... I'm all for that.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1656 on: December 07, 2019, 03:31:45 PM »
The other is climate change. The huge changes needed will disrupt the current business landscape and affect profits. Going after coal is easy because it only angers some miners in Kentucky; imagine trying to add an airfare pollution tax of $200/flight.
A typical round trip domestic flight in the US results in ~half ton of CO2 emissions. Ignoring all other alternatives, CO2 can be directly removed from the air for $200/ton (though probably $100 is doable very soon and $50 eventually), so I don't think the $200/flight would be a reasonable tax, except maybe on the longest haul flights out there. Actual carbon taxes that exist in the world are much lower.

So that would mean an actual carbon tax on flights to pay for carbon removal would be closer to $3-5 per seat... I'm all for that.
Yes, though current carbon taxes are mostly too low to meaningfully impact behavior, which is kind of the point. But even at $100/ton for direct air capture methods, the surcharge would be on the order of $50 rather than $200.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1248
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1657 on: December 07, 2019, 04:20:00 PM »

The Federal Jobs Guarantee is a key part of the Sanders platform that, as far as I can tell, doesn't have precedent in the past. 
...

From context it sounds like Sanders thinks a living wage is $15/hour and he would raise the minimum wage to this rate.
...

Based on data from Teach for America and the Peace Core, the cost of creating and running jobs is around $25,000 per person per year above and beyond actually paying people their salaries and benefits. So call it $55,000* per person, or $2.2 trillion dollars a year for a program that would only be helping the economic fortunes of 12% of all Americans.
...

Another Sanders policy proposal that hasn't been done before in the US (and hasn't been accomplished particularly successful in any country) is his wealth tax (2-8% of net worth per year), but you and I have probably already discussed that one to death in other threads.
...

So to my larger point is that Sanders is largely either the only or one of the few candidates pushing for a whole long list of things that everyone in this forum and a majority of Americans would shake their heads and go "yeah that's obviously the right thing to do." But despite their popularity, they have not been adopted by democrats at large. But for some reason a lot of people seem to be willing to throw all of that away because... yeah I don't know. Because the media repeats the idea that "only a corporate democrat can win" enough until it becomes true? Because I can tell you half that list isn't happening without someone at the top like Bernie pushing hard for it to happen.

My guess is that a FJG would not happen, but a president Sanders might be able to make a smaller version of it work; something similar to Roosevelt's plans that can employ a large number of impoverished counties to do green construction jobs or other such tasks. People on here seem to argue that this type of thinking is foolish, but it's the type of thinking everyone does for every other politician. Absolutely no one thought Trump was actually going to get Mexico to pay for the wall, it simply showed how serious he was about that policy. Similarly, I think we can all agree that a FJG is highly unlikely to happen, but it shows that both Bernie (and Booker) is one of the few candidates that is willing to talk about and actually tackle the problem of poverty and underemployment in the country.

No need to redo all of the math. It looks like this paper here: https://www.cbpp.org/research/full-employment/the-federal-job-guarantee-a-policy-to-achieve-permanent-full-employment found numbers pretty close to yours showing that each job would cost a total of about 56k each meaning there would be a total cost of about 550B. They didn't find that it would cost 2.2T total because the job guarantee would create a de facto labor floor of $15/hr. Businesses would have to pay more (unless the job were somehow attractive enough to pay less). And from the number of private sector jobs that would be created from a FJG.

However the author also lists a number of government programs that would likely see reductions in use: unemployment insurance, TANF, EITC, SNAP, Medicaid, and CHIP. Even if the usage for all of those programs were only cut in half that would save about about 290B.

Increased tax revenue would also be likely with increased consumer spending

Then there's also the fact that long periods of unemployment lead to skill loss which wouldn't happen. That's a harder number to calculate, but would be highly useful to our economic output.

It's difficult to predict exact numbers with a jobs guarantee similar to how it's difficult to predict the effects of increased minimum wage. But I honestly think we would see a federal jobs guarantee practically pay for itself. Otherwise saying we could practically eliminate poverty in this country for the cost of ~200B is an amazing proposition.

The cost would not be my major worry. I think the harder task would be finding the actual jobs. What could anyone just do? Especially if you weren't going to require people to relocate from their communities. Plenty of construction or other work needed. Just not in areas of concentrated poverty.

Yeah let's not rehash the wealth tax. Though we argued Warren's version of it; not Bernie's. Bernies' is focused less on creating a revenue stream for a federal program and more to reduce the power that billionaires hold over our elections and government in general. They're 2 different goals.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4128
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1658 on: December 07, 2019, 05:11:51 PM »
So to my larger point is that Sanders is largely either the only or one of the few candidates pushing for a whole long list of things that everyone in this forum and a majority of Americans would shake their heads and go "yeah that's obviously the right thing to do." But despite their popularity, they have not been adopted by democrats at large.

Could you give some examples of which policies you see falling into this category (most people agree they should be done, Sanders is the only democratic candidate advocating for them)?

Personally, I don't agree with this characterization of Sanders' politics, but I'm curious if the difference in our perception has to do with a focus on different parts of Sanders' platform or different in our perceptions of what policies are universally accepted as the right thing to do by folks on this forum and the majority of americans.

Quote
No need to redo all of the math. It looks like this paper here: https://www.cbpp.org/research/full-employment/the-federal-job-guarantee-a-policy-to-achieve-permanent-full-employment found numbers pretty close to yours showing that each job would cost a total of about 56k each meaning there would be a total cost of about 550B. They didn't find that it would cost 2.2T total because the job guarantee would create a de facto labor floor of $15/hr. Businesses would have to pay more (unless the job were somehow attractive enough to pay less). And from the number of private sector jobs that would be created from a FJG.

Just to clarify, I like doing the math.

It helps me understand where the numbers come from, and can also help me figure out where the divergence in data and assumptions are when people end up with very different answers ($2.2T/year vs $550B/year).

FWIW, in this case a big part of the difference is that in the paper you linked they would start workers out paying $11.83/hour rather than $15/hour (the minimum wage the Sanders campaign wants to implement as one of their major planks). This means both that the cost per worker is a little lower and more critically fewer people who aren't currently participating in the labor force would be motivated to rejoin the labor force at <$12/hour than $15/hour. The authors also don't account for private sector jobs that wouldn't be able to pay >$11.83/hour as their model looks at current rates of unemployment and under employment,* but doesn't model changes in private sector jobs as a result of an effective increase in the minimum wage created by a job floor.

That's how they end up with about 10M people taking advantage of the program, rather than the 40M I talked about up thread. To me, knowing that is much more satisfying than just looking at two numbers, saying "well those seem really different" and leaving it at that.

