Dude, you literally made up numbers, applied that to some sort of argument, and then presented it as proof of something, which in itself (what the private sector provides is too expensive to provide) made no sense.
:rolleyes:
I still think you are mischaracterizing my argument, which is not “what the private sector provides is too expensive to provide”. Just looking over the platform document, I see lots of us paying for things and not so much how we pay for them. This has nothing to do with “what the private sector provides”, on the contrary much of the goals are in the document precisely because they are not attained through the private sector.
So my base opinion - remember that I’m a Republican - is that the Democrats haven’t thought through the cost. Not exactly logical but it is my honest first impression.
Yeah, maybe I ought to get some shuteye. Usually I try not to post until I’ve attempted to inform myself instead of posting straight out of ignorance. Sorry.
~Max
Let me assume something preposterous, that is explicitly not what any democratic candidate is pledging to do. Now let me not bother to do the math, and just guess that it won’t raise enough money.
It won’t raise enough money
Lol. So, so true.
But, this isn’t what is being proposed. I have my reservations about Medicare for All, but the general idea isn’t “We’re going to tax the rich so everyone has healthcare.” The general idea is, “All that money that you currently pay for health insurance will instead be paid as a tax to support Medicare for All.”
So if your major point is that providing healthcare to everyone is going to cost a lot of money, plus Dems propose other stuff as well, you’ve creating a strawman by saying that seizing the income of the top 1% won’t pay for all that. Nobody has proposed that except you.
Now, it could be that eliminating private insurance and sending all those costs over to Medicare might not pay for itself. Or maybe it more than pays for itself, I don’t know. But that’s a far cry from disregarding the plans of some Democratic candidates to dream up a strawman that “proves” that their plans are failures.
To quote a wise, old sage:
Yes, I criticized his post in a similar vein as you, except without the contempt.
That’s really the catch; in most places taxis are highly regulated. They only issue so many medallions, their rates are regulated, and so on. Uber/Lyft bypass all that and make it cheaper, mostly because they bill themselves as more of a company that provides the technology to match riders and drivers.
Everyone knows it’s a fiction, and that it is in effect a taxi service. But the laws haven’t caught up yet, so for the moment, they’re able to compete very effectively against the established taxi industry.
I think if some court were to compel Uber/Lyft to either employ their drivers directly, or provide the benefits that full-time employees typically get, it would also imply that they’re NOT in that matching business, but in the taxi business, and they’d be regulated accordingly.
And Max S, I was being sarcastic when I said that clearly all the money is in the hands of the rich. While they have a lot of personal income, it’s still dwarfed by the Federal government’s budget and tax revenues. Taxing them at 1960s or European style rates wouldn’t materially affect the government’s ability to fund the social programs that people are advocating for.
My understanding was that you had to have a medallion in order to pick up fares off the street. If you are a hired car to pick up and deliver passengers from and to a specific destination, then you do not need one.
If I call you up, and say, “Hey, I’ll give you $20 if you drive me to the airport.” You do not need a medallion for that.
The status of the drivers as contractors or as employees should not figure into this, I wouldn’t think.
Folks, I’ve been whooshed.
[hides his face in shame]
Please refer back to [POST=21928782]post #42[/POST]
~Max
I’ve always been under the impression that taxi drivers were independent contractors as well. From cursory reading, it seems like that seems to be a-changin’, given recent cases in California and New Jersey both being decided in favor of drivers being employees despite classification to the contrary by taxi companies.
More evidence America is doing just finehttps://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/more-americans-are-living-in-their-vehicles-amid-high-housing-prices/
Homelessness is increasing and more and more Americans each year are “residing” in their cars, Winning!!!
In hardcore democrat strongholds, according to the article. So whats that saying about the Democrat party. They cant even fix their own hardcore areas.
I think what it’s saying is that hardcore Democratic strongholds are wealthy, which makes it difficult for low-income people to survive. It’s hard to say whether that’s because 1) Democrats are smart, and therefore areas with lots of Democrats are wealthy, or 2) Democratic policies are so good that they create wealth.
I do agree that Republican policies would help reduce homelessness, either by crashing the economy to such an extent that even poor people could afford houses, or through policies that would reduce the number of homeless by killing poor people, e.g., not providing them access to healthcare.
It says that Democratic-leaning areas are booming, which is driving house and rental prices up, which is causing problems for lowest-paid workers who can’t afford them.
Also, I assume you mean the “Democratic Party”.
Oh yeah, and why are they all of a sudden “booming”? Whats changed? Businesses and Corporations just all of a sudden thought “gee Seattle looks nice”?
I can bet you that one sure way to stop the homelessness problem in your strongholds is to elect more democrats to stop this “booming” thats going on by raising taxes on businesses and corporations and stunting the economy and the employment rate.
So is it better to drive away businesses or attract them?
Who said “all of a sudden”? This is a worsening issue, not a new one. It predates the current administration (and to a certain extent the previous one).
Given that Obama took an economy in freefall and gave us six years of month-on-month job growth and a booming stock market while cutting the deficit by 60%, and given that Trump has slowed job growth, increased stock market volatility, devastated the agricultural sector and significantly damaged manufacturing, I’d take that bet.
But keep telling yourself California should be following the economic model of Oklahoma, Kansas or Alabama if it makes you feel better.
Haha yeah. Well the article that started this conversation says this, which was written in July 2018.
So I guess that blows your whole ‘predates the current administration’ nonsense.
Who said we should follow the economic model of Alabama? Who said anything other than what the democrats should do in democrat strongholds? You guys gotta learn how to stop deflecting and stay on point. What someone else does, does not justify your actions or your parties actions. Youre your own people.
Facts on the ground are that much like everywhere else democrats run things, its shit for low income people.
I am a centrist Independent, I will certainly vote Democratic in 2020.
But I have some problems with some of their agenda.
The abolish ICE/law enforcement, open borders, demonizing wealth I don’t like.
I agree with the climate stuff, but I don’t you can ban immigration enforcement.