General Question

gorillapaws's avatar

Only 3 House Democrats voted against Pay-Go. Why should any progressive support the Democratic party anymore?

Asked by gorillapaws (27528points) January 4th, 2019

As asked.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

25 Answers

rojo's avatar

I have to ask the same question and more importantly, why would independents align themselves with Democrats

The only answer to the question is because of the only other offered alternative.

stanleybmanly's avatar

For the traditional reason that progressives are left with no practical choice. Both political parties have seen to it.

seawulf575's avatar

Most progressive goals aren’t based on paying as you go anyway. They are based on socialism and have no problem accounting for future projected earnings. Look at the idea of universal healthcare that Ocasio-Cortez is floating. It would cost 10s of trillions of dollars to institute. That isn’t pay as you go…that is borrowing more money that 50 generations could pay back.

RocketGuy's avatar

@seawulf575 – how does every other developed country in the world have universal health care without going bankrupt?

seawulf575's avatar

@RocketGuy take a look at how those countries went into universal healthcare. They didn’t just flip a switch and decide that was the way to go. It progressed over a longish time in pretty much every case. Some things were covered, then others, then finally a system is set up to cover most. If you took those countries back in time and told them to take one step to get to their current endpoint, they would all go bankrupt trying. But the progressives in this country want us to flip a light switch and voila! it is done.

rojo's avatar

@seawulf575 I believe she does have a plan to pay for Health Care for All Americans but you are probably not gonna like it either since it involves going back to a progressive tax system.

gorillapaws's avatar

@seawulf575 Medicare-for-all would save trillions of dollars and cover everyone.

rockfan's avatar

@seawulf575 There’s an even newer study that says universal healthcare will save 5 trillion dollars. I’m beginning to think that you’re willfully ignorant.

gorillapaws's avatar

@rockfan It’s 5.1 trillion with a “T” over 10 years. And that was using conservative estimates AND building in a 1% margin reserve.

kritiper's avatar

Because “To each his own.”

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 Tens of trillions of dollars? Try documenting THAT as a claim. Obamacare demonstrates, it is no longer rational to argue against universal single payer healthcare, and we will be forced into it, like or not. The Europeans and Japanesewere forced into it when WW II left those countries ruined and destitute. Over here, greed and stupidity is seeing to it that the health insurance setup itself drives the citizenry to destitution. Already, it is a medical diagnosis that heads the list of bankruptcy factors in our perversely backward country, and we are no less capable of “flipping that switch” than the Canadians.

notnotnotnot's avatar

It’s horseshit. And no – nobody gives a shit about deficits and debt. That’s not how government works. We didn’t give a shit for Trump’s tax cuts, our endless wars, etc.

Note: I’m not simply making an argument strictly about hypocrisy, which exists. I’m saying that it’s really a good thing in the long run that we stop pretending that government finances work like a family’s checking account. We have serious things we need to tackle now, and we can’t pretend that we have any problems affording any of it.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

Why should any progressive support the Democratic party anymore?

Good thinking. Don’t vote for Democrats and let the Republicans have their way. It was a great strategy in 2016. Look at the progressive Supreme Court judges we’re getting, as well as all the wonderful protections for consumers, women and the environment.

seawulf575's avatar

Gee, I don’t know. I’m just going by what I’ve read concerning Bernie Sanders’ proposal:

$32T in 10 years sounds a lot different from what you have proposed. Here’s another breakdown of the claims made by Ocasio-Cortez AND Sanders since they basically proposed the same thing and referenced the exact same study to get there:

Please note that, as usual, your liberal politicians are promising the sky but are not actually solid on how to get there. Basically yes, we could go to single-payer and it would force taxes to go up an average of $9,000 per person or about a 12% increase in your federal taxes. It would also increase corporate taxes which means they would look for ways to save money so they would cut staffing. That means LESS people working and so the tax per person would actually go up. Please note in this evaluation that it makes a note about actual impact on doctors and hospitals as well. It notes that medicare payments are typically about 40% lower than insurance payments. So you would be asking hospitals and doctors to take an instant 40% cut in income. That wouldn’t work so the actual payments would have to go up or we would be so drained of doctors and hospitals that you couldn’t get treatment even though medicare would pay for it. So if the payments have to go up, the overall cost goes up as well. Remember that 12% increase in your taxes? That could suddenly be 25%.
Of course, I’m the only one to actually give a citation for where my information comes from. What a surprise. Remember folks…nothings free in this world.

notnotnotnot's avatar

^ Can you stop using words that mean nothing? “Taxes” is not a thing. It’s not that taxes don’t exist. Rather, any talk of taxes going up or down has a couple of problems:

1. The reader assumes that they are the ones who will be affected. In other words, a person sees your bullshit number of $9000 or any number and thinks this is what their taxes will go up. If you make the taxes extremely progressive, the tax “burden” on the “average” person would be tiny.