*People argue a lot about the elasticity of labor demand in response to changes in the minimum wage, but right now I think the current estimate is an elasticity of about 0.1 which would mean an increase of the effective minimum wage from $7.25 to $12/hour 65% increase, would decrease private sector employment by about 6.5% or a decrease of about 10M less jobs (155 employed americans * 6.5%). So the paper may under estimate the cost of even a $12/hour FJG by about 2x, since they would need to provide 20M total jobs instead of the 10M they calculate in their paper. However, you can certainly find plenty of studies that estimate the elasticity of employment to be either much higher or lower than that, so the real answer is we don't know.

Quote
The cost would not be my major worry. I think the harder task would be finding the actual jobs. What could anyone just do? Especially if you weren't going to require people to relocate from their communities. Plenty of construction or other work needed. Just not in areas of concentrated poverty.

I agree, this would be challenging. In addition to the geographic factors, if we want to avoid skill loss the FJG would need to employ people in there area of expertise, which would be extraordinarily complicated logistically. And how would we handle cases where there were a lot of unemployed people with the same skillset because changes in technology had made those jobs obsolete?

The CCC has it much easier, as the work was pretty much all hard physical labor and they were targeting mostly young people in their 20s who, assuming they were in good health, could basically do any of the work the CCC had, and part of the deal was that if you volunteered for the corp you could be shipped anywhere in the USA. Much harder for older folks who want to stick with their families and may not be up to building roads and digging ditches all day.

Quote
Yeah let's not rehash the wealth tax. Though we argued Warren's version of it; not Bernie's. Bernies' is focused less on creating a revenue stream for a federal program and more to reduce the power that billionaires hold over our elections and government in general. They're 2 different goals.

So to be fair, I want to say that I think Sanders' wealth tax is more likely to achieve its goals that Warren's. Since Warren needs the money to pay for M4H, driving billionaires out of the country, or taxing away their fortunes to the point where they have less and less to pay wealth tax on is a major problem. If Sanders main goal is to get rid of billionaires, both those same outcomes count as progress towards his goals.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1248
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1659 on: December 07, 2019, 10:46:12 PM »
So to my larger point is that Sanders is largely either the only or one of the few candidates pushing for a whole long list of things that everyone in this forum and a majority of Americans would shake their heads and go "yeah that's obviously the right thing to do." But despite their popularity, they have not been adopted by democrats at large.

Could you give some examples of which policies you see falling into this category (most people agree they should be done, Sanders is the only democratic candidate advocating for them)?


You're right we should delineate what is Sander's proposal and what is not. (I'm only going to consider the top 6-7 candidates)

Next to each one I'll see if I can find a percent approve/disapprove/NA poll number

$15 minimum wage. - Actually found that all candidates signed onto this.
Pretty much all agree the defense budget needs to be cut

Unique to Sanders (and maybe Warren):
Economic:
Federal Jobs Guarantee - 78/11/11 (2019) Harris - 52/29 (2018) Civis
Break up big Tech - 60% GOP, 63% Dem., 66% Ind. - 2019
National Rent Control - No polls I could find, but I would assume this one unpopular
Against TPP - 56%/27% (2017)

Foreign:
Open to reopening relations with Syria - Difficult to find but for polls around Syria, it looks like they poll close to 50/50
Would meet with North Korea without preconditions - 41/36/24 (2018 - about Trump's meeting)

Education:
Cancel all student debt (found one that polled debt cancellation for up to 50k polls at 57%)
Free college - 72% (2019)
Ban Public Charter Schools - 39/48 (though 50/50 among dems.)

Climate Change:
Phase out nuclear - 49/49 (2019)
Ban Fracking - 46/33/21 (2019)
Ban Fossil Fuel exports - (hard to find, but Green New Deal polls are very positive usually around 50/33/15

Healthcare:
eliminate private insurance - 41% (most want M4A with private still available)
gov. should produce and sell generic drugs to lower price - no polling I could find, but most any proposal to lower drug costs typically scores around 80/20

I'll be honest, there were a number of policies that I thought would be unique to Sanders, but found that there is a mix. Though I do feel that there is a difference in how much a candidate pushes certain policies, though that is a bit harder to quantify. However, Bernie still holds a number of proposals that are uniquely popular even among GOP voters. This is what I believe helps create his unique draw in the midwest states.

What I find strange with the medicare debate is that if the government has a M4A that was cheaper and accomplished all the same things as other insurance, hardly anyone would use private insurance, but everyone wants the company to be there. We would eventually question it like "why do we still have pennies?" Anyways side tangent.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2019, 10:49:58 PM by FIPurpose »

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4128
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1660 on: December 08, 2019, 07:10:17 AM »
I'll be honest, there were a number of policies that I thought would be unique to Sanders, but found that there is a mix.

Thanks for putting this together, FIPurpose! It always is fascinating to double check gut feelings against data. I also found some surprises compared to my own gut feelings. Didn't think free college for all would poll nearly that that. Would have thought there was more public opposition to continuing to use nuclear power. Reassuring that it is closer to an even split.

There are a couple of policies you have listed as Sanders/Warren specific which I think are held by more candidates.

For opposing TPP, it looks like Booker, Buttigieg and Warren are all in the same camp as Sanders. Source

For breaking up big tech definitely Warren and Sanders. Also Gabbard who is arguably in the #8 slot at the moment (one of the eight candidates who still plausibly might be in the Dec debate) but definitely not in the top 6-7. While this isn't a policy position I agree with, I was surprised more democratic candidates aren't advocating for it. I was actually also surprised how many of the issues Gabbard and Sanders agreed on. I don't think of them as being similar candidates or having overlapping bases.

Quote
What I find strange with the medicare debate is that if the government has a M4A that was cheaper and accomplished all the same things as other insurance, hardly anyone would use private insurance, but everyone wants the company to be there.

Right now anything about the cost, quality, or accessibility of public healthcare for the general public is a prediction, not a fact based on direct observation, because it doesn't exist yet. In trying to predict how a new government run health insurance will stack up people can point to medicare (which old folks generally seem happy with), the VA (lots of problems and long wait times, plus fraudulent record keeping to make wait times look less bad), and medicaid (can be miserably hard to find a doctor in at least some parts of the country, or so I head secondhand).

Being able to frame rolling out public healthcare as adding a new option and safety net for people, instead of taking peoples choices away, sounds a lot better. In five or ten years when the cost/quality/wait times of public insurance are known things instead of predictions, if it's important to ban private health insurance it could be revisited. But is it important?

Private health insurance is part of how people pay for healthcare in many countries whose healthcare systems we tend to envy in the US, including Australia, the UK and Germany. If knowing they'll still have access to private health insurance makes people less worried about providing access to public sector health insurance to everyone, including themselves, what is the harm?


