1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Fourth Democratic Debate OCT2019

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by DreamShook, Oct 15, 2019.

  1. justtxyank

    justtxyank Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    42,653
    Likes Received:
    39,216
    It is so incredibly disingenuous to make this argument that taxes would go up but costs would go down. They get to that by doing averages, the same way that ACA defenders argue that out of pocket costs have gone down because they factor in the subsidized enrollees and average it out. Yeah, a family of 4 making $120k has seen their price go up 60%, but hey, everyone making less than $30k now has it for free so costs went down.

    There is a reason that middle class whites feel under attack and feel "abandoned."

    Edit: On top of it all, as time went on the new shift for the left would end up being lowering the taxes even more for people under $100k in income and shifting a higher portion of the burden onto the upper middle class and the wealthy to cover Medicare for all. Eventually it would be fully subsidized and the upper middle class would be penalized.
     
    #61 justtxyank, Oct 16, 2019
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2019
    joshuaao, B-Bob, jcf and 3 others like this.
  2. jcf

    jcf Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,190
    Likes Received:
    2,271
    Yeah, I think you may be reading my posts and taking away something unintended.

    I actually posted that I thought one of her responses was inspirational and that she and other candidates displayed a lot of decency.

    Where I thought she took a hit was refusing to directly answer the tax issue. If her response is: "yes, taxes will go up, but they will be more than offset by the lower out of pocket costs that the middle class will be paying," then that is a compelling argument and she should have said it. Your explanation of what she may be proposing was a heck of lot more persuasive than her response.

    Unfortunately, I was left with not knowing whether when she refers to "costs," she means the overall financial burden on people when considering both increased taxes and decreased out of pocket costs. (Maybe, she explains this in other places, but I don't understand why she didn't simply explain this in the post-debate interview when pressed.)
     
  3. The Real Shady

    The Real Shady Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2000
    Messages:
    17,170
    Likes Received:
    3,966
    About time some of the left moderates attacked Warren's progressive ideas and didn't allow her to only come back with "those are repulblican talking points." Her policies and campaign is not grounded in reality, and she will have to answer the moderate/republican talking points if she wants to win. At least Bernie is honest what will happen.

     
    #63 The Real Shady, Oct 16, 2019
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2019
    snowconeman22 likes this.
  4. justtxyank

    justtxyank Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    42,653
    Likes Received:
    39,216
    Mayor Pete can do as well as he wants he can never win the nomination so it's all in vain.

    Amy Klobuchar would do so much better if she was more charismatic.

    Biden does "fine" in basically every debate except the first one, but it's not enough. I think he suffers greatly from his old man syndrome where he doesn't maintain the happy warrior persona anymore. He quickly gets into his "look the fact of the matter is!" lecture where he's borderline barking.

    Warren is the clear frontrunner and they all know it now. I think they finally expressed a little of their distaste at her passive aggressive attacks on them. She is incredibly insincere. She takes these subtle jabs of "we can't handle candidates who do x" and then acts all surprised when people call her out. I genuinely dislike that tactic. Call them by name.

    Beto is wasting his time. Total schmuck up there and has likely ruined any chance he had at being a Democratic white knight for Texas Senate.

    Julian Castro: see Beto but less likeable.

    Andrew Yang: The most important moment of his campaign happened last night when I believe two other candidates acknowledged him on stage and gave legitimacy to UBI. Up until last night they literally ignored him. Good for him.

    Bernie: Thought it was his best debate, least angry, doesn't matter he had a heart attack.

    Tulsi: Yeah we see you and how fit you are girl go get you some.

    Tom Steyer: LOL
     
    joshuaao, Rashmon, B-Bob and 3 others like this.
  5. snowconeman22

    snowconeman22 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Messages:
    14,051
    Likes Received:
    15,997
    ^^ I tend to agree with that analysis @The Real Shady

    I think klobuchar did OK , she got a lot of time to speak and some of it I liked , some I didn’t .

    I think Pete (as far as moderates go) did better than she did

    Biden absolutely looked bad .

    Warren talked soooo much , and I don’t understand why she won’t admit the tax thing. Bernie wrote the bill and admits it , but then adds context. If warren is that determined not to raise middle class taxes in order to pay for it , then she does have to be more specific and differentiate her plan from Bernie’s

    I’ll admit I’m biased , I’m a huge Yang fan and he’s my number 1 choice .... I thought he did well. IMO the fact automation questions were even asked and discussed were big wins for him .

    Tulsi and kamala swang and missed IMO

    Beto , booker , Castro didn’t move the needle but at least seemed genuine .

    Steyer needs to go lol

    I hate how much they talked about trump .

    @justtxyank i just read your post and agree 90%

    I think Biden fell apart man. To me he showed his old age and did not articulate very well. Also this thing with his son, I get what he was trying to do in “I support my son” , but didn’t your kid essentially admit several things that you denied last night ? I dunno , out of the 3 “front runners” at this point I like Biden the least
     
    #65 snowconeman22, Oct 16, 2019
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2019
  6. justtxyank

    justtxyank Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    42,653
    Likes Received:
    39,216
    1) I think Klobuchar actually did very well. I like her and she would have my vote. She just can't catch on though and I think it's her dryness. She lacks charisma and she's not attractive. It's a bad combo and I think it sinks her unfortunately. Not that Warren is "attractive" but she's pleasant looking. Klobuchar looks gruff and makes sour faces and lacks real strong speaking skills. It's unfair and sexist, but I believe these are things that totally tank her.

    2) I completely forgot Kamala and Booker. I actually came into this thread to lol at Kamala. She had so little time last night and it was bizarro that she decided to make her broadside against Warren be about Trump's twitter. What a loser. You lined her up, aimed the big guns and THAT'S what your ammo was? "Why won't you join me in calling on Trump to be banned from Twitter" I'm stunned that the other candidates didn't all just assume she was kidding and start laughing.

    3) Booker seemed very genuine, but his campaign is over. He had to beg for money already. It's done and everyone knows it. Once you tell people you are on the verge of closing shop it's over. Seems likeable, good VP pick if one of the white ladies gets the nomination probably. Maybe Biden would pick him. Maybe, but I doubt it.

    4) I agree, last night was best thing for Andrew Yang. He's not electable though. He's a Ron Paul style candidate.
     
    Rashmon and snowconeman22 like this.
  7. justtxyank

    justtxyank Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    42,653
    Likes Received:
    39,216
    Seriously though, why isn't there more commentary on Tulsi looking slyly at the camera and talking about how fit she is? That was great tv. Surprised she didn't lick her lips.
     
  8. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    56,793
    Likes Received:
    39,077
    I strongly disagree with you. I think Mayor Pete Buttigieg had a great night, especially on foreign policy. Eviscerating trump for his betrayal of our Kurdish allies, he gave the clearest answer about our policy in Syria, which trump changed on a whim after cozying up to his “great friend,” Turkish strongman Erdogan. From the New York Times:

    Only Mayor Pete Buttigieg of Indiana, who served in Afghanistan, made the distinction between ending large combat operations and keeping “a small number of specialized, special operations forces and intelligence capabilities” on the ground, especially in Syria.

    Those forces, he argued, “were the only thing that stood between that part of Syria” and “the beginning of a genocide and the resurgence of ISIS.” It is a distinction Mr. Trump, and many of those seeking to run against him on the Democratic ticket, have passed by.

    More from the NYT about Mayor Buttigieg’s night:

    For months, Mr. Buttigieg has been satisfied to make most of his points at the debates without scoring them at the expense of his rivals. That ended Tuesday.

    Mr. Buttigieg sparred sharply with former Representative Beto O’Rourke on guns. He rebuked Representative Tulsi Gabbard on foreign policy. And, most notably, he engaged in the most substantive and sustained contrast of any candidate yet with Ms. Warren.

    It was Mr. Buttigieg’s exchange with Ms. Warren over “Medicare for all” that was most memorable, pressing her as she declined to say, yet again, whether her plan would require a middle-class tax increase. (She says her plan would curb middle-class “costs.”)

    “A yes-or-no question that did not get a yes-or-no answer,” Mr. Buttigieg said, adding, “Your signature, senator, is to have a plan for everything. Except this.” He rattled off how her plan would “obliterate” the private health insurance of 150 million Americans while pitching his “Medicare for all who want it” alternative.

    Mr. Buttigieg’s rebuke of Mr. O’Rourke — “I don’t need lessons from you on courage” — may lend itself more to a viral moment. But the bigger leap was to be seen as a foil to Ms. Warren.

    It felt at times on Tuesday as if the sprawling 12-person stage had actually narrowed to a four-person debate, with Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders representing the left, and Mr. Biden and Mr. Buttigieg representing the center-left. The occasional television shot of just those four served to hammer home the point.

    Amy Klobuchar easily had her best debate during the campaign. Like Buttigieg, she pushed back at Warren’s healthcare plan. Senator Warren, unlike Bernie Sanders, who gave an honest answer (and who looked better than he has in a long time), refused to give a “yes or no” reply to whether her plan would raise taxes on the middle class, dancing around yet again on the topic. Senator Klobuchar is near the bottom in fund raising and in the polls, unlike Mayor Pete, who’s doing very well raising campaign funds (we’ve contributed) and in the polls, considering how large the field is. We’ll see if this debate helped the Senator raise her profile in both areas.

    I thought the debate was the best yet. I would like to see the field reduced a bit in the next one, if only to give the candidates more than one and a half or two minutes for a reply to a question, and allowing more back and forth. At least it isn’t spread out over two consecutive nights, a format I thought was ridiculous. Steyer doesn’t belong on the stage, in my opinion. Money can’t buy you everything, Tom, as incredible as that may seem to you.
     
  9. justtxyank

    justtxyank Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    42,653
    Likes Received:
    39,216
    Warren is super condescending and her supporters take that on.

    Warren: My ideas are big, bold, brilliant ideas and the only ones that will work any anyone who tries to do anything different is the problem with this country.

    Warren supporters: God she did so great everyone who didn't kiss her ring in the debate did a terrible job and was dishonest and has terrible ideas and anyone who thinks anyone else did well is worrisome.
     
    Deckard, joshuaao and Major like this.
  10. RayRay10

    RayRay10 Houstonian

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2015
    Messages:
    4,629
    Likes Received:
    11,030
    Klobuchar would be a great pick to be Bernie’s VP to try and shore up some Midwest, moderate support. Won’t happen as Bernie won’t pick her.

    If she was a man, I think she’d be a shoe-in for Warren’s VP. However, Liz needs a male VP to try and gain support there...Buttigieg would have been solid, but after last night, he may not be the guy. Beto might make the most sense after Mayor Pete, but he’s lost so much support and he’s not a strong debater. Booker would make a lot of sense if he wasn’t from the Northeast. If Warren gets the nomination, hopefully she doesn’t make a Tim Kaine mistake...maybe Sherrod Brown?

    Biden...just don’t know which direction he should go. Beto would make sense, if Beto was worth anything at this point. Harris would also make sense, but she’s also gone a bit off the rails. My guess is it’ll be Abrams, but it would be very interesting if he talked Yang into being his running mate. I think they’d make a formidable combo as Yang would eat Pence alive.
     
    jcf likes this.
  11. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    43,149
    Likes Received:
    25,188
    Lol, the nice way to describe it is "professorial".

    I remember reading the Clinton camp described her with exactly the same vibes 4 years ago in private meetings.

    I still like her ideas though and hope she breaks through flyover states and is genuine about it.
     
  12. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    48,669
    Likes Received:
    17,295
    subtomic likes this.
  13. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,383
    Likes Received:
    15,808
    I think Klobuchar would be the best fit for Biden. Together, they basically create a dominant blue wall in the midwest. Abrams would be a definite possibility too. He can't go white male for sure, so Beto is out.
     
    Deckard and justtxyank like this.
  14. justtxyank

    justtxyank Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    42,653
    Likes Received:
    39,216
    I just think that ticket would seem so "boring" and ineffective. I would vote for that ticket personally.

    I'm not their main general target though and definitely no use to them in the primary.
     
  15. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,383
    Likes Received:
    15,808
    They are actually quite factual. Raising taxes is a direct, definitive thing to do. Lowering premiums/co-pays/deductibles is all a bit uncertain. No premiums assumes that companies just give everyone massive raises instead of keeping the money - which is somewhere between unlikely and uncertain. Zero Co-pays/deductibles is a bit of a fantasy, given that healthcare economists generally agree that some amount (even a small one) of co-pays is a GOOD thing because it prevents unnecessary overtesting and overuse of medicine. So no co-pays actually likely raises health care costs over time, which means bigger tax increases.

    So she's basically avoiding the question of the direct payment of taxes, with the very arbitrary and hopeful idea that costs just magically come down - despite the fact that nothing in the plan actually addresses the underlying cost of health and may exacerbate it.
     
  16. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,383
    Likes Received:
    15,808
    I agree - and against any other candidate, I think they'd lose. But I think one way to beat Trump is boring - it's a perfect contrast to Trump drama. They'd basically be presenting themselves as the adults in the room.
     
  17. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    48,669
    Likes Received:
    17,295
    Not factual based on the plan. Arguing whether the plan will come about or not is a fair argument. But the Medicare for all plan would eliminate all sorts of premiums/deductibles/co-pays. So while zero co-pays may not happen, it would in no way be the way it is now or offset the savings on premiums and deductibles. What Mayor Pete did was present the article like those things wouldn't be decreased or vanish. The article points out and links comments from economist Gabriel Zucman to support the savings to middle-class Americans.
     
  18. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,383
    Likes Received:
    15,808
    Where are the premium savings? What makes you think companies will transfer that to individuals?

    Let's say I'm Company A and you're my employee. Currently, I pay you:

    $50,000 salary
    $15,000 in health care premiums

    Next year, your health care premiums are rising 5%, and I give you a 2% raise to wages. So next year, my total compensation costs go from $65,000 to $66,750.

    Now imagine a world where I wasn't paying your health care costs. Let's even pretend I was a wonderfully nice corporation and when the change happened, I gave you the entirety of the $15k as a wage increase (highly unlikely). So you now make $65,000 per year. You never saw that I was paying 5% more for your health care in past years, so I'm going to give you the same 2% increase in salary this year. So next year, my total costs are $66,300 - I just saved $450 thanks to the government taking health care off my plate. But guess what? Someone still has to pay for that cost of health care increasing - and it's just going to come out of your taxes.

    The amusing irony of the Sanders/Warren plans is that for the majority of the savings to materialize, you're relying on the corporations to voluntarily be good citizens and pay people more than they would otherwise. This is the Dem version of the GOP saying "we'll lower your taxes, but don't worry, it will pay for itself through growth." This is "we will raise your taxes, but don't worry, other people will give it back to you".
     
    Deckard, snowconeman22 and justtxyank like this.
  19. justtxyank

    justtxyank Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    42,653
    Likes Received:
    39,216
    That works on me, seems like it work would on you, not sure it works on the general electorate.

    It's just my opinion, but I think Trump's vulnerability is extremely overstated. Moodys model was released yesterday or before and they have him winning all three of their projection types, including a landslide in one of them. I think it's probably better than 50/50 that he gets re-elected. I really don't know if there is a formula to beat him. I'd like it to be "adults in the room" that would push sensible, moderate policies, but I don't think that will work.

    Sadly the Democrats on the left are probably right that the best way to beat him is a radical turnout model election that brings out tons of energized liberals. That won't be a candidate that gets my vote, but it might win.
     
  20. justtxyank

    justtxyank Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    42,653
    Likes Received:
    39,216
    I think Warren "has a plan for that" and would pass a law that forces corporations to give money to employees. It would never pass, but I think that was her answer on this in the last debate.

    I'm with you on this. The idea that employers would turn around and funnel this money to employees is ludicrous. Public companies wouldn't do it because A) they wouldn't be forced to and B) just like every other windfall they get they would use it to make shareholders happy. Small companies wouldn't do it because they can't afford it.

    Ultimately you'd kill jobs, put more money into shareholder pockets and raise taxes. The lower income Americans would absolutely benefit obviously as it would end up as free healthcare to them.
     
    joshuaao likes this.

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now