Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 146679 times)

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2300
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1600 on: December 04, 2019, 10:06:24 AM »
Uhh what? It was congress that ended up voting down any Gitmo closure funding. If anything Obama did everything he could through the executive alone moving a number of prisoners from Gitmo to the US. Heck the Obama admin was even just trying to buy more federal prison space and the GOP would claim that he was secretly trying to buy a Gitmo prisoner space. And it wasn't just the GOP half the dems wouldn't vote for gitmo closing either. Politicians just fear the blowback on that one.

Yes I am aware that the democrats are universally spineless and incompetent. So expecting them to achieve anything is laughable. "oh the mean republicans won't let us! not our fault I promise!"

Meanwhile the GOP has support of maybe a 1/3 of the US population (and shrinking) but they seem to be able to push their death-cult agenda through quite frequently. Their single-minded focus and effectiveness would be admirable, if it wasn't so evil.. Well i guess they failed on obamacare repeal? Ohwait they'll just gut that through the courts, executive orders, and their control of the state houses!

I'm not sure what you're complaining about then. So it is congress' fault because they're spineless, but also Obama because.... congress?

Yes, both. Obama, and especially Rahm, tried to work with GOP, or he was afraid they'd vilify him, obamacare etc. Shocker; they did anyway! House dems are just to fractured and self-serving, and leadership don't have enough control to get anything serious done. Only thing close for GOP is teaparty/freedom caucus, but even they will eventually get on board if they tack on something psychotic enough

JetBlast

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1601 on: December 04, 2019, 10:09:11 AM »


I'm curious what you Buttigieg "fans" think if his (shady) past in McKinsey? Ruhtless layoffs, supporting authoritarian state companies, war-profitering etc?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a35m58/why-buttigiegs-shadowy-consultant-past-at-mckinsey-matters
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/henrygomez/pete-buttigieg-mckinsey

I really don't care what he sounds like when he talks, I have deep concerns what his past says about him.

He would have been very junior at McKinsey, as it was his first job after finishing school, and would have had zero direct influence on picking clients the firm works for, and likely little choice in assignments within McKinsey. He was almost certainly a mid-20s, fresh out of school, nobody at McKinsey. Just like all the other newbies they grind into the ground for a few years with the lure of a big payday down the road.  A payday he walked away from to enter public service.
 
Further, there are likely a ton of Mustachians that work for companies that could be accused of similar.  I'd bet we have some engineers at companies like Boeing or Lockheed Martin, which sell weapons to not always the nicest governments.  Or how about anyone working for an large integrated oil company like Exxon or BP?  Should they too be under scrutiny because their companies work with the Saudi or Russian governments?  Because oil prices tend to spike with Middle-East uncertainty, could those companies be accused of war-profiteering?  What about all of us that own index funds and therefore are owners of all the companies I named above?

I don't think working for McKinsey is inherently shady.



Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2193
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1602 on: December 04, 2019, 10:16:00 AM »
Uhh what? It was congress that ended up voting down any Gitmo closure funding. If anything Obama did everything he could through the executive alone moving a number of prisoners from Gitmo to the US. Heck the Obama admin was even just trying to buy more federal prison space and the GOP would claim that he was secretly trying to buy a Gitmo prisoner space. And it wasn't just the GOP half the dems wouldn't vote for gitmo closing either. Politicians just fear the blowback on that one.

Yes I am aware that the democrats are universally spineless and incompetent. So expecting them to achieve anything is laughable. "oh the mean republicans won't let us! not our fault I promise!"

Meanwhile the GOP has support of maybe a 1/3 of the US population (and shrinking) but they seem to be able to push their death-cult agenda through quite frequently. Their single-minded focus and effectiveness would be admirable, if it wasn't so evil.. Well i guess they failed on obamacare repeal? Ohwait they'll just gut that through the courts and executive orders!

So who do you support for the Democratic candidate?

Curious why that matters? I can't criticize obama or any dem candidates unless I support a perfect candidate?

Of course you can. I was just curious if you actually supported anyone or if you were here to tell us how terrible every potential candidate is and how foolish we are for supporting them. Seems it's the latter.

Unfortunately you're not going to get a candidate who has never been linked to something questionable in their past, who holds all the same positions that you do, and will effectively implement them as policy in 4-8 years. It feels like that's what you want and anyone who doesn't meet those requirements is a POS.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2193
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1603 on: December 04, 2019, 10:18:18 AM »


I'm curious what you Buttigieg "fans" think if his (shady) past in McKinsey? Ruhtless layoffs, supporting authoritarian state companies, war-profitering etc?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a35m58/why-buttigiegs-shadowy-consultant-past-at-mckinsey-matters
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/henrygomez/pete-buttigieg-mckinsey

I really don't care what he sounds like when he talks, I have deep concerns what his past says about him.

He would have been very junior at McKinsey, as it was his first job after finishing school, and would have had zero direct influence on picking clients the firm works for, and likely little choice in assignments within McKinsey. He was almost certainly a mid-20s, fresh out of school, nobody at McKinsey. Just like all the other newbies they grind into the ground for a few years with the lure of a big payday down the road.  A payday he walked away from to enter public service.
 
Further, there are likely a ton of Mustachians that work for companies that could be accused of similar.  I'd bet we have some engineers at companies like Boeing or Lockheed Martin, which sell weapons to not always the nicest governments.  Or how about anyone working for an large integrated oil company like Exxon or BP?  Should they too be under scrutiny because their companies work with the Saudi or Russian governments?  Because oil prices tend to spike with Middle-East uncertainty, could those companies be accused of war-profiteering?  What about all of us that own index funds and therefore are owners of all the companies I named above?

I don't think working for McKinsey is inherently shady.

Agreed. I'll read more on the issue later but if that vice article is the extent of his "shady" past then this has no effect on my opinion of Pete. Feels like grasping at straws.

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2300
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1604 on: December 04, 2019, 10:41:17 AM »
Of course you can. I was just curious if you actually supported anyone or if you were here to tell us how terrible every potential candidate is and how foolish we are for supporting them. Seems it's the latter.

Unfortunately you're not going to get a candidate who has never been linked to something questionable in their past, who holds all the same positions that you do, and will effectively implement them as policy in 4-8 years. It feels like that's what you want and anyone who doesn't meet those requirements is a POS.

I can't vote, so doesn't matter.
No I'm not looking for someone to be perfect, but I would expect some sliver of principles, rather than being opportunistic leeches who will do anything for power. Rather I feel it's the opposite here; people think all of them have awful pasts so might as well pick the one with the best hair.. Or who speaks the most "authentic", or reminds them of their kind grandpa, or is the most gay (all of these have been mentioned here as reasons for liking someone, except the hair). 

I'm not particularly on board with all their policies, but at least bernie and warren have slightly less awful histories of wall-st selling out and corporate psychopathy. Or fully rotting brain in the case of Biden.
edit: from what I know actually Obama too had a pretty decent past, not involving much wallst hitjob work or similar
« Last Edit: December 04, 2019, 11:07:45 AM by Scandium »

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2300
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1605 on: December 04, 2019, 10:48:04 AM »
Or how about anyone working for an large integrated oil company like Exxon or BP?  Should they too be under scrutiny because their companies work with the Saudi or Russian governments?

uhm, if they run for president; yes!
I don't care if he chose the clients, he chose to work for that company with a pretty well-known reputation and MO. He was even sent to war-torn countries! That tells me something about him. The fact that he played it up before when it benefited him, and hardly talk about it now also tells me something..

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 719
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1606 on: December 04, 2019, 11:03:28 AM »
I'm curious what you Buttigieg "fans" think if his (shady) past in McKinsey? Ruhtless layoffs, supporting authoritarian state companies, war-profitering etc?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a35m58/why-buttigiegs-shadowy-consultant-past-at-mckinsey-matters
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/henrygomez/pete-buttigieg-mckinsey
I really don't care what he sounds like when he talks, I have deep concerns what his past says about him.
In this campaign, we have one candidate who voted for the shitshow in Iraq and Afghanistan (Biden) and one that worked as a low level grunt there (Buttigieg). I'm not concerned.

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1205
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1607 on: December 04, 2019, 11:46:44 AM »
Of course you can. I was just curious if you actually supported anyone or if you were here to tell us how terrible every potential candidate is and how foolish we are for supporting them. Seems it's the latter.

Unfortunately you're not going to get a candidate who has never been linked to something questionable in their past, who holds all the same positions that you do, and will effectively implement them as policy in 4-8 years. It feels like that's what you want and anyone who doesn't meet those requirements is a POS.

I can't vote, so doesn't matter.
No I'm not looking for someone to be perfect, but I would expect some sliver of principles, rather than being opportunistic leeches who will do anything for power. Rather I feel it's the opposite here; people think all of them have awful pasts so might as well pick the one with the best hair.. Or who speaks the most "authentic", or reminds them of their kind grandpa, or is the most gay (all of these have been mentioned here as reasons for liking someone, except the hair). 

I'm not particularly on board with all their policies, but at least bernie and warren have slightly less awful histories of wall-st selling out and corporate psychopathy. Or fully rotting brain in the case of Biden.
edit: from what I know actually Obama too had a pretty decent past, not involving much wallst hitjob work or similar

You can't vote?  Are you under 18?  A felon?  Canadian?

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1608 on: December 04, 2019, 01:26:49 PM »
Of course you can. I was just curious if you actually supported anyone or if you were here to tell us how terrible every potential candidate is and how foolish we are for supporting them. Seems it's the latter.

Unfortunately you're not going to get a candidate who has never been linked to something questionable in their past, who holds all the same positions that you do, and will effectively implement them as policy in 4-8 years. It feels like that's what you want and anyone who doesn't meet those requirements is a POS.

I can't vote, so doesn't matter.
No I'm not looking for someone to be perfect, but I would expect some sliver of principles, rather than being opportunistic leeches who will do anything for power. Rather I feel it's the opposite here; people think all of them have awful pasts so might as well pick the one with the best hair.. Or who speaks the most "authentic", or reminds them of their kind grandpa, or is the most gay (all of these have been mentioned here as reasons for liking someone, except the hair). 

I'm not particularly on board with all their policies, but at least bernie and warren have slightly less awful histories of wall-st selling out and corporate psychopathy. Or fully rotting brain in the case of Biden.
edit: from what I know actually Obama too had a pretty decent past, not involving much wallst hitjob work or similar

Just focusing in on your statement, "I'm not particularly on board with all their policies". That is generally a sentiment that I think all voters should have. There is no perfect set of policies and positions. And certainly no candidate in history where any person should agree with every choice they make or stance they take.


DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1609 on: December 04, 2019, 08:30:00 PM »
My nephew on Twitter has critiqued Buttigieg's healthcare policy:

"After Latino event I asked Buttigieg if non-citizens could access benefits of “Medicare for all who want it.” He says they could buy in, but not get subsidies. (Medicare for all legislation covers non citizens.)"
"I can’t support a MedicareForSome campaign or policy. One that excludes undocumented folks, LPRs, EAD holders, DACA/TPS recipients, and others.

BTW, undocumented folks pay federal taxes."

But in a political campaign I wonder how it would play out if a candidate stated he/she would support healthcare for undocumented folks?

Also there is criticism of Buttigieg's free college plan:

"New Pete ad in Iowa taking aim at Warren and Bernie over college affordability/debt (but not by name), arguing they’d alienate half the country by insisting it be “free even for the kids of millionaires”. H/t @McCormickJohn
"His free college plan stops at households earning $100k. Two parents who earn $55k each wouldn’t qualify. This plan would disproportionately leave out working families especially those living in high-cost areas. This is why arbitrary income caps are frankly, stupid."

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1222
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1610 on: December 04, 2019, 10:20:49 PM »
Is Buttigieg just deciding to stay oblivious to how government programs work? "Medicare for all who want it" and "Free College for everyone except rich kids" just sounds like demagoguery to me. These are policies that are designed to be slowly chipped away and immediately demolished by the next GOP admin.

We can't go splitting society into the the getters and the givers. It would politically align everyone who doesn't receive the benefit against the program and breed even more contempt for the poor than is already there. Literally no one makes this argument when talking about using the roads, public high schools, police and fire departments. Like who says "oh, you're too rich for public services, you can't call this number, you have to pay for your own fire rescue service." Rich kids voluntarily going to a public school and interacting with normal people might actually do the country some good. And they'd still be the ones paying for it. The best policies are: "This is what everyone gets, this what everyone pays; same rules all around". Those are the policies that are the longest lasting and most difficult to take away. And are the policies that people follow and put effort into across the board.

Look at what Trump is doing to food stamps. It's easy to get away with politically because it's a service available to a minority of the country. (Though I think Trump underestimates the number of his supporters on food stamps)

Compare that to Obamacare that mandated insurance for dependents through age 26, minimum coverage requirements, fair pricing, and caps on profits. And even when the GOP came into power, no one wanted to undo those. Even people in the deep south would say "Obamacare is destroying the country" "Yeah but what about insurance for your kid in college, and minimum requirements on what insurance actually covers?" "Oh yeah well, except that part"

Undocumented immigrants already use the emergency room. Either we can pay the whole bill, or they can just use the system that's there. However, I kind of understand him trying to dodge this, cause a lot of Americans just do. not. want. to. hear about undocumented immigrants being allowed to live any sort of life here. Doesn't matter if everything costs 3x as much, racism is just a really easy scape goat for the human mind to escape to. Even GOP politicians know that a wall won't do any good, but it's a slogan that sells well even with a number of engineers that I know.

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1611 on: December 05, 2019, 12:41:23 AM »
My nephew on Twitter has critiqued Buttigieg's healthcare policy:

"After Latino event I asked Buttigieg if non-citizens could access benefits of “Medicare for all who want it.” He says they could buy in, but not get subsidies. (Medicare for all legislation covers non citizens.)"
"I can’t support a MedicareForSome campaign or policy. One that excludes undocumented folks, LPRs, EAD holders, DACA/TPS recipients, and others.

BTW, undocumented folks pay federal taxes."

But in a political campaign I wonder how it would play out if a candidate stated he/she would support healthcare for undocumented folks?

Also there is criticism of Buttigieg's free college plan:

"New Pete ad in Iowa taking aim at Warren and Bernie over college affordability/debt (but not by name), arguing they’d alienate half the country by insisting it be “free even for the kids of millionaires”. H/t @McCormickJohn
"His free college plan stops at households earning $100k. Two parents who earn $55k each wouldn’t qualify. This plan would disproportionately leave out working families especially those living in high-cost areas. This is why arbitrary income caps are frankly, stupid."

Your nephew asked a great question that led to an important conversation. However, undocumented immigrants, from what I can tell, are currently not eligible for subsidized healthcare. They are not even able to purchase healthcare through the marketplace currently. So in that regard Buttigieg’s plan is an improvement to access for the undocumented since it allows everyone the ability to purchase.

Also, this does not exclude other options for undocumented immigrants, either now or created in the future. It makes sense that subsidies for legal residents be kept separate from subsidies for the undocumented. You need a social security number to qualify for Medicare; and if not for that, then for what? Should we all just pretend social security numbers don’t exist anymore? Buttigieg was asked specifically about undocumented access to Medicare....not if there were any other options, programs, or plans, or if he thinks there should be. But again, I am glad your nephew asked the question because if candidates weren’t thinking about it before (though I am sure they have even if it hasn’t been formed or articulated yet), they certainly will be now.

Regarding your comment about the exclusion of couples each making $55k from college subsidies is a popular but false narrative. Under his plan they may not get as much as those making less than $50k each, but most over that threshold would get something, and certainly more than they could get from FAFSA (which is zilch). So again, an improvement of the current options.

It’s one thing to think a candidate’s plan isn’t going far enough, but to insinuate that their plan devalues the access and opportunities of the current systems (that have been in place for decades), is ingenuous.

I feel like while it is great to focus on opportunities after Trump, and we can’t run on just who can beat Trump, we also can’t pretend that we are in a political environment that is conducive to being the “mostest, biggest, and riskiest”. Unfortunately the primary goal for THIS particular election is not who had the best or most progressive ideas, but who can present progressive plans that can win the election. And further, who can get those plans passed in what is bound to be a still smoldering partisan dumpster fire after the election and years to come, likely.

Secret Stache

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 124
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1612 on: December 05, 2019, 07:09:34 AM »
Hillary went on the Stern show and was impressive.  I essentially abstained from the last election and voted 3rd party because I didn't like what was presented but I've never seen that side of her.  She actually had me laughing after her comment describing the end of Trump's inaugural address when George W. leaned over to her and said "Well that was some weird shit" 

She may still be mulling a 2020 run which I think would be a mistake but give the interview a listen.  Youtube has several clips of it.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14640
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1613 on: December 05, 2019, 07:13:41 AM »
Is Buttigieg just deciding to stay oblivious to how government programs work? "Medicare for all who want it" and "Free College for everyone except rich kids" just sounds like demagoguery to me.

Do the rich get food stamps?  Not sure how the free college thing is any different.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2193
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1614 on: December 05, 2019, 07:27:43 AM »
Is Buttigieg just deciding to stay oblivious to how government programs work? "Medicare for all who want it" and "Free College for everyone except rich kids" just sounds like demagoguery to me.

Do the rich get food stamps?  Not sure how the free college thing is any different.

Or even more similar, Pell Grants. We literally already have a program that subsidies tuition costs for low income families.

What Buttigieg is proposing would go much further and cost much more, but I don't understand the critique that we can't give to the poor without giving to everyone. That describes almost every social assistance program.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1169
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1615 on: December 05, 2019, 07:28:57 AM »
"Medicare for all who want it" seems much, much, much more palatable to the general public, IMO, as opposed to "you will lose the health plan you've had for however many years, perhaps through your job, and you'll be on this government plan, and trust us, it will be wonderful."

Pete is 100% right on how the roll-out should go. It should be voluntary, and it should be SPECTACULAR. I mean flawless. The system should be so awesome that people are bragging about their new Medicare coverage. That would eventually win over others, now that the system had been vetted.

Not everyone trusts the government to do a bang-up job on such a critical issue. Can you really blame them? Look at all the VA issues we've had for decades.

So roll it out, do a SPECTACULAR job, get people to buy in and win others over. That is the logical approach, to me. And to Pete.

(Note: Yes, the goal is 100% coverage for every single person in the United States. So let's figure out the smartest way to get there)


Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1169
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1616 on: December 05, 2019, 07:37:41 AM »
Is Buttigieg just deciding to stay oblivious to how government programs work? "Medicare for all who want it" and "Free College for everyone except rich kids" just sounds like demagoguery to me.

Do the rich get food stamps?  Not sure how the free college thing is any different.

Or even more similar, Pell Grants. We literally already have a program that subsidies tuition costs for low income families.

What Buttigieg is proposing would go much further and cost much more, but I don't understand the critique that we can't give to the poor without giving to everyone. That describes almost every social assistance program.

And the biggest funding difference for schools on the K-12 level?

Title 1 funding.

And guess which schools get it? Schools with high concentrations of low income-students.

Many of the folks on the far left, many of whom I like and respect, are really going nuts against Pete, and are losing their minds in the process. There's no room for nuance with them. It's either you are 100% on board with everything Bernie and the Squad say, or you're a Republican.

Seriously...Pete's platform would be the most progressive platform for a a president...ever? (maybe excepting FDR). But I mean, compare it to that of Carter, Clinton, Obama, even Hillary's proposals last cycle. Calling Pete a Republican is just...it shows no basic understanding at all.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2193
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1617 on: December 05, 2019, 07:49:13 AM »
"Medicare for all who want it" seems much, much, much more palatable to the general public, IMO, as opposed to "you will lose the health plan you've had for however many years, perhaps through your job, and you'll be on this government plan, and trust us, it will be wonderful."

Pete is 100% right on how the roll-out should go. It should be voluntary, and it should be SPECTACULAR. I mean flawless. The system should be so awesome that people are bragging about their new Medicare coverage. That would eventually win over others, now that the system had been vetted.