Quote
We would eventually question it like "why do we still have pennies?" Anyways side tangent.

Now this is an issue that everyone seems to agree on (getting rid of pennies). But only one of the total 5 candidates has come out for phasing out the penny.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4872
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1661 on: December 08, 2019, 07:52:13 AM »

Private health insurance is part of how people pay for healthcare in many countries whose healthcare systems we tend to envy in the US, including Australia, the UK and Germany. If knowing they'll still have access to private health insurance makes people less worried about providing access to public sector health insurance to everyone, including themselves, what is the harm?


Since you mention the UK -

"In 2017, spending on healthcare in the UK totalled £197.4 billion. This equates to approximately £2,989 spent per person, or 9.6% of gross domestic product (GDP). This includes both government and non-government spending on healthcare."  Of that spending -

 - 79% is government funded (NHS, local authorities, etc.)
 - 16% is out of pocket spending by individuals (prescription charges (heavily subsidized), dental and eye care, contributions to home care, etc.)
 - 3% is health insurance
 - 2+% is companies and charities

Very few people have private health insurance, in my experience, but I do know people who have paid out of pocket for private treatment where this is quicker or more convenient than the NHS, or where NHS provision is limited, eg cosmetic procedures and some IVF services.

The OECD gives the tax to GDP ratio in the UK as 33.5% as against the USA's 24.3%. But if you add in health care costs in the USA at 17.8%, about 50% of which is private/corporate expenditure through health insurance and out of pocket costs, etc.h the % cost for tax and [publicly funded] health care in both countries is about the same.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2019, 01:34:11 PM by former player »

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1420
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1662 on: December 08, 2019, 12:43:38 PM »
Just Noise tossed in:

"In 2017, spending on healthcare in the UK totalled £197.4 billion. This equates to approximately £2,989 spent per person, or 9.6% of gross domestic product (GDP). This includes both government and non-government spending on healthcare. Healthcare expenditure in 2016 was equal to 9.7% of GDP."

2, 989 lbs X 1.31 lbs / dollar = $3, 915 dollars per capita

How much does the US government spend now per capita on health care?

"The federal government spent nearly $1.1 trillion on health care in fiscal year 2018 (table 1). Of that, Medicare claimed roughly $583 billion, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) about $399 billion, and veterans’ medical care about $70 billion. In addition to these direct outlays, various tax provisions for health care reduced income tax revenue by about $225 billion. Over $146 billion of that figure comes from the exclusion from taxable income of employers’ contributions for medical insurance premiums and medical care. The exclusion of employer contributions to medical care also substantially reduced payroll taxes, though that impact is not included in official tax expenditure estimates. Including its impact on both income and payroll taxes, the exclusion reduced government revenue by $280 billion in 2018."

The population of the US is 372.2 million in 2018.

$1,100,000,000 total / 372,200,000 # of people = $2.95 per capita  (already paying for many of those worst off)

Great Britain spends 9.6% of their GDP on health care.

"In 2016, the U.S. spent 17.8 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care, while the average spending level among all high-income countries was 11.5 percent of GDP."

9.6 < 17.8

So - Look at that $3,915 that the English spend per capita.  If you pay for your own premiums, multiply that by 12.  Compare it to the British amount.  Do you feel good?   Then remember that there is a lot of stuff your premiums may not cover.

Seems like the GOP ought to be leading the charge to change this to do it like the British.  It looks more efficient fiscally.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4128
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1663 on: December 08, 2019, 01:10:19 PM »
$1,100,000,000 total / 372,200,000 # of people = $2.95 per capita  (already paying for many of those worst off)

I think you dropped a factor of 1,000 somewhere. Shouldn't this be $2,950/person?

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1248
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1664 on: December 08, 2019, 01:13:49 PM »
Just Noise tossed in:

"In 2017, spending on healthcare in the UK totalled £197.4 billion. This equates to approximately £2,989 spent per person, or 9.6% of gross domestic product (GDP). This includes both government and non-government spending on healthcare. Healthcare expenditure in 2016 was equal to 9.7% of GDP."

2, 989 lbs X 1.31 lbs / dollar = $3, 915 dollars per capita

How much does the US government spend now per capita on health care?

"The federal government spent nearly $1.1 trillion on health care in fiscal year 2018 (table 1). Of that, Medicare claimed roughly $583 billion, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) about $399 billion, and veterans’ medical care about $70 billion. In addition to these direct outlays, various tax provisions for health care reduced income tax revenue by about $225 billion. Over $146 billion of that figure comes from the exclusion from taxable income of employers’ contributions for medical insurance premiums and medical care. The exclusion of employer contributions to medical care also substantially reduced payroll taxes, though that impact is not included in official tax expenditure estimates. Including its impact on both income and payroll taxes, the exclusion reduced government revenue by $280 billion in 2018."

The population of the US is 372.2 million in 2018.

$1,100,000,000 total / 372,200,000 # of people = $2.95 per capita  (already paying for many of those worst off)

Great Britain spends 9.6% of their GDP on health care.

"In 2016, the U.S. spent 17.8 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care, while the average spending level among all high-income countries was 11.5 percent of GDP."

9.6 < 17.8

So - Look at that $3,915 that the English spend per capita.  If you pay for your own premiums, multiply that by 12.  Compare it to the British amount.  Do you feel good?   Then remember that there is a lot of stuff your premiums may not cover.

Seems like the GOP ought to be leading the charge to change this to do it like the British.  It looks more efficient fiscally.

You missed 3 zeros on your math (you used 1.1B not 1.1T)

that would be 2,950 per person despite only covering what? 30% of the country?

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1420
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1665 on: December 08, 2019, 06:03:30 PM »
Oops - I thought it was low.  Good - it verifies that with our existing taxes, we are already paying about 3/4 what the English are paying to cover everybody.  With an efficiently run program, that last increment should cover everybody.  It makes me think that the increase in taxes to provide basic health care to everyone would be somewhat painless.  This is, of course, with non profit services.

Maybe some of the politicians are right, when given the choice between tax subsidized medicine and the high priced brand, the Socialist medicine will soon become the people's choice.

US - $2,950 NOW for health care per person by the government but only the elderly and selected needy people are covered
UK - $3,915 for health care per person by the government and all are covered.

Yeh - Seems like the GOP would be very much in favor of the more fiscally prudent system to free up more resources for war and stuff they like.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4128
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1666 on: December 08, 2019, 06:25:01 PM »
To get down to what the UK is paying it isn't enough just to switch to government provided health insurance. One also needs to get a handle on the cost of providing care. Public sector health care helps with drug prices (stronger negotiating power on drug prices) and administrative overhead since, anecdotally, it sounds like doctors offices spend less time going back and forth with medicare about getting bills paid than they do with private insurance.

