The debate "Either Bill Weld or Mark Sanford should win the election" was started by
September 27, 2019, 2:37 pm.
11 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 11 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
There is a tie in this debate, post your arguments, call some reinforcements and break this tie.
JDAWG9693 posted 6 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 8 arguments to the disagreers part.
JDAWG9693 and 10 visitors agree.
historybuff, Shrivali_16, YEET and 8 visitors disagree.
1) So you would get better coverage (it covers everything, most private insurance doesn't), you would pay less money, but that is bad... for some reason.Everyone uses health care. Maybe you aren't using it today. But you are going to. Why would you want to pay more money to get less service. That doesn't make sense.
2) the minimum wage increase and stronger union laws are 2 different things. Bernie has alot of plans to fix alot of things. They aren't always 100% related. The minimum wage increase gives the working class a salary that they can actually live off of and possibly have some money left over to buy consumer goods. This means stores and manufacturers will make more money and sell more products. Everyone benefits from the general population getting richer.
3) agreed, debt is part of the economy. But saddling teenagers with 10's or 100's of thousands of dollars in loans when they have no ability to pay that back is really bad for the economy. It makes sure that they will have little to no disposable income for years. This means they can't buy a house, they will have trouble buying a car, getting married etc. The knock on effects of having the young adults saddled with huge debts are significant. After Sanders' reforms, if you want to spend a fortune on a private college, you still have that choice. But they will also have a choice for a free college. No one has that choice now, which is why the debt should be forgiven. Also it is just good economic policy.
4) the tax code as it exists now is riddled with loopholes. It was written by rich people to make sure that rich people could get out of paying taxes. A wealth tax is very simple. Moving your money doesn't help. if they are a US citizen, then their assets are taxable no matter what country they are in. Sanders has had a long time to think about how to implement this. He knows how to avoid the loopholes. The reasons that no one else ever has been able to get rid of them is because they never wanted to. Their billionaire donors wanted the loopholes. Sanders doesn't have any billionaire donors.
1) Increased taxes (I know, cliche and "it wouldn't be that much of an increase"). Not only would I not get to choose the insurance I'm getting or where I have to go with it, but i would also be paying for everyone else's insurance even if I'm not using it. I really don't care enough about people to pay for their shit. I have my problems and I'd like to deal with it on my own and not deal with everyone else's. And, that's different from taxes for roads and stuff because I do use that.
2) I don't see how a minimum wage increase would strengthen union laws? While I do agree that unions are often good, I fail to see how minimum wage increase would help?
3) Debt is part of the economy. The government would just be losing a huge chunk of money while it is also in debt.
4) This happened in a country in Europe (I believe France) and you know what they did? Moved all their money to other countries, chiefly the US. And that's exactly what the rich here will do, move it elsewhere. You're right, they do hoard it; not good for the economy. But they're not stupid and they will find ways around it. Also, as for tax issues, I believe in a gradual flat rate taxing. So, say $0-$20,000 annual is 5%, $20,001-$40,000 is 8%, etc. (not actual numbers, but for example). So, everyone in that bracket is fairly taxed.
5) I do think an interest cap is a good idea. I'd put it at maybe 20%ish, but I can agree on 15%.
6) I'll have to read it before I can respond; I can't really think of a whole lot that might need to change, but I guess I probably haven't thought about that a lot.
6) Fundamental change in America’s agricultural and rural policies - this is also a really long list. you can see it here. He has alot of plans for helping rural areas.
1) medicare for all - I don't know if you have insurance or what you pay. But based on what you said you make, you will get better health coverage. Every health procedure will be covered. No premiums, no co-pays, no deductibles, nothing. I don't know how much you pay, but you would most likely be paying considerably less for it as well.
2) Massive strengthening around union laws - union workers earn 22 percent more, on average, than non-union workers. by significantly strengthening unions and the laws protecting them, workers will be able to barter collectively which will prevent companies from under paying their employees. There is a bunch of stuff under this so you can have a look at this list if you like
3) eliminating all medical debt and school debt - I don't know if you have these personally, but it will help millions of people. It will also free up alot of money to enter the economy. If you don't have to spend a large percentage of your income on debt, it frees that income up to buy something else and infuses more money into the economy.
4) Wealth Tax - Bernie has a proposed tax on wealth that would only affect the very richest people in the country. As I said before, one of the problems is that wealth tends to get trapped at the very top. They then don't spend it on anything and they continue to get richer and richer while that money stays out of circulation. A wealth tax will be very useful in funding programs to help people. But as this is about fixing the economy specifically, it will motivate rich people to spend their money. Why keep huge amounts of money on hand if it is going to get taxed? If they fear they might lose the money they will start actually spending it and provide a large boost to growth.
5) banking reform - Bernie has plans for fixing some of the issues in the banking industry. For example capping credit card interest rates at 15% to prevent banks preying on poor people. Millions of americans don't have access to proper banking services and get caught in a cycle of payday loans which ruins them. He has a plan to have post offices provide basic banking services (which actually was normal until 1967). This would make sure that everyone in america has access to basic banking services and don't have to by preyed up by shift lenders.
What is Sanders proposing other than raising minimum wage to fix the current economy? Because if that's it (and I'll I've seen thus far) then I will either be effectively poorer or let go
"I do believe the economy works as is" "I'm not gonna get a raise, and neither will my friend who makes $16.50"
These 2 sentences are mutually exclusive. Either the current economic system works and you will get a raise so your employer can keep you. Or the current economic system doesn't work. Both of these opinions cannot be correct. You are probably correct. Your employer won't give you a raise because the current economic model is broken. He would just discard his worker rather than pay them what they are worth. But that isn't an argument for keeping things the same. That is an argument for pushing for fundamental change. Which is exactly what Bernie sanders is doing. He is trying to fix the system to stop the middle class from being finished off by right wing policies.
"where do you think the "more people with more money" are gonna get that more money?"
From their employer. And their employer will get more money from the increased business caused by lots of people having more money. The thing about money is that when rich people get money, they hoard it. When poor people get money, they spend it on stuff. Businesses will make more money because people will have more money to spend on the stuff they are selling.
Making poor people richer helps everyone in the economy. Making rich people richer only helps them.
Public colleges and universities he wants to make free for many, yes, which I haven't decided where I am on that part of the subject.
I do believe the economy works as is, which means that companies have every right to up prices because now they have to pay their employees more so they have to charge more for each product, effectively putting society in the same situation with bigger numbers. And, where do you think the "more people with more money" are gonna get that more money? The companies they buy things from, which means, as I've said, we'll be in the same boat with bigger numbers. I'm not gonna get a raise, and neither will my friend who makes $16.50 just because everyone else mandatorily got a raise. But, I can't leave 'cause no one else is giving raises, either.
"Sanders wants to forgive current college loans which would be unfair to past and future college loan users and not solve anything long-term."
I believe he also has a plan to implement free college from this point on. So it would be fair for future generations. As for past generations, that is a terrible point. Things sucked in the past so fixing them wouldn't be fair. We should just have every generation suffer to be fair.
"If minimum wage goes up to $15, as many have proposed, I will effectively become poorer because not only will I now be getting minimum wage, 'cause they're not gonna give me any raises"
If you believe that the economy is working as it is right now, then you absolutely should get a raise. Your value is higher than the value of others therefore they have to pay you more or you leave. However, if you believe that the economy doesn't work that way, then why would you want to vote for someone who wants to keep the economy broken like a republican?
More people will more money will trigger demand for more services. This will mean more supply will be needed and more jobs will be created. The right wing talking point that paying workers a livable wage somehow kills jobs is just something rich people like to tell poor people so they don't have to pay them more. It's also worth noting that minimum wage has not kept up to inflation for years. So minimum wage has actually been going down. you need a big increase just to catch up to where it used to be.
Sanders' plan is to actually give the people a greater voice in government. To have their government listen to the people instead of to their billionaire donnors. I don't see how that could possibly be negative.
Many of Sanders' ideas are extremely popular. Medicare for all has massive support. You might be surprised at what will happen if elected officials get in the way of super popular policies. Recent polls showed Sanders beating trump in a head to head in Texas. The dems are already extremely worried about primary challenges from progressives. A normal cycle has 2 or 3 challenges. This cycle has over 110. The dem centrists are already afraid of the progressives. If bernie wins they will fall in line or get removed, and they know it.
My criticisms to forgiving college loans still stands and I mentioned it in my Sanders section.
I live in Washington state where minimum wage is $12.00 (I think, they keep changing it, though). I work for $15/hour, not bad. If minimum wage goes up to $15, as many have proposed, I will effectively become poorer because not only will I now be getting minimum wage, 'cause they're not gonna give me any raises, but either one of two things will happen: either prices for goods and services will proportionally raise, in which case we're in the same boat with bigger numbers. Or, companies will let masses of people go because they have budgeted so much for wages and if they are required to raise it and their now increased prices products aren't selling well enough, they will be forced to let people go. That's why raising wages so high, even over five years as proposed, will not work.
As I said, I do agree that there could be a significant cut of the military budget and we would be perfectly fine, but I would say no more than 25% max. Also, we should change how each squad can spend it because currently they are on a "spend it or lose it" system, and they wanna make sure they'll have the money when they actually need it, so they just spend it. That needs to change and would easily cut costs significantly.
Yeah, his plan is to have a near completely democratic (party) government and pass everything ASAP. The point is to have a fairly equal government so no one side has that much more power. And, yes, there was many more Republicans in the house, etc. and I don't think that was good, either. Also, I don't think that plan will work, either
I agree with your warren criticism about donations.
"Warren also proposes, same with Sanders, that we spend $1.25 trillion on college funds and forgive about $50,000 for about 95% of current college loans."
agreed, that is a big positive factor. Still not as good as bernie's plan to get rid of all of it though
Warren is a decent 2nd choice. but she is nowhere near as good as bernie.
"Sanders wants to higher minimum wages way too high which will negatively impact the economy and especially the middle and lower class, effectively making the poor poorer and the middle class lower-middle to lower class."
This sentence makes no sense. The poor will be paid more so the poor will get poorer. That is ridiculous on the face of it. Economic growth is generated by demand.Demand comes from people in the lower and middle class buying things. Therefore more wages for those people will drive growth because they will turn around and spend it on stuff which will create more jobs.
"He wants to cut the military budget too much; I agree that the US military budget is too high, but he seems to want to cut it too far. If our military becomes too small, other countries (China, North Korea, the middle east) will be more likely to attack"
The US has a nuclear arsenal. No country is stupid enough to attack you. So you can stop with that talking point. The last time I checked, the US was spending more than the next 10 top spending countries. Half of those other countries are a part of NATO, ie your allies. You could cut spending by 50% and still be the top spender by a significant margin.
"he admits he has little to no plan to pass his proposals other than 'my ideas are axiomatically good so everyone in Congress will vote for them,' which will never work."
this is straight up untrue. He has a plan. He will use executive power to pass as much as he can legally. Since trump has expanded the definitions for these powers, that is a fair bit. The rest will likely require to wait until 2022 midterms where he will endorse challengers to any democrat that opposes him, therefore scaring them into line or removing them. He will personally campaign in the states of republicans and point out their rank hypocrisy and the damage they are doing. 2022 has alot of republicans senate seats up for grabs and the dems could easily carry it. At that point he will have no problem enacting his agenda.
Sanders wants to higher minimum wages way too high which will negatively impact the economy and especially the middle and lower class, effectively making the poor poorer and the middle class lower-middle to lower class. Sanders wants to forgive current college loans which would be unfair to past and future college loan users and not solve anything long-term. He wants to cut the military budget too much; I agree that the US military budget is too high, but he seems to want to cut it too far. If our military becomes too small, other countries (China, North Korea, the middle east) will be more likely to attack. Also, he admits he has little to no plan to pass his proposals other than 'my ideas are axiomatically good so everyone in Congress will vote for them,' which will never work.
Warren is a hypocrite. At the start of her campaign she said she wouldn't have any "high dollar fundraising events," and that she would take the grass roots approach. But then she had $6 million is $1000+ checks for her presidential campaign and took $10.4 million from her Senate campaign (which did have such events) for her presidential campaign. Warren also proposes, same with Sanders, that we spend $1.25 trillion on college funds and forgive about $50,000 for about 95% of current college loans. That being said, I do agree with much of Warren's labor policies, but I think the potential bad heavily outweighs the good that she has already done and can still do in her current position.
Not to mention, as far as I know, they both are for heavy firearms restrictions.
Bill Weld doesn't seem like the worst choice in the world. He supports a woman's right to an abortion, he is a consistent supporter of LGBT rights, and the right to same-sex marriage. He has proposed to drastically reduce military spending. All of that is miles better than Trump.
I had trouble finding much of a platform for Mark Sanford. But his personal baggage would tank any election attempt, so I don't think he is really worth considering.
But Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are considerably better candidates than either of them.
They both have good views on where to take the economy (that's their main stance) and they both agree that the Trump administration was not well chosen