Not everyone trusts the government to do a bang-up job on such a critical issue. Can you really blame them? Look at all the VA issues we've had for decades.

So roll it out, do a SPECTACULAR job, get people to buy in and win others over. That is the logical approach, to me. And to Pete.

(Note: Yes, the goal is 100% coverage for every single person in the United States. So let's figure out the smartest way to get there)

Very much agree with your last note. If we were starting from scratch then yes, some of the more aggressive plans would make sense. Starting from where we are now though, I think arguing for everything at once is going to result in getting nothing. We need to remember that a significant portion of the country is going to oppose whatever plan is introduced by a Democrat so there's already going to be resistance. The more sudden and extreme the changes are, the more resistance there will be. A gradual shift that gives people a chance to adjust is going to enjoy the most long term success in my opinion.

I think this applies to most of what the federal government does. Slow, incremental change has the best chance of success. I know that's boring, but the right answers usually are.

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4106
  • Age: 28
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1618 on: December 05, 2019, 08:17:01 AM »
"Medicare for all who want it" seems much, much, much more palatable to the general public, IMO, as opposed to "you will lose the health plan you've had for however many years, perhaps through your job, and you'll be on this government plan, and trust us, it will be wonderful."

Pete is 100% right on how the roll-out should go. It should be voluntary, and it should be SPECTACULAR. I mean flawless. The system should be so awesome that people are bragging about their new Medicare coverage. That would eventually win over others, now that the system had been vetted.

Not everyone trusts the government to do a bang-up job on such a critical issue. Can you really blame them? Look at all the VA issues we've had for decades.

So roll it out, do a SPECTACULAR job, get people to buy in and win others over. That is the logical approach, to me. And to Pete.

(Note: Yes, the goal is 100% coverage for every single person in the United States. So let's figure out the smartest way to get there)
I definitely agree with the spirit of this.

But:
Quote
"you will lose the health plan you've had for however many years, perhaps through your job"
Does anyone actually like their health insurance?  Everyone at my workplace grumbles about it every year.  Prices go up, a cheapo option that barely covers anything is introduced, we switch providers every few years, and our VP of operations gets to tear her hair out once a year for a few months juggling all the options and plans for the next year and going back and forth with providers.  Ironically the only people I know that actually *like* their health benefits are government workers.

I mean I sure wouldn't blind trust a government run plan to be better (though it absolutely has the potential to be, and should be), but I don't exactly love what I have now (though it's honestly "fine" and I'm lucky enough to have barely used it so far), and I'm sure most of the country is in that boat.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4033
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1619 on: December 05, 2019, 08:31:01 AM »
But:
Quote
"you will lose the health plan you've had for however many years, perhaps through your job"
Does anyone actually like their health insurance?  Everyone at my workplace grumbles about it every year.  Prices go up, a cheapo option that barely covers anything is introduced, we switch providers every few years, and our VP of operations gets to tear her hair out once a year for a few months juggling all the options and plans for the next year and going back and forth with providers.  Ironically the only people I know that actually *like* their health benefits are government workers.

I mean I sure wouldn't blind trust a government run plan to be better (though it absolutely has the potential to be, and should be), but I don't exactly love what I have now (though it's honestly "fine" and I'm lucky enough to have barely used it so far), and I'm sure most of the country is in that boat.

I think many people like their health insurance in a "better the devil you know than the devil you don't" sort of way. Particularly because they're constantly hearing horror stories about other people's health insurance and how much more it costs and how much less it covers. It doesn't take a lot of people with terrible health insurance generating horror stories to convince most people that their mediocre health insurance could be a lot worse.

Short of getting a public option up and running and providing clearly superior care for clearly lower prices* I don't see an effective path to convincing a majority of the voting public that they're best served by rolling the dice on the devil they don't.

*Which to be clear I think is definitely achievable. But it is a situation where it will be critical to show not tell.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1222
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1620 on: December 05, 2019, 08:45:25 AM »
Is Buttigieg just deciding to stay oblivious to how government programs work? "Medicare for all who want it" and "Free College for everyone except rich kids" just sounds like demagoguery to me.

Do the rich get food stamps?  Not sure how the free college thing is any different.

Or even more similar, Pell Grants. We literally already have a program that subsidies tuition costs for low income families.

What Buttigieg is proposing would go much further and cost much more, but I don't understand the critique that we can't give to the poor without giving to everyone. That describes almost every social assistance program.

Food stamps only go to the extremely impoverished. And yes there is a huge stigma against people who use them. The GOP will regularly bash food stamp users as lazy and entitled. You'll even find some GOP voters who use food stamps calling other people who use such programs as entitled and lazy. I remember at one point thinking "maybe I should get food stamps, I'm running close to empty". My wife was working minimum wage and I was going to school. So we met the income requirements, but food stamps also required that we be on our last $2000 dollars. Yeah, you have to be running on a shoe string budget to get food stamps in a lot of states.

The Pell Grant maxes out at about 6k per year. Tuition at my "very affordable" in-state college is right around 11k per year. Just tuition. Most families only get the full amount if you make <30k. And then you get partial grants for up to <60k. Yeah anyone in a family of 4-6 that makes 65k. You're supposed to be saving for that 70k expense for each of your 3 kids? College costs are rising due to administration bloat. Perhaps free college would be able to provide the monopsony to reduce this bloat and actually reduce the overall cost of tuition.

Because college shouldn't be "social assistance". It should just be available. Like I said, literally no one questions free public school K-12, (and some still decide to pay for private school). This is extending that 4 years. People can't afford to even become a teacher or social worker.

Should there be room in the government to help out the extremely impoverished? Yes. But when we're talking about programs that are starting to be out of reach for families even making in the 60-90k, you really have to question whether it's just easier and more sustainable to make it universal.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14640
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1621 on: December 05, 2019, 08:54:15 AM »
Lots of people on question free public schools.  Especially those who don't enroll their kids in the public system because of it's lack of focus on God, 'Libertarians' who don't have kids, and the folks who put their kids in private schools because they don't want their kids to be among the commoners and riff-raff.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4033
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1622 on: December 05, 2019, 08:56:45 AM »
Lots of people on question free public schools.  Especially those who don't enroll their kids in the public system because of it's lack of focus on God, 'Libertarians' who don't have kids, and the folks who put their kids in private schools because they don't want their kids to be among the commoners and riff-raff.

I would be shocked if anyone, from communists to anarchists and everything in between, who did not have any kids enrolled their kids in the public school system.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1169
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1623 on: December 05, 2019, 09:04:27 AM »
Lots of people on question free public schools.  Especially those who don't enroll their kids in the public system because of it's lack of focus on God, 'Libertarians' who don't have kids, and the folks who put their kids in private schools because they don't want their kids to be among the commoners and riff-raff.

