3 ms·

1) Public Option for Healthcare 2) National Healthcare Standards that end the balkanization of the healthcare market. 3) Infrastructure maintenance deficits (

1) Public Option for Healthcare 2) National Healthcare Standards that end the balkanization of the healthcare market. 3) Infrastructure maintenance deficits (we've fallen really far behind on that). 4) Basic Research in basically every field. 5) NASA. 6) Breaking oligopolies/monopolies 7) Public Affordable Housing. (i.e. High Density housing projects that otherwise charge market rates to cover costs.) I'm not even sure why the idea of doing the first 6 things are even "political issues" that require discussion, to be frank. There is something seriously wrong when basic maintenance and balancing the scales of power to something below "lol rent seeking" qualifies as "increased public spending" because basically nothing is done in those areas.

rayiner 9y ago
> 1) Public Option for Healthcare So more money goes to doctors, who are in the top 10%? > 3) Infrastructure maintenance deficits (we've fallen really far behind on that). So more money to MTA workers and administrators making $100/hour: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-.... > 4) Basic Research in basically every field. > 5) NASA. So more money to privileged, highly-educated folks who are in the top 10%? These proposals just benefit the top 10% instead of the top 0.1%. (It exemplifies American politics, which has largely become a war between the top 10% and the top 0.1%, with nobody looking out for the interests of the bottom half). It won't reduce the inequality that the article is talking about, which is caused by the fact that the bottom 90% have little bargaining power in a world dominated by automation and computers. It would be far better to just give poor people money. Or better, yet, put the money in trust funds for them.
- AFNobody 9y ago
  > So more money goes to doctors, who are in the top 10%? https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2015/01/05/doctors-face-a-huge-medicare-and-medicaid-pay-cut-in-2015/#6c592b343173 https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2015/01/05/doct... > Medicare, which provides health coverage for seniors, pays doctors, on average, about 80 percent of what private health insurance pays. However, Medicaid, which provides health coverage for the poor, pays a much lower rate, about 56 percent. Imagine that sort of downward pressure on prices and how that would enable the poor to help educate their children, etc. It isn't always about cutting down the wealthy. Sometimes it is just about improving the quality of life so the bottom suffers less. You are seriously arguing Doctors are eager for a 20-44% paycut per hour worked. Please donate 44% of your income to charity for the rest of your life if you believe this is the case. Beyond whatever contributions you make now. I will believe you if you do it. > So more money to MTA workers making $100/hour: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-.... http://work.chron.com/much-highway-construction-workers-make-10559.html http://work.chron.com/much-highway-construction-workers-make... > About 197,920 construction workers were involved in highway construction, as of May 2011, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They earned a mean $45,940 per year, or $22.09 per hour. The largest number of jobs belonged to the 73,490 construction labors who averaged an annual $38,030, or $18.28 per hour. https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/dams/ https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/dams/ To claim it has anything to do with the pay scale of subway workers is absurd. > So more money to privileged, highly-educated folks who are in the top 10%? Basic research is about growing the pie of opportunity for everyone and the fact it is not normally rewarded in a capitalistic society. Do you genuinely believe technological growth has not improved life for everyone? > This is my point. Politics in the U.S. is a battle between the top 1% (represented by the Republicans), and the top 10% (represented by the Democrats). This spending won't reduce the inequality the article is talking about. No. It is a battle between the economic interests of the 1%'s vs. literally everyone else. http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/tax-reform-2 http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/tax-reform-2 Independent economists whose paychecks are not cut by people with political agendas rated the latest "1%" plan 1 in favor, 37 against.
  - dnautics 9y ago
    "Independent economists" Adorable. Can you name one that is not in the 1%

rayiner 9y ago

> 1) Public Option for Healthcare So more money goes to doctors, who are in the top 10%? > 3) Infrastructure maintenance deficits (we've fallen really far behind on that). So more money to MTA workers and administrators making $100/hour: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-.... > 4) Basic Research in basically every field. > 5) NASA. So more money to privileged, highly-educated folks who are in the top 10%? These proposals just benefit the top 10% instead of the top 0.1%. (It exemplifies American politics, which has largely become a war between the top 10% and the top 0.1%, with nobody looking out for the interests of the bottom half). It won't reduce the inequality that the article is talking about, which is caused by the fact that the bottom 90% have little bargaining power in a world dominated by automation and computers. It would be far better to just give poor people money. Or better, yet, put the money in trust funds for them.

AFNobody 9y ago
> So more money goes to doctors, who are in the top 10%? https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2015/01/05/doctors-face-a-huge-medicare-and-medicaid-pay-cut-in-2015/#6c592b343173 https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2015/01/05/doct... > Medicare, which provides health coverage for seniors, pays doctors, on average, about 80 percent of what private health insurance pays. However, Medicaid, which provides health coverage for the poor, pays a much lower rate, about 56 percent. Imagine that sort of downward pressure on prices and how that would enable the poor to help educate their children, etc. It isn't always about cutting down the wealthy. Sometimes it is just about improving the quality of life so the bottom suffers less. You are seriously arguing Doctors are eager for a 20-44% paycut per hour worked. Please donate 44% of your income to charity for the rest of your life if you believe this is the case. Beyond whatever contributions you make now. I will believe you if you do it. > So more money to MTA workers making $100/hour: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-.... http://work.chron.com/much-highway-construction-workers-make-10559.html http://work.chron.com/much-highway-construction-workers-make... > About 197,920 construction workers were involved in highway construction, as of May 2011, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They earned a mean $45,940 per year, or $22.09 per hour. The largest number of jobs belonged to the 73,490 construction labors who averaged an annual $38,030, or $18.28 per hour. https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/dams/ https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/dams/ To claim it has anything to do with the pay scale of subway workers is absurd. > So more money to privileged, highly-educated folks who are in the top 10%? Basic research is about growing the pie of opportunity for everyone and the fact it is not normally rewarded in a capitalistic society. Do you genuinely believe technological growth has not improved life for everyone? > This is my point. Politics in the U.S. is a battle between the top 1% (represented by the Republicans), and the top 10% (represented by the Democrats). This spending won't reduce the inequality the article is talking about. No. It is a battle between the economic interests of the 1%'s vs. literally everyone else. http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/tax-reform-2 http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/tax-reform-2 Independent economists whose paychecks are not cut by people with political agendas rated the latest "1%" plan 1 in favor, 37 against.
- dnautics 9y ago
  "Independent economists" Adorable. Can you name one that is not in the 1%