However a big chunk of the cost of healthcare is salaries. And in the US we pay our doctors about 2x as much as they do in the UK. Tell american doctors they make too much money and they'll point to the years of expensive training it takes to become a doctor in the US. In other countries med school and any post school apprenticeship (e.g. residency) required in order to practice medicine often require fewer years,* cost less, and is often free or nearly free at public universities.

That doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to introduce a public option. I just wouldn't expect our costs to suddenly decline to those seen in most other parts of the developed world. There are lots of other problems making our healthcare system more expensive than it needs to be and changing each of them will require taking entrenched interests.

*In part because in many countries becoming a doctor is treated more like a trade that you get on a special track for after high school instead of first taking a whole undergraduate degree and THEN applying to med school.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1420
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1667 on: December 08, 2019, 07:03:26 PM »
Just do it.

A lot of people have lost jobs and have had to take a pay cut.  Figures show that the pay for many people has not risen in terms of the cost of living for many years.  Why should doctors be an exception?  Certainly, they have a lot of training, however, I am sure it will be possible to pay them a fair wage with a changed system.  So, doctors in other nations are not trained as intensively.  Yet, the health care results in these other nations are as good or better.  Unnecessary training does not seem to justify their high salaries.

If they were forced to take a pay cut, some would retire.  Some would move to who knows where.  Some would be bitter.  Most would be like other people in this country and accept their lot.  We would be their "jobs providers."   The notion of treating the profession more like a trade may be helpful in replacing those that are dissatisfied and leave the profession.  Part of the change could include opening new schools to increase the supply of these folks to help ensure the supply meets or exceeds the demand.  There are lots of young people who would like to be doctors.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4128
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1668 on: December 08, 2019, 07:15:25 PM »
To do it you need to get politicians elected who are willing to make the change. Doctors are highly represented among those people wealthy enough to write maxed out donation checks in both the primary and the general.

You are right that a good place to start would be training more new doctors each year to expand the supply. However the AMA lobbies specifically against this, as increased numbers of doctors have the potential to bring down salaries.



Since the end of this graph, the number of graduates per year has climbed slightly to about 19,000/year but we're still training barely more doctors per year than we were 1985 when the population of the US was only 240M (it's 330M today) and our population was younger and generally healthier (median age back then was about 30, today it's 38. The human body breaks down a lot between 30 and 40)).

I've yet to see any presidential candidate of either party bring up the fact that if we're going to control healthcare costs in the US we'll need to bring healthcare provider salaries more in line with what people make for the same work in other countries.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14836
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1669 on: December 08, 2019, 07:52:51 PM »
lol, capitalism.

Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2169
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1670 on: December 08, 2019, 08:36:04 PM »
I was actually also surprised how many of the issues Gabbard and Sanders agreed on. I don't think of them as being similar candidates or having overlapping bases.

That shouldn't surprise you at all. Gabbard was a big Sanders proponent in 2016. She actually quit her position on the DNC which is supposed to be impartial so that she could support Sanders.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4128
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1671 on: December 08, 2019, 08:58:40 PM »
In the debates -- the main place I've been exposed to her positions -- she doesn't talk much about domestic policy and Sanders doesn't talk much about foreign policy. So I'd been assuming she was attracting primarily the anti-war vote while Sanders the anti-billionaire/pro-single payer voters.

You bring up an interesting question, would be interesting to know which current candidates backed Sanders or Clinton (or neither) in 2016.

I know Yang backed Bernie during the primary. Biden and Warren held off on endorsing Clinton until after she secured enough delegates to become the presumptive nominee (so it was an endorsement of Clinton over Trump not Clinton over Sanders).

Does anyone know Buttigieg or Booker's positions in the 2016 primary?

Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2169
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1672 on: December 08, 2019, 09:06:07 PM »
I heard a commentator surmise that perhaps Sanders and Gabbard have come to an agreement on how to handle the debates. He goes nice while she goes on the attack but that they are on the same team. It's an interesting viewpoint. I wouldn't be surprised that if Sanders is allowed to get the nomination that he would pick Gabbard as his running mate. They agree a lot and she is a younger version of him. Although personally I would prefer Gabbard at the top of the ticket but she doesn't seem to be getting a lot of love from the Democrats.

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
  • Age: 34
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1673 on: December 09, 2019, 08:21:51 AM »
I heard a commentator surmise that perhaps Sanders and Gabbard have come to an agreement on how to handle the debates. He goes nice while she goes on the attack but that they are on the same team. It's an interesting viewpoint. I wouldn't be surprised that if Sanders is allowed to get the nomination that he would pick Gabbard as his running mate. They agree a lot and she is a younger version of him. Although personally I would prefer Gabbard at the top of the ticket but she doesn't seem to be getting a lot of love from the Democrats.

I don't think that's how running mate selection usually works for either party. The Nominee generally chooses someone who compliments their (real or perceived) weaknesses, not someone who is a clone of themselves. The goal is to unify all the different branches of the party and get them all to come out to vote in the general, not to double down on the one branch that already loves you and give the middle finger to everyone else. See for example campaign-trail-conversion formerly-pro-choice Trump selecting Pence as his running mate in order to convince the Evangelical Christians to vote for him (which worked).
« Last Edit: December 09, 2019, 09:37:39 AM by sherr »

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1248
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1674 on: December 09, 2019, 08:33:04 AM »
I heard a commentator surmise that perhaps Sanders and Gabbard have come to an agreement on how to handle the debates. He goes nice while she goes on the attack but that they are on the same team. It's an interesting viewpoint. I wouldn't be surprised that if Sanders is allowed to get the nomination that he would pick Gabbard as his running mate. They agree a lot and she is a younger version of him. Although personally I would prefer Gabbard at the top of the ticket but she doesn't seem to be getting a lot of love from the Democrats.

I don't think that's how running mate selection usually works for either party. The Nominee generally chooses someone who compliments their (real or perceived) weaknesses, not someone who is a clone of themselves. The goal is to unify all the different branches of the party and get them all to come out to vote in the general, not to double down on the one branch that already loves you and give the middle finger to everyone else. See for example campaign-trail-converstion formerly-pro-choice Trump selecting Pence as his running mate in order to convince the Evangelical Christians to vote for him (which worked).

There are a good number of GOP voters that actually really like Tulsi with her military experience and foreign policy. Even though Hillary doesn't take too kindly to Tulsi, Tulsi could still expand Bernie's voting base.

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 704
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1675 on: December 09, 2019, 11:41:11 AM »
There are a good number of GOP voters that actually really like Tulsi with her military experience and foreign policy. Even though Hillary doesn't take too kindly to Tulsi, Tulsi could still expand Bernie's voting base.