I would be shocked if anyone, from communists to anarchists and everything in between, who did not have any kids enrolled their kids in the public school system.

I think GuitarStv meant that many childless/childfree Libertarians question the entire premise of paying taxes on government institutions that don't *directly benefit them.

(*although everyone receives the indirect benefit of having a more educated populace, hence fewer robbers and highwaymen taking the Libertarians' stashes of gold in their backyards)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14640
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1624 on: December 05, 2019, 09:07:36 AM »
Lots of people on question free public schools.  Especially those who don't enroll their kids in the public system because of it's lack of focus on God, 'Libertarians' who don't have kids, and the folks who put their kids in private schools because they don't want their kids to be among the commoners and riff-raff.

I would be shocked if anyone, from communists to anarchists and everything in between, who did not have any kids enrolled their kids in the public school system.

I think GuitarStv meant that many childless/childfree Libertarians question the entire premise of paying taxes on government institutions that don't *directly benefit them.

(*although everyone receives the indirect benefit of having a more educated populace, hence fewer robbers and highwaymen taking the Libertarians' stashes of gold in their backyards)

Yeah.  The 'doesn't directly benefit me' argument always falls apart when you find out that they attended public schools while growing up.  They just don't want to pay for anyone else to have the same benefit that they enjoyed.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1222
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1625 on: December 05, 2019, 09:21:52 AM »
"Medicare for all who want it" seems much, much, much more palatable to the general public, IMO, as opposed to "you will lose the health plan you've had for however many years, perhaps through your job, and you'll be on this government plan, and trust us, it will be wonderful."

Pete is 100% right on how the roll-out should go. It should be voluntary, and it should be SPECTACULAR. I mean flawless. The system should be so awesome that people are bragging about their new Medicare coverage. That would eventually win over others, now that the system had been vetted.

Not everyone trusts the government to do a bang-up job on such a critical issue. Can you really blame them? Look at all the VA issues we've had for decades.

So roll it out, do a SPECTACULAR job, get people to buy in and win others over. That is the logical approach, to me. And to Pete.

(Note: Yes, the goal is 100% coverage for every single person in the United States. So let's figure out the smartest way to get there)

Does anyone believe that this would be Pete's lane if Bernie didn't trailblaze M4A first?

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1222
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1626 on: December 05, 2019, 09:24:14 AM »
Lots of people on question free public schools.  Especially those who don't enroll their kids in the public system because of it's lack of focus on God, 'Libertarians' who don't have kids, and the folks who put their kids in private schools because they don't want their kids to be among the commoners and riff-raff.

I would be shocked if anyone, from communists to anarchists and everything in between, who did not have any kids enrolled their kids in the public school system.

I think GuitarStv meant that many childless/childfree Libertarians question the entire premise of paying taxes on government institutions that don't *directly benefit them.

(*although everyone receives the indirect benefit of having a more educated populace, hence fewer robbers and highwaymen taking the Libertarians' stashes of gold in their backyards)

Yeah.  The 'doesn't directly benefit me' argument always falls apart when you find out that they attended public schools while growing up.  They just don't want to pay for anyone else to have the same benefit that they enjoyed.

Libertarianism: When you pull up the ladder behind you and then say "What ladder?"

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2193
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1627 on: December 05, 2019, 09:27:10 AM »
Is Buttigieg just deciding to stay oblivious to how government programs work? "Medicare for all who want it" and "Free College for everyone except rich kids" just sounds like demagoguery to me.

Do the rich get food stamps?  Not sure how the free college thing is any different.

Or even more similar, Pell Grants. We literally already have a program that subsidies tuition costs for low income families.

What Buttigieg is proposing would go much further and cost much more, but I don't understand the critique that we can't give to the poor without giving to everyone. That describes almost every social assistance program.

Food stamps only go to the extremely impoverished. And yes there is a huge stigma against people who use them. The GOP will regularly bash food stamp users as lazy and entitled. You'll even find some GOP voters who use food stamps calling other people who use such programs as entitled and lazy. I remember at one point thinking "maybe I should get food stamps, I'm running close to empty". My wife was working minimum wage and I was going to school. So we met the income requirements, but food stamps also required that we be on our last $2000 dollars. Yeah, you have to be running on a shoe string budget to get food stamps in a lot of states.

Are you saying that everyone should get subsidies to pay for food or that the getter/giver dichotomy is acceptable here because going hungry is a bigger problem than not going to college? I'm open to either position, just curious.

Quote
The Pell Grant maxes out at about 6k per year. Tuition at my "very affordable" in-state college is right around 11k per year. Just tuition. Most families only get the full amount if you make <30k. And then you get partial grants for up to <60k. Yeah anyone in a family of 4-6 that makes 65k. You're supposed to be saving for that 70k expense for each of your 3 kids? College costs are rising due to administration bloat. Perhaps free college would be able to provide the monopsony to reduce this bloat and actually reduce the overall cost of tuition.

The difference is just a matter of degrees. Are you against Pell Grants or do you think having getters and givers is ok at lower income levels and lower assistance levels?

Quote
Because college shouldn't be "social assistance". It should just be available. Like I said, literally no one questions free public school K-12, (and some still decide to pay for private school). This is extending that 4 years. People can't afford to even become a teacher or social worker.

If you're operating with this basic assumption then I suspect this is your real problem with Buttigieg's plan and not the getters and givers divide. This divide would still exist between those who get free tuition and everyone who pays taxes but doesn't go to college.

Personally, I disagree that college should just be available to everyone. I think there would be societal benefit to more people receiving higher education, but I also think there are lot of social programs that would provide more societal benefit at lower costs. Universally available college is way down my list of priorities.

To the bolded, I do see this as a problem. Perhaps subsidies based on major and eventual career would make more sense than subsidies based on income? If anyone responds to this last part, please don't quote the rest. This should be a separate conversation.

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1628 on: December 05, 2019, 09:34:19 AM »
"Medicare for all who want it" seems much, much, much more palatable to the general public, IMO, as opposed to "you will lose the health plan you've had for however many years, perhaps through your job, and you'll be on this government plan, and trust us, it will be wonderful."

Pete is 100% right on how the roll-out should go. It should be voluntary, and it should be SPECTACULAR. I mean flawless. The system should be so awesome that people are bragging about their new Medicare coverage. That would eventually win over others, now that the system had been vetted.

Not everyone trusts the government to do a bang-up job on such a critical issue. Can you really blame them? Look at all the VA issues we've had for decades.

So roll it out, do a SPECTACULAR job, get people to buy in and win others over. That is the logical approach, to me. And to Pete.

(Note: Yes, the goal is 100% coverage for every single person in the United States. So let's figure out the smartest way to get there)

Does anyone believe that this would be Pete's lane if Bernie didn't trailblaze M4A first?

