Comments by "Brandon M" (@brandonm949) on "Bernie Sanders Delivers As Democrats Unveil $3.5T Plan" video.

  1. Old people are scared of the word "socialism". When you go through Bernie's proposals one by one, most of them have like 80% support among Democrats. It doesn't make any sense.
    14
  2. The size of bills is usually stated as a 10-year amount. So those tax cuts lost us $150 billion per year. You bring up an important point though. Functionally, tax cuts cost the government just as much as spending, without improving any infrastructure or social programs. If you add up the Bush, Obama, and Trump tax cuts, it's equivalent to 5 or 6 trillion dollars of spending bills, and most members of Congress never bring that up.
    2
  3.  @jcboyle82  Not necessarily. Tax cuts can be temporary, and a lot of spending is continuous. For example, expanding Medicare to include dental/hearing/vision. That's gonna stick around after 10 years. So in your analogy, government spending is like......getting cable? It all depends on the specific bill. In general, I would say that in terms of the budget, tax cuts and spending should be treated equally. (And yes, I'm pretty sure we're still losing money on the Bush and Obama tax cuts.)
    2
  4. Is it even $1.5 trillion? Thought it was lower than that. Either way, I'm cool with doing the bipartisan bill first just for optics. A little of bit of cooperation in Congress is always nice to see.
    2
  5. I think one of the pay-fors in the bipartisan bill is increasing the IRS budget for better auditing. I'm sure we could use even more than that bill has but it's a start.
    1
  6. Pretty much. Capitalism can be great but it requires a lot of regulation and a strong welfare state. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand understand that. The US has given corporations too much power and our weak, corrupt government is the result of that.
    1
  7. But I thought the free market was supposed to keep prices competitive?
    1
  8. Technically true. At the same time, MMT does say that too much spending without increased revenue/employment/resources will increase inflation. The current inflation suggests we're already overspending a bit. I think our big problem is that even a state of overspending leaves us with quite a bit of poverty and paycheck to paycheck living. We need to get income inequality under control, and removing tax loopholes/increasing high-end tax rates is a good place to start.
    1
  9. I think you're correct. It just expands the scope of what Medicare covers, which is one of the steps needed to transition to M4A.
    1
  10. We don't really even know if PR would be a blue state. It should still be offered statehood though; it's larger and closer to the mainland than Hawaii.
    1
  11. If it's not balanced out by an increase in employment/resources or an increase in revenue, all that spending does is raise inflation. To be fair, the bill would increase employment to some degree, though I don't think it would be enough to counteract that much spending. What concerns me more is that by MMT logic, our high inflation suggests that we're already overspending, yet there's still quite a bit of poverty and homelessness and imminent homelessness, and a ton of people are above the poverty line but still living paycheck to paycheck. That's where the taxes come into play. We desperately need to get income inequality under control. If we've learned anything from 1929 or 2008, it's that this level of inequality is unsustainable. We're just begging for another recession. The $15 minimum wage and more unionization would help this as well. But increasing taxes on corporations and the rich would serve a dual purpose of reducing inequality and balancing out government spending.
    1
  12. I question the effort that Biden's put into it, but he talks a big game and that does count for something. We need to normalize these kinds of sweeping changes again, like they were in the New Deal era.
    1
  13. If they kick him out of the party, the Republicans immediately become the Senate majority, and they obstruct our bills even more than Manchin does.
    1
  14. He needs two of them - one in Vermont, where he works when Congress isn't in session, and one in DC, where he works when Congress is in session. Is your trust in him really swayed by whether or not he also has a lakeside cabin?
    1
  15.  @barbararazza4583  This reminds me of that Russell Brand quote. "When I was poor and complained about inequality they said I was bitter; now that I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want to talk about inequality." Exactly how much money does Bernie need to have for you to listen to him?
    1
  16.  @barbararazza4583  Because: 1. I can differentiate between a labor-exploiting, tax-dodging billionaire and a guy who made a few million dollars from book sales and 30 years of working in Congress. You're not gonna find many progressives that are against the idea of someone making a few million bucks. 2. Bernie's wealth doesn't affect the validity of his opinions. Also, if you want to ask some countries about Bernie's policies, why not ask Australia, Canada, and Germany - countries with developed economies that are better analogues for the US? So we've got an ad hominem, and we've got Venezuela. Those aren't super helpful. What specific policies are you against?
    1
  17. That would only save $46.5 million, or 0.0013% of the bill.
    1
  18. If the $3.5 trillion is over 10 years, we could theoretically cut defense spending by around $200 billion (which would put us near the world average of 2.2% of GDP) and offset $2 trillion of the bill. Between closing corporate and income tax loopholes and the extra employment created by the infrastructure spending, we could easily mitigate the other $1.5 trillion. At this point, I support the tax changes solely for the purpose of decreasing income inequality. Inflation suggests we're already spending too much, and there's still way too much poverty and underemployment. The wealth distribution is our biggest problem right now, not the amount of public spending.
    1
  19.  @duaneslack8516  A lot of it is going to stuff like paying for child care and expanding what Medicare covers. Only some of it is going to private firms.
    1
  20. But they do mitigate the inflation caused by spending.
    1
  21. I think it's like $700 billion. Completely insane.
    1
  22. I don't think "help none of the people" is the correct answer though. Pushing for more inclusive benefits would make more sense than blocking this entirely.
    1
  23.  @enigmatl00  But if you're concerned that the other people aren't getting nice things, voting hard right would be nonsensical. Sharing wealth isn't really their thing.
    1
  24.  @enigmatl00  Idk, you sound kinda conservative to me. The whole focusing on welfare abusers thing is straight out of the Ronald Reagan playbook. And could you expand on Donald Trump wanting to send money to those who needed it the most? What specific thing were you thinking of there? Because the only one I remember is the $2000 stimulus checks, which were supported by way more Democrats than Republicans. The Republican party has been focused on keeping the minimum wage down, shrinking social programs, and punishing the homeless for being homeless. They're objectively worse for poor people. Remember the multiple times Trump fearmongered about public housing allowing low income people to encroach on the nice suburban neighborhoods? That doesn't sound like someone who's concerned about poor people.
    1
  25. I consider that a version of raising their taxes, but yes, I'd prefer closing loopholes and increasing enforcement over raising the nominal rate.
    1