I'm curious to dig in a little deeper on this, any links to polls or articles about this? I think first and foremost, the goal should be defeating Trump and his army of proto-authoritarians and apologists, so while I haven't liked what little I've heard about Gabbard, I'd like to be pleasantly surprised to hear she could draw in former Republicans and/or suppress conservative enthusiasm for Republicans at the national level. But my concern is that several conservative media operators, and even some Russian troll farms, seem to be pumping her up; mostly I suspect to stoke intraparty fights among Democrats, but with maybe the unintended side benefit of giving her a positive spin to those who rely mostly on those media operators for political news. But what happens to her appeal among these groups once she wins the nomination or veep spot, and those media operators are unleashed to reverse course and pummel her reputation? We've already seen that the right and far right are almost totally immune to shame and any evidence of their hypocrisy.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4795
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1676 on: December 09, 2019, 11:44:21 AM »
There are a good number of GOP voters that actually really like Tulsi with her military experience and foreign policy. Even though Hillary doesn't take too kindly to Tulsi, Tulsi could still expand Bernie's voting base.

I'm curious to dig in a little deeper on this, any links to polls or articles about this? I think first and foremost, the goal should be defeating Trump and his army of proto-authoritarians and apologists, so while I haven't liked what little I've heard about Gabbard, I'd like to be pleasantly surprised to hear she could draw in former Republicans and/or suppress conservative enthusiasm for Republicans at the national level. But my concern is that several conservative media operators, and even some Russian troll farms, seem to be pumping her up; mostly I suspect to stoke intraparty fights among Democrats, but with maybe the unintended side benefit of giving her a positive spin to those who rely mostly on those media operators for political news. But what happens to her appeal among these groups once she wins the nomination or veep spot, and those media operators are unleashed to reverse course and pummel her reputation? We've already seen that the right and far right are almost totally immune to shame and any evidence of their hypocrisy.

I'd agree with this.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1248
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1677 on: December 09, 2019, 12:24:43 PM »
There are a good number of GOP voters that actually really like Tulsi with her military experience and foreign policy. Even though Hillary doesn't take too kindly to Tulsi, Tulsi could still expand Bernie's voting base.

I'm curious to dig in a little deeper on this, any links to polls or articles about this? I think first and foremost, the goal should be defeating Trump and his army of proto-authoritarians and apologists, so while I haven't liked what little I've heard about Gabbard, I'd like to be pleasantly surprised to hear she could draw in former Republicans and/or suppress conservative enthusiasm for Republicans at the national level. But my concern is that several conservative media operators, and even some Russian troll farms, seem to be pumping her up; mostly I suspect to stoke intraparty fights among Democrats, but with maybe the unintended side benefit of giving her a positive spin to those who rely mostly on those media operators for political news. But what happens to her appeal among these groups once she wins the nomination or veep spot, and those media operators are unleashed to reverse course and pummel her reputation? We've already seen that the right and far right are almost totally immune to shame and any evidence of their hypocrisy.

In this poll: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/cseozthmrp/econTabReport.pdf from early November shows that Gabbard's support is 24% Trump voters

Only Joe Biden meets that same level of support coming from 2016 Trump voters.

This also shows a 22% favorability rating for Tulsi among GOP voters. Compared to others:
Buttigieg: 12%
Booker: 11%
Biden: 17%
Klobuchar: 12%
Bernie: 17%
Warren: 13%

We'd need more polling (probably closer to when VP's are being vetted) to know how much a certain VP choice might affect polls. But out of the whole field Tulsi hits something in a lot of GOP voters that make them trust her.

Johnez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Location: Southern California
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1678 on: December 09, 2019, 01:53:55 PM »
What exactly is Bernie suggesting that hasn't been done?

Nearly 2T of college debt forgiven?  The very people in line to earn more over their lifetime are going to be given even more of an advantage.  This is clearly a vote buying scheme.  It fits with the rest of his platform though, I'll give him that.  I don't care what poll numbers say, that's not indicative of anything other than "hell yeah I or someone I know could use that free money!"  I'm good with free college, even though I know that's going to be a wasteful boondoggle.  I'm going to school currently I see it in the half empty classes by the end of the semester.

M4A-uh, ACA had a helluva time passing, and is still under threat, is there going to be a massive blue wave to get enough congressional and senate support?  No.  Moot point, more of the same-business as usual.  America is shifting demographically though, I wouldn't doubt it will come to be one day, but in this MAGA day and age?  Don't think so.

Wealth Tax.  Yes, soak the rich.  The wealth inequality, class warfare argument.  Wages are increasing finally, 3% last I saw-that's with the bottom making up the most increase by the way.  Punishing the successful (rich) is almost antithetical to the American soul.  It's been tried and abandoned in Europe, we should learn from them and not even bother.  What does it serve to tax the wealthy?  Them being less rich going to make everyone else better off? 

There are two big issues that neo-liberals give lip service to.

The first is income/wealth inequity and the solution is always "a rising tide lifts all boats." That's obviously not working anymore. The gap is widening and the solution is to tax the mutha fuckahs.

The other is climate change. The huge changes needed will disrupt the current business landscape and affect profits. Going after coal is easy because it only angers some miners in Kentucky; imagine trying to add an airfare pollution tax of $200/flight.

The #1 reason that Clinton lost those few states by a sliver was because of African-American turnout. They liked her but she didn't generate much enthusiasm (probably due to being a business-as-usual, pro-corporate, Democrat). Biden can pull those voters in and it could make all the difference.

Re: Biden's gaffes -- Yeah, he's all over the place and he isn't as coiffed as the other candidates.

Turnout has been very high in the last few (state and local) elections so maybe it won't matter who the Democrat nominee is.

Regarding "wealth inequality" and rising tide not lifting all boats-it does appear to be working.  Black unemployment all time lows, foodstamp recipients going down, wages going up-the economic reality for workers appears to finally actually be reflecting what the indicators have been trying to show for years. 

Regarding climate change, the more economically feasible changes are already being implemented, the subsidies appear to have served their intended purpose in juicing the industry and bringing costs down, solar panels becoming ubiquitous.  Electric cars being brought online by the big automakers.  China's hazy air and India's A/C issues not withstanding, I see a lot of progress being made without much disruption, hopefully it continues.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2019, 02:03:24 PM by Johnez »

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1248
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1679 on: December 09, 2019, 03:22:31 PM »

Nearly 2T of college debt forgiven?  The very people in line to earn more over their lifetime are going to be given even more of an advantage.  This is clearly a vote buying scheme.  It fits with the rest of his platform though, I'll give him that.  I don't care what poll numbers say, that's not indicative of anything other than "hell yeah I or someone I know could use that free money!"  I'm good with free college, even though I know that's going to be a wasteful boondoggle.  I'm going to school currently I see it in the half empty classes by the end of the semester.