2. We currently don’t consider things like healthcare premiums and copays as a tax. So, anything talking about how much taxes would go up or down has to consider what people are currently paying in premiums and copays. We currently are taxed to shit for inadequate healthcare that doesn’t cover everyone and is almost unusable in many cases.

So, taxes increasing to get a better healthcare system that would cover and benefit all would mean that normal non-rich people will be paying less. There is no getting around that.

Your explanation of how the rich will stop hiring if they have to actually pay a fair share just shines more light on that fucking sewer of an economic system you love so much.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

And if it does take a gradual step process to get to universal health care then so be it,isn’t about fucking time the the US has an affordable health care act for everyone, and people can access that system without the fear of financial ruin in case they or a loved one get sick or injured?

Darth_Algar's avatar

Funny how the 1950’s, the most prosperous time in this nation’s history, also had the highest top tax rate in this nation’s history.

Caravanfan's avatar

Insults, ad hominems, and cursing side, here is a good article on what Pay-Go is and why it’s kind of a stupid idea.

seawulf575's avatar

@notnotnotnot if you actually took the time to read the articles I posted or even if you wanted to go back to read the original report (that might require you to actually do some research), you would see that everyone’s taxes WOULD go up. The average is about 12% as a minimum. So while you are trying desperately to protect the fantasy, reality is coming at you like a freight train. And remember, the 12% is a low end estimate. The overall cost of $39T is a low end estimate. There are dozens of factors that would need to play out to find out what the ACTUAL impact is. The author of the report felt $59T was not a stretch. Gee, that means your taxes could go up by almost 20%.
Yes, you can try hiding behind the progressive tax rate, yet in the end that won’t get you where you need to be. Remember, socialism requires everyone to chip in their fair share. So while you are trying to deny the facts and boost the morale of the rest of the liberals on these pages, you really aren’t doing anyone any favors.

seawulf575's avatar

@Darth_Algar funny how the 1950’s we were still a manufacturing based economy. That went away in the 70’s. Keep up.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Yeah,that’s when workers wanted to be paid enough to actually afford what they were making, and their Boss’s realized there were off shore countries ripe for being exploited, almost zero pollution laws,and extreme low labour costs, so off they went.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

The great manufacturer for the USA is China (we’re in a pissing contest over tariffs) ! !

Trump is quoting Putin propaganda.

The “Wall” at the rate it is going will put lots of farmers out of business because they can’t contact to work with USDA (CLOSED BECAUSE THEY NOT AN ESSENTIAL BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT) next year we’ll be importing foodstuffs from China (with tariffs) and Russia with Putin’s blessings.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Deficit spending mostly goes to the military-industrial complex so if you believe that corporate interests want a balanced budget I have a bridge for sale cheap you may be interested in. The democratic party just got a little brighter IMO by supporting PAY-GO. Side note, why does everyone seem to be wrapped up in paying for all of this rather than making it more affordable. How it gets paid is not so much the problem but rather why is it so expensive that we are even arguing about it. Even moderate reductions in military spending would support a more robust healthcare system. Throw in cost negotiation, regulations and just in general “stop ripping us off” legislation we can do it and easily. Deficit spending also undermines the value of the currency it is based on so it’s an indirect tax that takes time to get to the average citizen. It’s a stealthy vehicle for moving stealing wealth from the lower and middle class and placing it in the top percentile who get the benefit of using the currency before it’s devalued. Asking the public to float a healthcare system that just feeds the machine without addressing the cost is idiotic. Guess we’ll need to root out all the corporate intervention in our Gov’t first for there to be any chance of that though. I’m not optimistic about that.

seawulf575's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me there is dissension among Dems on Pay-Go. Most of the far left reps don’t want it since it requires them to actually come up with funding for their goals before they can be passed. So things like universal healthcare would have to be put on hold until they could pay for it. Ocasio-Cortez and Tlaib have both spoken out against Pay-Go for this exact reason. You partially correct in challenging why we don’t make it more affordable. That is something every level of government needs to do. As soon as you say something is for the government, the price goes way up because the provider knows the government will pay. When a contract is granted for government work, it almost never hold to the agreed price. And our government never holds anyone accountable. But that goes to military and social programs and goods. Pay-Go should include some attributes for auditing programs and hold them accountable for waste, fraud and abuse.

Caravanfan's avatar

In any case I see it more of a procedural vote than anything else. If Progressives jump ship now, throw the baby out wirh the bath water, and take their basketball and go home (I love mixed metaphors) then they are guaranteeing permanent right-wing rule in the future.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther