2020 Democratic Primary Thread: Focus on House & Senate races

Warren Moon

Warren Moon

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Messages
8,656
Reputation
760
Daps
25,587
A.R.$ said:
Lmao we have been through this
Click to expand...

I mean that was when you stated it was because it was for negotiation reasons. Warrens already backtracked. For this election, she's selling a public option essentially.

Whats the difference between that and Biden selling a public option in the hopes that another democratic president will pass M4all in the furture.

Whats the difference between?

Obama ACA- Warren (Public Option) - Next Dem M4all?

and

Obama ACA - Biden (Public Option - Next Dem M4all?
 
☑

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Hall of Shame
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
305,447
Reputation
-34,223
Daps
615,381
Reppin
The Deep State
Warren Moon said:
He's mentioned it in every debate? He posts it on twitter all the time?

I don't think that's him. Maybe youre just not looking to listen to him possibly?
Click to expand...
ive never heard joe biden advocate for a public option.

and thats his fault if he has.

All i've heard from him is fixing the ACA.
 
☑

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Hall of Shame
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
305,447
Reputation
-34,223
Daps
615,381
Reppin
The Deep State
Warren Moon said:
I mean that was when you stated it was because it was for negotiation reasons. Warrens already backtracked. For this election, she's selling a public option essentially.

Whats the difference between that and Biden selling a public option in the hopes that another democratic president will pass M4all in the furture.

Whats the difference between?

Obama ACA- Warren (Public Option) - Next Dem M4all?

and

Obama ACA - Biden (Public Option - Next Dem M4all?
Click to expand...
Warren plan goes farther and is less friendly to private industry
 
Warren Moon

Warren Moon

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Messages
8,656
Reputation
760
Daps
25,587
śïñe•qúå_nøn said:
nice try, Rahm :ufdup:
Click to expand...

No receipts that's ok.

Biden caps all premiums for EVERYONE rich or poor at 8.5%. Warren caps it only for people under 200% of the poverty level at 5%.


Which one captures everybody and is closer for all people to move to M4ALL? :unimpressed:


GOOGLE IT
 
D

Dusty Bake Activate

Fukk your corny debates
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
39,078
Reputation
5,980
Daps
132,692
King Kreole said:
If you purposefully confuse employer-side taxes for employee-side taxes, you're peddling in right-wing economics. I don't care what publication you write that in or what emoji you have next to your twitter handle. It's a dangerous and wrongheaded line of thinking that negates working class power by turning workers into shields for corporations.


Regressive taxes on businesses are very different than regressive taxes on actual people/workers. The fact that this has to be explained is ridiculous but here we are. Levying a tax on a company composed of mainly lower-income workers is by definition regressive, but regressivity in itself is not a problem. It's a problem when it's levied on individuals via income tax. But because we distinguish between corporations and the economic status of their workers, a regressive employer-side tax isn't necessarily a problem. For example, do you know what companies would be the losers in Liz's progressive head tax? Amazon. Walmart. Home Depot. McDonalds. Kroger. FedEx. DHL. These companies are disproportionately composed of low-income workers, but the companies themselves are very rich. These are the companies a progressive corporate payroll tax structure would be protecting, but they can afford a tax hike. Liz's flat/regressive head tax is protecting the knowledge economy companies that pay their workers high wages. I'm personally more in favor of incentivizing wage increases (head tax) than I am low-wage hiring (payroll tax), which is why I favor Liz's approach.
Click to expand...

But that's like your opinion, man. The progressive world will continue to disagree with you and it's not arguing bad faith, adopting right wing arguments, or being blinded by Bernie adulation.


EIdGpvjXUAAyes7


Bernie Sanders and the whole progressive left did not morph into crypto-Republicans overnight. This is very bizarre take you've been pushing. What's more peculiar is you ended your piece by talking about how Liz head tax will "incentivize wages increases" after you just finished accused progressives of using right wing talking points. So her head tax will take the tax burden off of businesses and that will trickle down to higher wages for workers in the "knowledge economy"? But we're using talking points from the Heritage Foundation? Ok, buddy.


King Kreole said:
Both you and the general anti-Liz discourse were arguing that companies would avoid the head tax by shedding to get below the 50 head trigger, but I'm glad we've agreed on that being a ridiculous concern.
Click to expand...

Not true. You said that. I initially said the exact same thing I'm saying now: that jobs will outsource and contract away to avoid head taxes and for other cost-cutting reasons. It's common sense and I thought was universally understood. You kept harping on the 50 head trigger, but I didn't realize into the end of the conversation that you didn't understand that under Liz' plan, contractors are exempt from the head tax. So my mistake was engaging with you on the 50 count trigger front when I shouldn't have allowed you to divert the conversation into that non-issue. I was being bombarded with so many strange and specious arguments from you that I allowed myself to get sidetracked on an irrelevant tangent you took me on for so long. My apologies.

King Kreole said:
I previously asked you whether you think efforts to expand government healthcare over the past decade were responsible for the multiple decades-long trend of contracting that started in the 1960s, and you correctly said no. I'm not sure why you're backtracking now. Contracting is a bigger, more long-term, structural problem than a head tax would induce. Utilizing a payroll tax instead of a head tax isn't going to solve the issue of contracting, because contracting isn't a health care originated issue, it's a broader, labor rights issue. Liz handles the concern of contracting through supporting laws attacking employee misclassification in her labor rights plan, where it rightfully belongs. If your idea is that companies are already contracting due to healthcare costs pre-M4A, why would Liz's plan to reduce that company's healthcare costs by 2% induce a massive wave of contracting? The pertinent question is "How does the situation change for a business if Liz's plan is implemented?" The 50 head tax trigger is already here via the employer mandate. Average healthcare costs will decrease by 2% for companies. There is no new major cost increase these companies are facing. So what exactly would trigger a massive exacerbation in corporate behavior re:contracting?


My claim was never that contracting wasn't a large scale phenomenon across the economic landscape. In fact, just the opposite, I have been claiming that it is a long-term, deep-rooted trend going back decades. Which is why Liz's plans to combat employee misclassification are necessary. What's expensive and cumbersome is breaking up your large company to get under 50 employers just to avoid paying 2% less in healthcare costs via the current head tax system.
Click to expand...
I never backtracked. You have lost any semblance of arguing in good faith and are resorting to strawmen like "a payroll tax isn't going to solve the problem of contracting." Nobody is suggesting that any healthcare plan will solve the problem of contracting, nor is anyone saying that the implementation of a head tax will be the one root cause of a tsunami of contracting. We're saying that contracting can and does occur for both cost savings or a legal buffer when something goes wrong (injuries, lawsuits), and the head tax of $9500 or what have you that can and will be easily avoided by many employers through that means. Since under her plan, contractors don't have to pay a head tax every time an employer swabs out labor with a contractor, that $9500 in revenue is lost, and this will probably lead to a death spiral of higher head taxes and increasing head tax avoidance, making it unworkable. You saying that contracting is already happening without the head tax only solidifies this point. Based on the last conversation it seems you didn't know that Liz plan exempts contractors from the head tax, hence why you missed the entire crux of the critique.

Also your claim that labor reorganization through outsourcing and contracting is too costly and cumbersome just proves to me that you don't really know how businesses work at all, not to mention you're contradicting yourself because you just finished talking about how omnipresent it is the modern workforce. Do you know how easy it is replace workers with contractors? Oh, but Liz favors labor protections. So let's add labor reform to the list of massive legislative successes that are need to make her plan workable along with immigration reform, IRS reform, a public option passing, THEN her M4A.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top