Wealth Tax.  Yes, soak the rich.  The wealth inequality, class warfare argument.  Wages are increasing finally, 3% last I saw-that's with the bottom making up the most increase by the way.  Punishing the successful (rich) is almost antithetical to the American soul.  It's been tried and abandoned in Europe, we should learn from them and not even bother.  What does it serve to tax the wealthy?  Them being less rich going to make everyone else better off?

Regarding "wealth inequality" and rising tide not lifting all boats-it does appear to be working.  Black unemployment all time lows, foodstamp recipients going down, wages going up-the economic reality for workers appears to finally actually be reflecting what the indicators have been trying to show for years.


Lol ok Boomer. Everyone is lazy and entitled except for you. And the rich are all there because of their hard work. (antithetical? really?)

Why this focus on black unemployment? Unemployment has been dropping for the past decade consistently. Wages have been at 3% since about early 2015, so no, Trump hasn't performed some magic on the economy there. And what the indicators are showing is a high likely hood of an impending recession with hardly any interest rate room, and less government revenue to actually prepare for the inevitable. Reaganomics is brilliant until the bottom falls out, and then the rich are the only ones holding the bag at the end.

Johnez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Location: Southern California
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1680 on: December 09, 2019, 06:00:23 PM »

Lol ok Boomer. Everyone is lazy and entitled except for you. And the rich are all there because of their hard work. (antithetical? really?)

Why this focus on black unemployment? Unemployment has been dropping for the past decade consistently. Wages have been at 3% since about early 2015, so no, Trump hasn't performed some magic on the economy there. And what the indicators are showing is a high likely hood of an impending recession with hardly any interest rate room, and less government revenue to actually prepare for the inevitable. Reaganomics is brilliant until the bottom falls out, and then the rich are the only ones holding the bag at the end.

First, I'll get the ad homs out of the way-what in my post makes you assume I'm a Boomer? Lol. Ok, I didn't bring up laziness or entitlement, though I couldn't care less of your opinion on me there. Black employment was brought up, not emphasized.

Now wage increases, since August '18 wages have held a steady 3% or more gain, more recently it's hit 3.75%. Being that the economy was supposed to tank by now, and since wage growth has held steady and *improved* under Trump, is that something to ignore? Wage growth was at 2% in 2015,  and wasn't anywhere near 3% throughout the Obama presidency except for in the beginning. I'm using private employee nominal wage increase numbers from the Economic Policy Institute which itself analyzes BLS numbers, where are your numbers coming from?

Yes, unemployment has been on a steady decline since Obama's presidency, however so was the labor participation rate-until Trump took over. We are currently at 50 year UE lows now. This coupled with the labor participation rate increasing shows a strong growing economy. When is it Trump's turn to take credit here? At the very least he hasn't blown the economy to smithereens, so far we are doing pretty good.

Recession is definitely coming. It's due and numbers all over the place have indicated it. We'll see what happens from here. I agree that pressing Powell to lower interest rates is risky business.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2019, 06:02:52 PM by Johnez »

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2214
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1681 on: December 09, 2019, 07:02:33 PM »
A recession isn't inevitable, but there are factors that Trump's policies are doing to contribute to the likelihood of one.
Namely tariffs against China has created so much uncertainty that business investment has declined, and in fact manufacturing in this country may already be in a recession.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1248
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1682 on: December 09, 2019, 09:06:40 PM »

Lol ok Boomer. Everyone is lazy and entitled except for you. And the rich are all there because of their hard work. (antithetical? really?)

Why this focus on black unemployment? Unemployment has been dropping for the past decade consistently. Wages have been at 3% since about early 2015, so no, Trump hasn't performed some magic on the economy there. And what the indicators are showing is a high likely hood of an impending recession with hardly any interest rate room, and less government revenue to actually prepare for the inevitable. Reaganomics is brilliant until the bottom falls out, and then the rich are the only ones holding the bag at the end.

First, I'll get the ad homs out of the way-what in my post makes you assume I'm a Boomer? Lol. Ok, I didn't bring up laziness or entitlement, though I couldn't care less of your opinion on me there. Black employment was brought up, not emphasized.

Now wage increases, since August '18 wages have held a steady 3% or more gain, more recently it's hit 3.75%. Being that the economy was supposed to tank by now, and since wage growth has held steady and *improved* under Trump, is that something to ignore? Wage growth was at 2% in 2015,  and wasn't anywhere near 3% throughout the Obama presidency except for in the beginning. I'm using private employee nominal wage increase numbers from the Economic Policy Institute which itself analyzes BLS numbers, where are your numbers coming from?

Yes, unemployment has been on a steady decline since Obama's presidency, however so was the labor participation rate-until Trump took over. We are currently at 50 year UE lows now. This coupled with the labor participation rate increasing shows a strong growing economy. When is it Trump's turn to take credit here? At the very least he hasn't blown the economy to smithereens, so far we are doing pretty good.

Recession is definitely coming. It's due and numbers all over the place have indicated it. We'll see what happens from here. I agree that pressing Powell to lower interest rates is risky business.

You brought up your anecdote of classes being half-full by the end of the semester, implying that other students were lazy or just not truly interested in the education whereas you are the opposite. If that was not your intention, then I apologize.

I was going off some BEA charts for wage data.

I think we would both agree that Presidents really have little control over the economies in which they preside (despite Trump's love of controlling tariffs). Any business can fake profits for a good long while. You don't have to look far to see companies like VGR or OMI that had big dividend payouts. They continued to add to their debt in order to continue paying those dividends. As long as your capital investment is outpacing your debt, then "hey, you're doing fantastic!". The fact though is that companies that practice this are taking on huge financial risks and once the next bad quarter rolls around, suddenly people recognize it for what it is. Not a cash machine, but simply a company that is leveraging itself in order to make cash payments to investors.

The economy right now is humming. But debts are piling up. The interest rate is being pressured to stay low. Tariffs are estimated to cost the average US household around $800 annually. Corporate tax reductions mean there is less room in the budget for welfare when lay-offs come. The government has no room to provide a stimulus when the economy would actually need and use it. Deregulation means companies will be more willing to destroy public goods and resources in order to make a profit. And economists are predicting that another yield inversion is likely coming in 2020.

