Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
The US already spends more per capita on healthcare than countries that have universal healthcare, because pharma companies can charge whatever they please for meds here, because hospitals can charge whatever they want here. Insurance and healthcare is a huge for-profit business in the US, and those profits aren't going to the hard working medical professionals, those profits are going to insurance companies, pharma CEOs, etc. If the US passes Medicaid for all, they can use that to bring down the cost of medications, they can bring down the cost of procedures. They can get people to the doctor for inexpensive preventative care instead of waiting until someone is in a dire situation and needs major care to recover. The Affordable Care Act helped--but it didn't go nearly far enough. Sanders just wants to push it farther.
A $7.25 minimum wage is unsustainable. Period. That wage keeps millions in poverty, keeps millions depending on the federal government to keep food in their mouths and roofs over their heads. Corporations are making record profits and CEOs are making record bonuses, companies are spending millions lobbying to keep a low min wage--these companies have the money to pay a living wage, but they refuse to do so. And 15 dollars may not happen--but if Sanders can bring it to 12, that's a huge boon for the economy, people who have been in poverty for too long would suddenly have a bit of disposable income--and when low income people get extra money, they spend it.
Similarly with education--free education for all probably wouldn't happen, but if Sanders can manage to bring costs back to the realm of reality for most families, it's a huge benefit to Americans.
Campaigning is like the beginning of a negotiation. You say all the things you really want to happen--but in reality the goal is probably something lower but still in your favor.
|
I don't think I could ever be convinced that a high, universal, national minimum wage is a good tool for helping the economy. There are so many pitfalls to it. First of all, there is no way that the minimum wage in Mississippi should be the same as the minimum wage in New York City. Sure, the New York McDonald's and Walmarts could probably absorb a $15 minimum wage. Restaurants and other businesses in Mississippi would either trim staff or go under. It would absolutely lead to lower employment and higher prices. If prices go up, then people aren't really any more wealthy.
A 19 year old teenager is happy as can be making 9-10$ an hour in most parts of the country. A $15 minimum wage would basically take that job away from them. Don't forget there are already some anti poverty tools in the current tax code. A single mom making $10 an hour with a couple kids, doesn't pay any income taxes and gets about $4000-$5000 back at tax time due to things like the earned income credit. Bumping the minimum wage for everyone might make that single mom get $15/hour, but will be bumped into a bracket that pays income taxes, and would no longer receive that credit. They'd basically go from a net income of about $25,000 a year to a net income of about $25,000 a year, and the increased prices will mean the money won't go as far. On the other hand, the 19 year old teenager working 30 hours a week and being happy with his $12,000 net income, will probably see a nice big jump to around $20,000 per year if he manages to keep his job. Is that really having the desired result? That's just a couple things I can think of off the top of my head.
While I can buy into the argument that executive compensation has got out of control, you lose me when you say things like record corporate profits are an evil thing. Corporations aren't some evil beast. They are mostly made up of regular people's retirement funds. Corporations doing well is generally good for everyone.
Socialistic type policies have pitfalls, and that can't really be denied. it doesn't mean that none of them should be done or considered. But the further you go down that road, the riskier the consequences become. I don't buy that it can all be funded by CEO bonuses and taxes on the Wall Street speculators, but I do think CEO salaries and bonuses are gaming the system and would be all for measures to rein them in a bit.
I think I am fairly comfortable with what Obama has tried to do. I think I am fairly comfortable with what Clinton is trying to do. So what that she has changed her stance on things over the years. She's 68 years old, and a lot has changed during her career. It's a good thing that she's change through the times. The email thing is dumb. I doubt it will get her arrested or anything, but I'm sure people will try for the next 10 years if she gets elected in. It does show some terrible judgement though, and it is hard to look past that. I don't think I really like her, but I could live with her as a president.
I think there is a big chunk of independents who'd think like me and probably wouldn't vote for Sanders. If I was allowed to vote, I don't know what I would do if the choices were Sanders or one of the crazy republicans. I generally lean toward democrats mostly for social issues, but if they do go full Sanders, I don't think I could get behind that.