2020 Democratic presidential primary

republicans want to turn the m4a debate into: higher taxes and they take away the medicare for olds

the thing is they are gonna do that ANYWAY. It's not a soundbite you can dodge for sixteen months. They'll just sub in her stammering, bumbling refusal to answer the question, which will play just as bad, but with none of the advantages of clearly explaining the policy.

which isn't to say she should succumb to Matherws' or anybody else's hectoring but get out in front with it of her own volition, on the stump, and deprive them the "gotcha"

she wasn't stumbling imo, she was reacting to matthews constant interruptions--imagine if trump had one reporter do anything similar to him when he was campaigning.

yeah the wifi password is joe three oh three oh three (spelled out)

— 'Weird Alex' Pareene (@pareene) August 1, 2019

xp she has good reason not to answer the question but the repeated refusal is not a good look and it won't benefit her in the long run

She's good at explaining stuff. She needs to explain some more

American voters on the whole don't like having things explained to them, they prefer to be entertained.

then she should explain with an educational rap

can't let booker beat her to that winning idea

M4A Dems need to absolutely address this head-on. If you’re going to offer bold visions and plans you cannot shrink from fully making the case, which necessarily includes addressing the most common objections. And if you limit your public statements to “that which cannot be turned into an opposition soundbite” you will not sell your vision.

Warren has the chops to educate the public on this, even within the constraints of the debate format; I hope next time she comes prepared to do so.

American voters:

https://media1.tenor.com/images/1953116d3af8fdb6865b789a4af1dca6/tenor.gif?itemid=5612349

If you’re going to offer bold visions and plans you cannot shrink from fully making the case, which necessarily includes addressing the most common objections.

counterpoint: 'build the wall'

yes. broad strokes/big ideas presented in an entertaining way, that's the key. this is why Bernie is as successful as he is, ditto Trump, ditto Obama etc

there's a certain portion of the electorate - including me and most of us here - that are very interested in policy and details and arguments over such things, but we are not the broader electorate

It’s really not that complicated to simply say that the reduction in premiums etc will more than offset any bump in the taxes.

Marianne Williamson is going to win the meme campaign unless the mainstream candidates hire some meme consultants

NB "medicare for all" was memed from obscurity into the limelight in three short years

xp likely disprovable in a host of individual instances and easy to scare people with

It’s really not that complicated to simply say that the reduction in premiums etc will more than offset any bump in the taxes.

― never have i been a blue calm sea (collardio gelatinous), Thursday, August 1, 2019 11:04 AM (three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

she basically said that, but did not come out and directly say "i will raise taxes"

and when she said that, matthews said "YEAH BUT TAXES WTF"

it’s just as “scary” when left unsaid. this notion that there’s a way for progressives to sneak through massive change without addressing the objections seems delusional to me.

winning an election is one thing - where you absolutely can skirt objections if you're forceful enough with your message/a good enough messenger (Trump providing zero details, outright lies, etc.) Getting the legislation through Congress is where you deal with the objections. First things first.

I think Warren can easily handle Matthews.

Sanders has acknowledged that taxes will go up: has the sky fallen on him?

the fundamental problem is the perceived continuum between centrist and progressive ideas, when people's stances do not fall neatly on that continuum. I've linked this study what feels like a million times, but it illustrates this pretty well, especially on medicare: https://web.stanford.edu/~dbroock/published%20paper%20PDFs/broockman%20approaches%20to%20studying%20representation.pdf

(caveat that I don't link it to be optimistic; the results do skew substantially "progressive" on health care, but on immigration the overwhelmingly most favored opinion is one step removed, if that, from Donald Trump)

thank you for the link katherine!

I understand the sense that appearing to dodge the raising taxes question seems suboptimal but still think it's considerably preferable to admitting taxes will go up. everything is about soundbites and only one of those avenues opens you up to one. more importantly, I don't see any reason for Warren to treat these questions with good faith when it's abundantly clear someone like Chris Matthews is not operating in good faith himself. he's not an idiot, he understands what she's saying and that it makes sense. he's 100% just looking for a soundbite, it contributes absolutely nothing to the debate.

also, this may be my speaking as a freelancer, to whom "your taxes are going to go up" is not entirely meaningful because my taxes depend on that year's particular groverhaus of 1099 vs. W-2 income, but I suspect most people do one of two things:

1) interpret "your taxes are going to go up!" purely based on whether their tax return in the following year was higher or lower, any other reasons for fluctuation be damned, or
2) interpret "your taxes are going to go up!" in the abstract, on faith, regardless of how long it will take to enact or what other factors might affect one's individual taxes. even if they did in fact pay more in taxes after the GOP bill, it's OK, because they would have paid even more in the hypothetical event it wasn't passed

the upshot of this, unfortunately, is that there's no good way to talk about it

Forgive me if this is so naive/basic that it's meaningless, but I think it could be powerful to reframe the whole taxes convo as, people wouldn't resent taxation if they perceived the value of where their taxes were going? If, when you needed programs & services, they were there for you, the Average Person, and were accessed easily and affordably.

Idk exactly how else that might look but I agree that lots of ppl are just totally phobic and shut down re all discussion about "taxes" and I think for there to be positive movement we need a new discourse.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html

op ed in nytimes about harris' record as prosecutor/attorney general

Forgive me if this is so naive/basic that it's meaningless, but I think it could be powerful to reframe the whole taxes convo as, people wouldn't resent taxation if they perceived the value of where their taxes were going? If, when you needed programs & services, they were there for you, the Average Person, and were accessed easily and affordably.

they sort of do, unfortunately it's in the form of (news story in which someone vaguely related to government does something a person doesn't like) "your tax dollars at work!" comments

"v old character disingenuous op/ed" you forgot to add

xp

er character

I think a better approach is probably to frame taxes as one of several fixed costs, the total amount of which will not increase as a result of m4a

medicare for some, miniature american flags for others!

Or just go full Japan and not give a shit about the deficit ever again, it seems to work for republicans when they are in power.

american paying $1000 a month for healthcare - "m4a would mean raising my taxes!"

Speaking from a country with single payer, it's incredibly expensive, and middle class taxes absolutely goes up. And the Sanders plan was much more generous than any single payer plan I know of anywhere, including dental coverage, etc. I don't get this discussion at all.

single payer owns imo

xp The discussion is more about how to convince people that the tax raise will be offset by lots of other benefits.

any for profit company with ># employees should be mandated to pay a percentage every year in lieu of providing health insurance for employees (if it goes that route). Plus the whole insane military spending needs to be addressed but amerca has too much fear of not fetishizing the military. Just like they fetishize a fear of taxes.

Fred B how much is it?

xpost That's called corporate taxes and I'd rather have large public corporations pay for everyone not just their employees.

no i was speaking in addition to regular corporate taxes and it not being something that can be evaded in any manner. It would go into a federal healthcare fund.

Speaking from a country with single payer, it's incredibly expensive, and middle class taxes absolutely goes up. And the Sanders plan was much more generous than any single payer plan I know of anywhere, including dental coverage, etc. I don't get this discussion at all.

― Frederik B, Thursday, August 1, 2019 1:28 PM (eight minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

“goes up” from what?

daerest america expert fred,

you might recall that people in america are allergic to taxes going up bc it means people of color are getting resources that white people arent and the majority of american history is white people pilfering from people of color, so it upsets the balance (ie conservatism)

white ppl oppose policies they perceive as benefiting someone else more, even if it benefits themselves too. talking about rising taxes (poc are taking this from me for something they want) and not lowering health care costs (i am not paying anything extra for this new service) is an important part of getting enough buy-in. its stupid, but so is american racism.

you do realize that the united states pays, as a percentage of its GDP and per capita, much more than countries with single payer, do you not

Yerac

In Quebec, it's a 27% tax rate for anyone making between 12k and 49k (somewhere along those numbers). It passes the 50% threshold once the household earns more than 90k. The health care is pretty comprehensive here, but it doesn't cover dental and optometry. Medication costs are capped at 100$ per month I believe.

xpost and yes that is what I meant, that instead of them paying for their own employees they would contribute to everyone. I don't know if that is already part of someone's plan though. Not that many people have a plan.

In Denmark, the lowest income tax rate is 36% and sales tax is 25%.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/283221/per-capita-health-expenditure-by-country/

löööööööööööööööl fred denmark spends less public $$ per capita than the us on health care. taxes absolutely dont have to go up if they would simply control costs using monopsony power.