Trump decided to pump up the economy 5 years too early for really no reason. Companies didn't know what to do with the money except pocket it. So no I don't think the tax cuts, tariffs, etc. have really done much to change the course of our economy. And instead all the risk factors are increasing for really no valuable trade-off.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1683 on: December 10, 2019, 10:01:12 AM »
Oh, there certainly was a reason:

  • For Republicans, they didn't know how long a window of unified government control they'd get for a tax cut. And they'd successfully pressured Obama to cut spending via the sequester, so there was little enough pressure on Federal finances to get it done in 2017.
  • For Trump: the TCJA was particularly favorable to real estate and rental real estate (the SALT deduction increases were for tax breaks on primary residences only, so they hurt the model NY homeowner, but not someone like him). The Trump organization benefitted from these break right away.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1420
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1684 on: December 10, 2019, 10:29:41 AM »
Republicans are smart.  They take care of their own.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1182
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1685 on: December 12, 2019, 08:32:02 AM »
Looks like just 7 for next week's debate. At least that's a more manageable number. We might finally see some true back-and-forth exchanges.

And depending on the cut-off rules going forward, Bloomberg might make January's debate stage(s). He's hitting 5% in some national polls already, and he's apparently running ads EVERYWHERE. He's even running TV ads in my state that doesn't primary until WELLLLLL after Super Tuesday, which is someone no one else has done here.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4128
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1686 on: December 12, 2019, 08:46:35 AM »
With Bloomberg isn't the biggest question unique donors?

I don't doubt he can hit any polling threshold the democratic party might reasonably set (unless they decide they want to trim the field all the way down to 3-4 candidates before the first americans have a chance to vote), but accumulating >200k individual donors without an organic movement behind you seems to take a fair bit of time even for candidates with a lot of money to throw at the problem (see Steyer -- who finally managed it -- and Delany -- who never did).

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1182
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1687 on: December 12, 2019, 08:55:47 AM »
With Bloomberg isn't the biggest question unique donors?

I don't doubt he can hit any polling threshold the democratic party might reasonably set (unless they decide they want to trim the field all the way down to 3-4 candidates before the first americans have a chance to vote), but accumulating >200k individual donors without an organic movement behind you seems to take a fair bit of time even for candidates with a lot of money to throw at the problem (see Steyer -- who finally managed it -- and Delany -- who never did).

Oh I agree that's his hurdle. But Bloomberg has a lot more name recognition than folks like Steyer and Delany, and he's already polling higher than either of them ever did. I think he'll get the donors, but it somewhat depends on how high the cut-off is set in Jan. Hell, he might be happy to spend $10 on FB ads to get a $1 donation. Whatever it takes.

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 704
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1688 on: December 12, 2019, 11:01:27 AM »
he's apparently running ads EVERYWHERE

No joke, I'm exposed to nearly no ads, given lack of cable TV, and ad blockers, and I've still seen ads for Bloomberg in several places. No Steyer ads or frankly anyone else, just Bloomberg since he announced.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4802
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1689 on: December 12, 2019, 02:40:00 PM »
Just do it.

A lot of people have lost jobs and have had to take a pay cut.  Figures show that the pay for many people has not risen in terms of the cost of living for many years.  Why should doctors be an exception?  Certainly, they have a lot of training, however, I am sure it will be possible to pay them a fair wage with a changed system.  So, doctors in other nations are not trained as intensively.  Yet, the health care results in these other nations are as good or better.  Unnecessary training does not seem to justify their high salaries.

If they were forced to take a pay cut, some would retire.  Some would move to who knows where.  Some would be bitter.  Most would be like other people in this country and accept their lot.  We would be their "jobs providers."   The notion of treating the profession more like a trade may be helpful in replacing those that are dissatisfied and leave the profession.  Part of the change could include opening new schools to increase the supply of these folks to help ensure the supply meets or exceeds the demand.  There are lots of young people who would like to be doctors.
Honestly, there is no reason for MDs to take calculus or physics but it required to get into med school.  In addition there is the recommendations for working in research labs because we allow MD to be PIs without ANY research background in medical school.  Get rid of those, make it a 5-6 program like Russia and be done with it.  It will save a ton of money and not harm a single person.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2214
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1690 on: December 12, 2019, 08:36:20 PM »
Just do it.

A lot of people have lost jobs and have had to take a pay cut.  Figures show that the pay for many people has not risen in terms of the cost of living for many years.  Why should doctors be an exception?  Certainly, they have a lot of training, however, I am sure it will be possible to pay them a fair wage with a changed system.  So, doctors in other nations are not trained as intensively.  Yet, the health care results in these other nations are as good or better.  Unnecessary training does not seem to justify their high salaries.

If they were forced to take a pay cut, some would retire.  Some would move to who knows where.  Some would be bitter.  Most would be like other people in this country and accept their lot.  We would be their "jobs providers."   The notion of treating the profession more like a trade may be helpful in replacing those that are dissatisfied and leave the profession.  Part of the change could include opening new schools to increase the supply of these folks to help ensure the supply meets or exceeds the demand.  There are lots of young people who would like to be doctors.
Honestly, there is no reason for MDs to take calculus or physics but it required to get into med school.  In addition there is the recommendations for working in research labs because we allow MD to be PIs without ANY research background in medical school.  Get rid of those, make it a 5-6 program like Russia and be done with it.  It will save a ton of money and not harm a single person.

Some might argue that having to study calculus and physics sharpens the mind and therefore helps a would be physician become a more logical thinker with respect to medical decisions.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4872
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1691 on: December 12, 2019, 09:43:22 PM »
Just do it.

A lot of people have lost jobs and have had to take a pay cut.  Figures show that the pay for many people has not risen in terms of the cost of living for many years.  Why should doctors be an exception?  Certainly, they have a lot of training, however, I am sure it will be possible to pay them a fair wage with a changed system.  So, doctors in other nations are not trained as intensively.  Yet, the health care results in these other nations are as good or better.  Unnecessary training does not seem to justify their high salaries.

If they were forced to take a pay cut, some would retire.  Some would move to who knows where.  Some would be bitter.  Most would be like other people in this country and accept their lot.  We would be their "jobs providers."   The notion of treating the profession more like a trade may be helpful in replacing those that are dissatisfied and leave the profession.  Part of the change could include opening new schools to increase the supply of these folks to help ensure the supply meets or exceeds the demand.  There are lots of young people who would like to be doctors.
Honestly, there is no reason for MDs to take calculus or physics but it required to get into med school.  In addition there is the recommendations for working in research labs because we allow MD to be PIs without ANY research background in medical school.  Get rid of those, make it a 5-6 program like Russia and be done with it.  It will save a ton of money and not harm a single person.

Some might argue that having to study calculus and physics sharpens the mind and therefore helps a would be physician become a more logical thinker with respect to medical decisions.
Rather than being reassuring, I find that argument worrying because it implies that the study of medicine doesn't in itself sharpen the mind and enable logical thought.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2116
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1692 on: December 13, 2019, 05:46:19 AM »
I thought that those math courses might weed out folks.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4802
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1693 on: December 13, 2019, 06:11:19 AM »
Just do it.

A lot of people have lost jobs and have had to take a pay cut.  Figures show that the pay for many people has not risen in terms of the cost of living for many years.  Why should doctors be an exception?  Certainly, they have a lot of training, however, I am sure it will be possible to pay them a fair wage with a changed system.  So, doctors in other nations are not trained as intensively.  Yet, the health care results in these other nations are as good or better.  Unnecessary training does not seem to justify their high salaries.

If they were forced to take a pay cut, some would retire.  Some would move to who knows where.  Some would be bitter.  Most would be like other people in this country and accept their lot.  We would be their "jobs providers."   The notion of treating the profession more like a trade may be helpful in replacing those that are dissatisfied and leave the profession.  Part of the change could include opening new schools to increase the supply of these folks to help ensure the supply meets or exceeds the demand.  There are lots of young people who would like to be doctors.
Honestly, there is no reason for MDs to take calculus or physics but it required to get into med school.  In addition there is the recommendations for working in research labs because we allow MD to be PIs without ANY research background in medical school.  Get rid of those, make it a 5-6 program like Russia and be done with it.  It will save a ton of money and not harm a single person.

Some might argue that having to study calculus and physics sharpens the mind and therefore helps a would be physician become a more logical thinker with respect to medical decisions.
Given my experience with MDs from other counties compared to the US and my experience with MDs from US, that would not be true.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14836
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1694 on: December 13, 2019, 07:21:22 AM »
Just do it.

A lot of people have lost jobs and have had to take a pay cut.  Figures show that the pay for many people has not risen in terms of the cost of living for many years.  Why should doctors be an exception?  Certainly, they have a lot of training, however, I am sure it will be possible to pay them a fair wage with a changed system.  So, doctors in other nations are not trained as intensively.  Yet, the health care results in these other nations are as good or better.  Unnecessary training does not seem to justify their high salaries.

If they were forced to take a pay cut, some would retire.  Some would move to who knows where.  Some would be bitter.  Most would be like other people in this country and accept their lot.  We would be their "jobs providers."   The notion of treating the profession more like a trade may be helpful in replacing those that are dissatisfied and leave the profession.  Part of the change could include opening new schools to increase the supply of these folks to help ensure the supply meets or exceeds the demand.  There are lots of young people who would like to be doctors.
Honestly, there is no reason for MDs to take calculus or physics but it required to get into med school.  In addition there is the recommendations for working in research labs because we allow MD to be PIs without ANY research background in medical school.  Get rid of those, make it a 5-6 program like Russia and be done with it.  It will save a ton of money and not harm a single person.

Some might argue that having to study calculus and physics sharpens the mind and therefore helps a would be physician become a more logical thinker with respect to medical decisions.
Rather than being reassuring, I find that argument worrying because it implies that the study of medicine doesn't in itself sharpen the mind and enable logical thought.

It's a goofy argument.  It's the same argument that was used to force me to take chemistry classes for my software engineering degree . . . and sounds about as stupid now as it did then.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4128
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1695 on: December 13, 2019, 07:49:09 AM »
I highly recommend The Saber-Tooth Curriculum. A lot of insight into how we ended up with the educational system we have today, wrapped up in quite dry humor that helps it go down a lot easier.

The short version is that you can always come up with some reason it is beneficial for students to be taught a topic, any topic.*

The problem is that there is always a cost. Whether it is some other subject they won't have time to learn about, or an education that stretches out for more years than other nations, costing students more money, reducing the number of people trained, and reducing how many useful years people can actually contribute to the needed job once they are trained to do it.

*
Quote
"But, damn it," exploded one of the radicals, "how can any person with good sense be interested in such useless activities? What is the point of trying to catch fish with the bare hands when it just can't be done any more? How can a boy learn to club horses when there are no horses left to club? And why in hell should children try to scare tigers with fire when the tigers are dead and gone?"

"Don't be foolish," said the wise old men, smiling most kindly smiles. "We don't teach fish‐grabbing to grab fish; we teach it to develop a generalized agility which can never to developed by mere training. We don't teach horse‐clubbing to club horses; we teach it to develop a generalized strength in the learner which he can never get from so prosaic and specialized a thing as antelope‐snaring. We don't teach tiger‐scaring to scare tigers; we teach it for the purpose of giving that noble courage which carries over into all the affairs of life and which can never come from so base an activity as bear‐killing."

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 769
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1696 on: December 13, 2019, 07:59:47 AM »
I thought that those math courses might weed out folks.
That's kind of what I thought too. Organic chemistry, biology, physics, and calculus each tests a somewhat different mixture of the student's ability to understand new concepts and rote memorization.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2272
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1697 on: December 13, 2019, 08:12:28 AM »
I thought that those math courses might weed out folks.
That's kind of what I thought too. Organic chemistry, biology, physics, and calculus each tests a somewhat different mixture of the student's ability to understand new concepts and rote memorization.

Perhaps that's the theory, but have studies been done showing that it's effective? And more importantly, is it more effective than using coursework relevant to ones goals to achieve the same purpose?

I won't argue that using math to weed students out for unrelated degrees is suboptimal because I really don't know whether it is or not, but I also think there should be some strong evidence that it is optimal before we invest our resources in that path. From what I do know it seems we do things the way we do because that's the way they've always been done, not because we've shown them to be effective.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1248
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1698 on: December 13, 2019, 09:21:04 AM »
My guess is that most people on this board are so smart that they hardly realize how useful their calculus and physics has been.

From my understanding, a large part of being an MD is staying up to date on new research. This research is going to include different "rates of change". A doctor is going to need to understand the implications of what that means and to generally understand what those graphs or tables might indicate.

Physics is extremely important in understanding the movement of muscles and our skeleton in general. Why is it that we say that the weight on our knees is 1.5x our body weight?

However, Medical schools understand that there isn't an additional benefit to studying Cal II or beyond Physics II. They don't need to do the math; heck who does math by hand except students? But doctors do need a cursory understanding of these topics. My guess is that people here have actually used their calculus/physics knowledge a good bit more than they realize.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4802
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1699 on: December 13, 2019, 09:26:22 AM »
I thought that those math courses might weed out folks.
That's kind of what I thought too. Organic chemistry, biology, physics, and calculus each tests a somewhat different mixture of the student's ability to understand new concepts and rote memorization.
Organic chemistry, biology, those have actual benefits to MD (even though I hated o chem with a passion that lasts to this day). The others really don't. They are weed out classes but should they be?  If they don't help get us good doctors, why have them?  Possibly because we needed enough classes to make undergrad needed so that medicine could become a post baccalaureate degree? It did not used to be, even in this country.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk