12-person CNN Democratic Debate thread (should have been split into two debates)

[Keyser_Soze]

That Ron Reagan commercial doe.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Oh, also, wage subsidies are a panacea to keep people working, period, when really workers deserve some sort of representation in management decisions. Wage subsidies do nothing to alter the fundamental power imbalance in American working life

[Massdriver]

4 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

If you raised their wages, they'd have robots. If their health insurance became too costly, they'd have robots. If it were marginally cheaper in a three year time frame than to hire any human, there'd be robots. 

 

The only reason people talk to longingly about good manufacturing jobs is because of the threat and actual gains made in that industry by unions, whose rose to power in a time that is never returning. It's pure nostalgia

Then have the courage to tell everyone that the factories are closed and things will never be the same.

 

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Oh, also, wage subsidies are a panacea to keep people working, period, when really workers deserve some sort of representation in management decisions

Wage subsides coupled with a negative income tax would do a lot of good. Nothing is a panacea. A wealth tax isn't the panacea that Warren and Sanders make it out to be. Ask the European nations that tried it a few decades ago how it went. 

[Keyser_Soze]

Gabbard: Fine people on both sides.

[Kal-El814]

5 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

Then have the courage to tell everyone that the factories are closed and things will never be the same.

If more people had the courage to commit political suicide there’d be fewer than 12 people on stage tonight. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

13 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

Then have the courage to tell everyone that the factories are closed and things will never be the same.

 

Wage subsides coupled with a negative income tax would do a lot of good. Nothing is a panacea. A wealth tax isn't the panacea that Warren and Sanders make it out to be. Ask the European nations that tried it a few decades ago how it went. 

The biggest issue with Warren's tax is constitutional, not administrative or efficacy 

 

(And her wealth tax was formed with the European failures in mind)

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Iirc, the wealthy would itemize and self declare the value of their assets. The catch is the government would have the ability to purchase (via eminent domain) any or all of those assets at the value declared by the wealthy person.

 

This plus actual, vigorous enforcement of income taxes on the wealthy would go a long way.

[Massdriver]

3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

The biggest issue with Warren's tax is constitutional, not administrative or efficacy 

The evidence from Europe indicates the opposite. I realize her plan has more teeth, but it's untested in the U.S., and all the data shows it is inefficient and hard to administer. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Just now, Massdriver said:

The evidence from Europe indicates the opposite. I realize her plan has more teeth, but it's untested in the U.S., and all the data shows it is inefficient and hard to administer. 

There are still European countries that have a wealth tax, the US already has one type of wealth tax, and also see my other post

[Keyser_Soze]

Tom Steyer talking now.

[Massdriver]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

There are still European countries that have a wealth tax, the US already has one type of wealth tax, and also see my other post

There are, but most of the countries that had them got rid of them. If you're referring to a property tax, you know that a wealth tax as Warren proposes and a property tax are administered completely differently. 

[Jwheel86]

Beto is having a good night. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

20 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

There are, but most of the countries that had them got rid of them. If you're referring to a property tax, you know that a wealth tax as Warren proposes and a property tax are administered completely differently. 

 

30 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Iirc, the wealthy would itemize and self declare the value of their assets. The catch is the government would have the ability to purchase (via eminent domain) any or all of those assets at the value declared by the wealthy person.

 

This plus actual, vigorous enforcement of income taxes on the wealthy would go a long way.

 

[Keyser_Soze]

Shots fired at Bing!

[skillzdadirecta]

11 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Shots fired at Bing!

Andrew Yang is dropping bombs.

[mclumber1]

Warren:  Making abortion illegal won't stop people from having abortions.

 

Everyone on the stage: Making assault weapons illegal will stop people from using assault weapons

[Kal-El814]

1 minute ago, mclumber1 said:

Warren:  Making abortion illegal won't stop people from having abortions.

 

Everyone on the stage: Making assault weapons illegal will stop people from using assault weapons

HURRRRRRRRRRRRR

[mclumber1]

1 minute ago, Kal-El814 said:

HURRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

I'll be here all night folks!

[mclumber1]

Warren:  "I know executive authority, and I will abuse it."

 

I'm pretty sure that's what she said.  

[Jason]

16 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

Warren:  Making abortion illegal won't stop people from having abortions.

 

Everyone on the stage: Making assault weapons illegal will stop people from using assault weapons

 

Tiny American flags for some, assault weapon abortions for others. 

[mclumber1]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

 

Tiny American flags for some, assault weapon abortions for others. 

 

Found the centrist!

[osxmatt]

19 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

Warren:  Making abortion illegal won't stop people from having abortions.

 

Everyone on the stage: Making assault weapons illegal will stop people from using assault weapons

Banning items is typically more successful than banning actions. 

[mclumber1]

Just now, osxmatt said:

Banning items is typically more successful than banning actions. 

 

Excuse me while I buy a gram of cocaine from a guy in my complex. 

[mclumber1]

Hey, do you guys know when someone is a vegan?

 

 

 

They'll tell you.

[thewhyteboar]

 

[skillzdadirecta]

7 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Excuse me while I buy a gram of cocaine from a guy in my complex. 

 

Go buy a Cuban cigar while you're at it.

[johnny]

 

[Kal-El814]

5 minutes ago, johnny said:

 

It’s so weird that a man who put falafel on someone’s vagina finds it difficult to believe another person might know someone who... *checks notes*... works a few jobs. 

[RedSoxFan9]

 

[SaysWho?]

 

[SaysWho?]

6 hours ago, johnny said:

 

 

 

[Keyser_Soze]

Bernie mentioned climate change in passing assuming there was going to be a question about it.

[Spork3245]

Warren clearly wasn’t prepped (at least mot well) to respond to being attacked. I still think she had a good night overall. Kamala going after her about banning Trump’s Twitter account was just silly, IMO. I get the overall point Kamala was making, but lordy, that was weak.

 

I think Warren needs a better response to the tax increase thing. I like how she refuses to give the sound byte of “yes”, but I also see how not directly giving a yes or no is beginning to appear “evasive” to some. It’s important that she continues to focus on the overall point that any increase in taxes will still be less per year than what the average American is paying overall in taxes + healthcare costs, but she needs to simplify the answer.

[Commodore D]

10 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Shots fired at Bing!

He doesn’t know about these reward points, and not paying for video games. 

 

Just another case of the rich not knowing the common man’s life.

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

10 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

The threat of automation vis a vi AI is vastly overblown given how much of the economy and current jobs are service based. These people just need higher wages.

Actually there’s a giant con job going on in discussions of AI and automation, much of it stemming from people either not being honest about or not knowing how AI really works.

 

AIs aren’t some stand-alone superbeings from Mars.  In order to work, they need access to vast amounts of data—and for the AIs of the future to work, because they will be serving people, this data will need to be generated *by people*.  And for truly advanced service AIs to get access to this data, they will need access to an open network—the internet/cloud.

 

The problem is that we don’t pay people for their data.  We insist that it’s okay to take it from them, using the open network, without compensating them for it.  

 

If that persists, then as people get put out of work by efficiency gains in AI, we’re going to have to face up to the fact that we’re doing something pretty dishonest:  we’re telling people ‘you’re obsolete, so I shouldn’t have to pay you’, and then saying ‘but I need your data’, and hoping people don’t realize that the latter statement contradicts the first, and that those who own and operate the AIs can get that data without having to pay for it.

 

If instead we become honest in our accounting, and pay people for the value they create, and for the manner in which their data serves as the ‘fuel’ for AIs, then we might not even need things like UBI.  People could just make a living by producing useful data and gaining benefits from the ‘data market’ rather than a government subsidy, which produces all sorts of problems when it’s the only source of income for vast swathes of the population—it would be a labor market paradigm which would be much better suited for the economy of the future.