Does it matter?

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2193
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1629 on: December 05, 2019, 09:41:50 AM »
"Medicare for all who want it" seems much, much, much more palatable to the general public, IMO, as opposed to "you will lose the health plan you've had for however many years, perhaps through your job, and you'll be on this government plan, and trust us, it will be wonderful."

Pete is 100% right on how the roll-out should go. It should be voluntary, and it should be SPECTACULAR. I mean flawless. The system should be so awesome that people are bragging about their new Medicare coverage. That would eventually win over others, now that the system had been vetted.

Not everyone trusts the government to do a bang-up job on such a critical issue. Can you really blame them? Look at all the VA issues we've had for decades.

So roll it out, do a SPECTACULAR job, get people to buy in and win others over. That is the logical approach, to me. And to Pete.

(Note: Yes, the goal is 100% coverage for every single person in the United States. So let's figure out the smartest way to get there)

Does anyone believe that this would be Pete's lane if Bernie didn't trailblaze M4A first?

Hard to say. The Democrats have been moving towards some sort of universal healthcare for a while now but I think Pete is a pragmatist first. If he didn't think he could win the election with that position, then no, he wouldn't support it. If Bernie made the idea of M4A more palatable to the general public then he probably did influence Pete's position.

I honestly think we have no idea what Pete's ideal world looks like nor do I think it matters. He's a politician who operates within a democracy where progress requires compromise.

Also I think it's a good thing that presidential candidates pick up the policies of other candidates when they're shown to be popular. The president should be listening to the public and understanding what they want, not forcing their personal opinions on the population. Who cares who had the idea first. This election isn't about what's fair to Bernie or any of the other candidates, it's about what's best for the country.

Does it matter?

Well that was a bit more succinct :)

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1222
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1630 on: December 05, 2019, 09:50:58 AM »
"Medicare for all who want it" seems much, much, much more palatable to the general public, IMO, as opposed to "you will lose the health plan you've had for however many years, perhaps through your job, and you'll be on this government plan, and trust us, it will be wonderful."

Pete is 100% right on how the roll-out should go. It should be voluntary, and it should be SPECTACULAR. I mean flawless. The system should be so awesome that people are bragging about their new Medicare coverage. That would eventually win over others, now that the system had been vetted.

Not everyone trusts the government to do a bang-up job on such a critical issue. Can you really blame them? Look at all the VA issues we've had for decades.

So roll it out, do a SPECTACULAR job, get people to buy in and win others over. That is the logical approach, to me. And to Pete.

(Note: Yes, the goal is 100% coverage for every single person in the United States. So let's figure out the smartest way to get there)

Does anyone believe that this would be Pete's lane if Bernie didn't trailblaze M4A first?

Does it matter?

Yes.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1362
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1631 on: December 05, 2019, 10:39:47 AM »
It certainly does matter.  It wouldn't be the prime issue of this election if he hadn't pushed it all those years.  It matters in that eventually people who would have died for lack of healthcare will not die.  It matters because many people have had their lives ruined due to high medical cost.  It matters because the high insurance costs are making our businesses less competitive with the rest of the world.  It matters because it is the right thing to fix it.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2193
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1632 on: December 05, 2019, 11:00:51 AM »
It certainly does matter.  It wouldn't be the prime issue of this election if he hadn't pushed it all those years.  It matters in that eventually people who would have died for lack of healthcare will not die.  It matters because many people have had their lives ruined due to high medical cost.  It matters because the high insurance costs are making our businesses less competitive with the rest of the world.  It matters because it is the right thing to fix it.

Very poetic, but that wasn't the question.

The question was, does it matter whether or not one candidate's position was influenced by another candidate's position. I say no because I don't care who thought of it first and I don't care who gets the glory, I care about outcomes for the people.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4187
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1633 on: December 05, 2019, 11:16:49 AM »
The question was, does it matter whether or not one candidate's position was influenced by another candidate's position. I say no because I don't care who thought of it first and I don't care who gets the glory, I care about outcomes for the people.

Yeah but this isn't about someone using a good idea when they're in a position of power like a President borrowing a government healthcare plan from a conservative think tank.

This is about a primary where M4A has some legs and, just maybe, the idea is borrowed to peel off some voters from the more leftist candidates. To put it another way, does Pete actually believe in M4A or is he just tossing out a leftist idea to win the nomination and then he'll go back to his neo-liberal ways?

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2193
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1634 on: December 05, 2019, 12:01:21 PM »
The question was, does it matter whether or not one candidate's position was influenced by another candidate's position. I say no because I don't care who thought of it first and I don't care who gets the glory, I care about outcomes for the people.

Yeah but this isn't about someone using a good idea when they're in a position of power like a President borrowing a government healthcare plan from a conservative think tank.

This is about a primary where M4A has some legs and, just maybe, the idea is borrowed to peel off some voters from the more leftist candidates. To put it another way, does Pete actually believe in M4A or is he just tossing out a leftist idea to win the nomination and then he'll go back to his neo-liberal ways?

Now that's a fair criticism. Without a long history of how Pete votes and the causes he's backed, we don't know if his current positions are sincere or opportunistic. On paper, I prefer Pete's plan but if he doesn't follow through, that doesn't count for much.

Here's a small bit of evidence that Pete is sincerely in favor of single-payer healthcare from his 2004 article in the Harvard Crimson.

Quote from: Pete Buttigieg
We could finally see a single-payer health care system that closes the gap between the U.S. and other nations when it comes to medical treatment.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2004/3/8/future-imperfect-i-doubt-the-bush/

Just a one line blip in article about something else, but it does suggest that he's viewed single payer healthcare as a positive thing for some time.

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1635 on: December 05, 2019, 02:42:53 PM »
The question was, does it matter whether or not one candidate's position was influenced by another candidate's position. I say no because I don't care who thought of it first and I don't care who gets the glory, I care about outcomes for the people.

Yeah but this isn't about someone using a good idea when they're in a position of power like a President borrowing a government healthcare plan from a conservative think tank.

This is about a primary where M4A has some legs and, just maybe, the idea is borrowed to peel off some voters from the more leftist candidates. To put it another way, does Pete actually believe in M4A or is he just tossing out a leftist idea to win the nomination and then he'll go back to his neo-liberal ways?

Now that's a fair criticism. Without a long history of how Pete votes and the causes he's backed, we don't know if his current positions are sincere or opportunistic. On paper, I prefer Pete's plan but if he doesn't follow through, that doesn't count for much.

Here's a small bit of evidence that Pete is sincerely in favor of single-payer healthcare from his 2004 article in the Harvard Crimson.

Quote from: Pete Buttigieg
We could finally see a single-payer health care system that closes the gap between the U.S. and other nations when it comes to medical treatment.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2004/3/8/future-imperfect-i-doubt-the-bush/

Just a one line blip in article about something else, but it does suggest that he's viewed single payer healthcare as a positive thing for some time.

Also it is clear that Bernie Sanders, as a politician and a person, has had some sort of impact on Pete considering Pete wrote an award winning essay about him. Also Sanders is 78 and Pete is 37; Sanders has obviously had more “first thoughts” than Pete, by a 40 year advantage.


Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1636 on: December 05, 2019, 03:14:28 PM »
The question was, does it matter whether or not one candidate's position was influenced by another candidate's position. I say no because I don't care who thought of it first and I don't care who gets the glory, I care about outcomes for the people.

Yeah but this isn't about someone using a good idea when they're in a position of power like a President borrowing a government healthcare plan from a conservative think tank.

This is about a primary where M4A has some legs and, just maybe, the idea is borrowed to peel off some voters from the more leftist candidates. To put it another way, does Pete actually believe in M4A or is he just tossing out a leftist idea to win the nomination and then he'll go back to his neo-liberal ways?

Let’s assume he doesn’t believe in the end goal M4A, but believes in having it as a public option. If he could achieve even just that, during a four or even eight year term, that could only be positive progress for eventual Medicare for all. How is that bad? Healthcare is so polarizing that people need to be gently walked there. I know that’s not something certain people like to hear; they think being more aggressive equals being more progressive.

Well the Republicans aggressively pushed back on Obamacare…for 10 years. And they still didn’t end up with shit LOL. And that is exactly how I see a Medicare for all plan that forces out private insurance and forced people into a government plan. I’d rather be partway there in 4-8 years, than tirelessly pulling on the tugrope with the middle still over the centerline.

As someone who has worked in health insurance for a decade, and lives in a city where insurance companies are the top full-time employer with competitive salaries, of people without college degrees, it’s not just health insurance members who are concerned about plans touting a drastic overhaul, but employees also don’t like to hear that their jobs will be in jeopardy. This city is in FL btw. And GA and other swing states also rely a lot on private insurance as part of their job market

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1510
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1637 on: December 05, 2019, 04:12:50 PM »
Quote
Not everyone trusts the government to do a bang-up job on such a critical issue. Can you really blame them? Look at all the VA issues we've had for decades.

But we're talking about government provided healthcare payment, not government provided healthcare. Medicare, not the VA. The old folks seem pretty happy with Medicare... it works, they generally like their access and coverage.  That was the smart part of Sanders's name for his universal healthcare plan. 

A friend of mine put together these tables regarding the transition a couple of weeks ago; maybe they will be helpful.

Biden/Buttigieg use all or half of their new spending respectively to upgrade gold plans from existing silver ACA for PRIVATE insurance companies. Warren, from day 1, is expanding people into medicare for more - not putting them on private insurance like Biden/Buttigieg.

[edited to add new material on Buttigieg's plan]
« Last Edit: December 05, 2019, 06:57:20 PM by Poundwise »

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4187
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1638 on: December 05, 2019, 04:42:15 PM »
The question was, does it matter whether or not one candidate's position was influenced by another candidate's position. I say no because I don't care who thought of it first and I don't care who gets the glory, I care about outcomes for the people.

Yeah but this isn't about someone using a good idea when they're in a position of power like a President borrowing a government healthcare plan from a conservative think tank.

This is about a primary where M4A has some legs and, just maybe, the idea is borrowed to peel off some voters from the more leftist candidates. To put it another way, does Pete actually believe in M4A or is he just tossing out a leftist idea to win the nomination and then he'll go back to his neo-liberal ways?

Let’s assume he doesn’t believe in the end goal M4A, but believes in having it as a public option. If he could achieve even just that, during a four or even eight year term, that could only be positive progress for eventual Medicare for all. How is that bad? Healthcare is so polarizing that people need to be gently walked there. I know that’s not something certain people like to hear; they think being more aggressive equals being more progressive.

The question isn't about whether a M4A or a public option is a good idea; it is. The question is whether Buttigieg truly believes that.

The current field is factionalized, to borrow a term from 538. You have the Sanders/Warren left, the center-left, old people, and black people. How does Buttigieg break away voters?

The largest contingent is probably the left so..he has to break to the left. But only a tiny bit. He's not suggesting to cut the defense budget, for goodness sake (he wants to increase defense spending)! And let's not support single-payer, which is different from government provided healthcare ^^^, because, ya know, the free market can solve anything and it's been doing a bang up job so far with healthcare costs.

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.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2019, 04:48:25 PM by bacchi »

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1362
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1639 on: December 05, 2019, 05:32:52 PM »
Hmmmmm, just when I was starting to warm up to the guy, too. 

Politics is compromise.  I'll stick with the people who don't start compromised, but do it later.

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1640 on: December 05, 2019, 06:10:29 PM »
The question was, does it matter whether or not one candidate's position was influenced by another candidate's position. I say no because I don't care who thought of it first and I don't care who gets the glory, I care about outcomes for the people.

Yeah but this isn't about someone using a good idea when they're in a position of power like a President borrowing a government healthcare plan from a conservative think tank.

This is about a primary where M4A has some legs and, just maybe, the idea is borrowed to peel off some voters from the more leftist candidates. To put it another way, does Pete actually believe in M4A or is he just tossing out a leftist idea to win the nomination and then he'll go back to his neo-liberal ways?

Let’s assume he doesn’t believe in the end goal M4A, but believes in having it as a public option. If he could achieve even just that, during a four or even eight year term, that could only be positive progress for eventual Medicare for all. How is that bad? Healthcare is so polarizing that people need to be gently walked there. I know that’s not something certain people like to hear; they think being more aggressive equals being more progressive.

The question isn't about whether a M4A or a public option is a good idea; it is. The question is whether Buttigieg truly believes that.

The current field is factionalized, to borrow a term from 538. You have the Sanders/Warren left, the center-left, old people, and black people. How does Buttigieg break away voters?

The largest contingent is probably the left so..he has to break to the left. But only a tiny bit. He's not suggesting to cut the defense budget, for goodness sake (he wants to increase defense spending)! And let's not support single-payer, which is different from government provided healthcare ^^^, because, ya know, the free market can solve anything and it's been doing a bang up job so far with healthcare costs.

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.

As a lifelong Democrat, why wouldn’t he be for further healthcare reform...like most other democrats? Is there something you’ve read or heard that makes you concerned he is not sincere in what he says he believes? I am asking because I too am into researching the candidates, and I have seen more historical evidence that he supports Medicare for all, at the very least as an option. Whether he believes it should be a glidepath to an ultimate single-payer system is moot for the reason I listed above in my reply. Essentially, Medicare for all will never be the next step from the system we have now. Not logistically, and not in this political climate, or the political climate around healthcare for the last decade, and probably for the next decade. And a president’s term is only eight years. So if within those eight years he can accomplish an interim step that could assist the next Democratic president in reaching Medicare for all, that would be more of an assist than a grueling 8 year long, won’t take less attitude (again I refer you to the republican’s full-hearted and sincere mission of dismantling Obamacare, which will be turning 10 years old in 3 months).

