This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
Sort: Top
[–] Boycott_reddit 2 points 6 points 8 points (+8|-2) ago (edited ago)
Notice that any article that mentions Bernie in a negative light is massively downvoted without actually disputing the claims of the article. This is an obvious attempt to censor any news critical of Bernie from reaching the "Hot" section and all it takes is a few Berniefags to make this happen. This only adds to my theory that the Bernie Supporters are the new SJWs of voat.
[–] Sir-Real 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
As someone who is a Sanders supporter, I am definitely upset at anyone who would downvote an article because it paints your candidate in a bad light.
Come to the comments section and discuss.
[–] Sir-Real ago
"He estimates his “Medicare for all” health plan alone would cost nearly $1.4 trillion annually. To help finance it, he’s proposing a 6.2 percent employer tax, which he calls an “income-based health care premium” (and which would likely be passed on to workers). And a 2.2 percent income-based tax on most households."
First thing's first, I've never seen the 1.4 trillion dollar number attributed to Sanders' plan before, this was an estimate on another plan that was presented to the senate a while back and is very often falsely attributed to Sanders. Second, the 6.2% employer tax will most definitely be passed on to the employees, but employers who provide insurance for employees will likely be relatively unaffected since they will be subtracting the insurance costs from their total costs. 2.2% increase on income tax depends on how much your current insurance costs. If the 2.2% is less than what you currently pay, then you save money.
In short, the tax increase isn't new spending for individuals, but rather replacing something most, if not all of us here already pay for. Just because it's a new tax doesn't mean it's a new cost of living.
[–] 3981402? ago (edited ago)
Here's the problem. Even his own documents show he is short by $1.62 Trillion for healthcare. He lists the healthcare costs as $3 Trillion and says he only raises $1.38 Trillion per year. The possibility that he will find this amount of savings is absolutely zero.
[–] Sir-Real ago
"The United States currently spends $3 trillion on health care each year—nearly $10,000 per person. Reforming our health care system, simplifying our payment structure and incentivizing new ways to make sure patients are actually getting better health care will generate massive savings. This plan has been estimated to save the American people and businesses over $6 trillion over the next decade." quoted from the page you linked.
It's not that he's coming up short, it's that the plan is designed to reduce the costs by basically cutting out the middleman.
[–] twitch1982 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
We tried top bracket tax cuts for half a century, they aren't working. Wealth does not trickle down. Time to try something new.