 Not taking less often means leaving everything on the table and walking away. Well I’m sorry but I am not impressed by government officials who have subsidized health insurance for life, patting themselves on the back for negotiating essentially nothing, so that their political reputation remains intact, and with the other hand pointing at the opposition telling us “seeeee, it’s their fault!” I am so tired of grandstanding on either side. I just want people who are willing to work toward a solution, even if it makes them unpopular in their own party. One of the reasons why Klobuchar impressed me with her dissenting but honest reflection on free tuition and college debt forgiveness.

And Warren is no dummy. She amended her stance on M4A bc she knows the entangled beast that is our healthcare system. Speaker Ryan couldn’t index card himself through it (and bless his heart did he try). Even Trump in a rare showing of humility admitted it was too much for him to touch. And again, having worked in the field for 10 years, while I am no expert, from what I’ve seen the government appears to rely heavily on health insurance companies because it is health insurance companies that admin most of the government backed health programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Work Comp, and federal/state-run subsidized wellness programs. I know this because I work in the government business division of my Fortune 500 company.

It’s best not to sink the ship before you can get all of the passengers into the lifeboats.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2019, 02:52:27 AM by Lmoot »

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1641 on: December 05, 2019, 07:35:00 PM »
Thank you all for such intelligent thoughtful responses.

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1642 on: December 06, 2019, 02:47:14 AM »
Hmmmmm, just when I was starting to warm up to the guy, too. 

Politics is compromise.  I'll stick with the people who don't start compromised, but do it later.

Who do you think is compromised, and why? You would rather someone lie to you and say they will accomplish what you want,  even though they know full well bc of their political experience,  that it’s not going to happen. Versus someone who is willing to tell the truth at political risk to themselves in their own party, about managed expectations?

I don’t care who you vote for, I just question the logic in your response.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2885
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1643 on: December 06, 2019, 07:47:22 AM »
Look, the truth is that Biden should have run in 2016. Many, many people who reflexively were going to vote against Clinton would have shown up to vote for him. Of course, at that moment he would have been seventy-four years old, with there never having been a President elected who was over the age of 70.

But Clinton did an effective job behind-the-scenes of locking up the Democratic party behind her because of how she was burned by the emergence of Obama in 2008. A serious part of that was convincing Biden not to challenge her. I could totally see a world in which Biden would have lost a fair primary to Clinton, but beaten Trump once it gets to the general election.

I cannot tell you why I believe that running for President involves a lot of very quiet meetings with big donors and party leaders.

But, I also think back to primaries following a second term of a popular President (GOP in 1988; Democrat in 2000; GOP in 2008), and--yes--I have to acknowledge that there just weren't many Democrats running in 2000 compared to the Republican cycles. Bench strength just doesn't seem like their thing.

I very much believe that Biden would have beaten Trump in 2016.

But I haven't seen any evidence anywhere of Clinton/the DNC working to convince Biden not to challenge her. Do you have any proof of this? Or is it just your guess?

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4187
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1644 on: December 06, 2019, 10:12:53 AM »
As a lifelong Democrat, why wouldn’t he be for further healthcare reform...like most other democrats? Is there something you’ve read or heard that makes you concerned he is not sincere in what he says he believes? I am asking because I too am into researching the candidates, and I have seen more historical evidence that he supports Medicare for all, at the very least as an option.

The half-measures are concerning. There's nothing wrong with stating that universal health care is the goal but we're going to take incremental steps.
Anything else sounds like tossing a bone to the left wing of the Democratic party or maybe the policies of someone too afraid of angering his center-left supporters. (Want to make a true public option? Advocate for the removal of the corporate tax break for health care.)

Buttigieg as a neo-liberal:

As Mayor and a self described "democratic capitalist," he was big into selling municipal properties, including parks. He seems to be a believer in privatization. He was also big into "economic development," which is sometimes necessary, but he was tone deaf to those who were affected, namely the poor (this is, incidentally, one reason that African-Americans in South Bend aren't his biggest fans). To put it another way, his policies make great sense to those with good jobs making good money who freely pick up a latte at Starbucks and have the money to buy a condo on the river. For others, not so much.


------
Now those decisions were probably difficult and tricky to make and he did what he thought was best. Maybe I/you would've made the same decisions knowing that someone is always going to be on the losing side. However, I'd much rather see a "democratic socialist" in office than (another) "democratic capitalist." Been there, done that (thank you for the GFC, Bill!).

He does appear to be humble, though, and his apparent inability to understand the poor could be a reflection of his inexperience (he had a pretty privileged childhood). Being humble is always good to see in a candidate/President.


------
It may come down to electablity. In that case, it's Biden, Biden, Biden. He has the support of old people, moderates, and African-Americans. He's old, he's out of touch, but leftists will begrudgingly vote for him too.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1362
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1645 on: December 06, 2019, 03:56:29 PM »
Yeh - the more I read, the less I like this Mayor Pete guy.  Rich folks have had enough help these past few years.  The rest of us need help too.

Johnez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Location: Southern California
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1646 on: December 06, 2019, 11:19:40 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2019, 11:25:38 PM by Johnez »

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1362
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1647 on: December 07, 2019, 05:36:52 AM »
All you have to do is to look around the world a bit and see the countries that have a layer of rich folks on top and the rest of us down below.  Wall Street people are the rich folks.   It never seems to actually "trickle" down.  There might be a lot of low paying jobs out there now and a few professions that are in demand, but I am not sure this is really a sign of things getting better.  When the slices of the economic pie getting down to many of us are just crumbs, the flavor is sour.

There are some candidates who talk well and some who have actually been out there helping people a long time.  Talk is cheap.  Actions bring results.

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1648 on: December 07, 2019, 06:58:58 AM »
All you have to do is to look around the world a bit and see the countries that have a layer of rich folks on top and the rest of us down below.  Wall Street people are the rich folks.   It never seems to actually "trickle" down.  There might be a lot of low paying jobs out there now and a few professions that are in demand, but I am not sure this is really a sign of things getting better.  When the slices of the economic pie getting down to many of us are just crumbs, the flavor is sour.

There are some candidates who talk well and some who have actually been out there helping people a long time.  Talk is cheap.  Actions bring results.

And action is cheap without results.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14640
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1649 on: December 07, 2019, 07:05:54 AM »
Not sure I want to see any of the presidential candidates gettin' action. . .