Hello

Hello

Are you left wing, or is that role just satire

If you guys have any questions about progressives and our beliefs, or just want to have a political discussion, feel free to hit me up

I'm a progressive/social democrat

Social democrat

So yes, I am Keynesian

Deregulation

Btw, I have a lot of homework, so I apologize in advance if I don't reply right away

Repealing glass steagall

Because it separated commercial and investment banking, which then allowed banks to make dangerous bets with our money

I do somewhat agree, I think we should have regulations that limit the amount of credit people can borrow

But the repeal of glass steagall is what made this such a big recession

Glass Steagal definitely contributed to the crash. The fact that commerical and investment banking were no longer separate and that banks were able to grow so much worsened the crisis.

I understand, I don't argue that all regulation is good, I'm just saying that there should be a limit to how much credit people can borrow

The CRA forced banks to stop redlining (discriminating against POC). The crash happened because we scaled back glass steagall and we had some more deregulations which allowed banks to invest in derivatives with our money

In the United States, Christians are far more radical than Muslims

Well, there is some truth to a lot of muslims being "radical" (although 90% is ridiulous), but that is mostly due to American foreign policy @chad

I hope that's a joke...

Well, I think it's fine to be against Islam, but if you are against muslims you are just an open bigot

I am a progressive @ϟΜƗҜ€ ŦĦ€ €Ł€ĆŦŘƗĆ Ƥ€ŇĆ€ϟ

He wants to ban us?

Libgay?

Please do that shadow. We get so annoyed when you throw away $15

It hurts us so much

By that logic, every christian is a savage

No he wasn't, lmao

Hitler as a Christian

```In that case: If anyone here is still in the Democrat party, then I'm interested in your assessment of both the sub-factions therein and which you think will likely take over its platform in the near future.
From an outsider perspective, it still looks like a neoliberal head with "progressive"/socialist/commie useful pawns, which may easily hijack the former.```
@Elround4

First of all, it's Democratic party, not Democrat party

There are two wings of the Democratic party: the progressive and establishment wing of the party

The best way I can describe a progressive is someone who supports most of these policies: https://twitter.com/KyleKulinski/status/1075110145800265728

Leaders of the progressive wing are people like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (although she isn't as progressive as him)

Progressives make up a majority of Democratic and independent voters, along with voters overall

And then there is the establishment wing, which has people who range from center-left, like Joe Biden, to center-right, like Hillary Clinton

The problem is, while progressive are a majority of voters in the primary, a lot of them don't pay much attention to politics, which means they either don't vote or support someone like Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders purely because of name recognition

Right now, the two Democrats polling the best are Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden

I have a hunch that Joe Biden will be destroyed, and the primary will be between Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris

The reason Harris will compete with Bernie is because she is center-left but pretends to be a progressive, and she is a women of color

But in order to win as a Democrat, they will have to at least pretend to support progressive policies like Medicare for all

They will do whatever they can to stop him, but it will be very hard

If Bernie wins the primary, we easily beat Trump

But Democrats like losing elections, so they will try their best to stop him

You are a conservative?

Minarchist?

And why do you like Bernie better than Trump?

The left isn't pro-abortion...

And one billion babies don't die a year from abortion, that's a ridiculous claim

But you are obviously a troll, so I don't even know why I'm engaging with you

Everything you said is wrong @sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ

Other then the green new deal part, I didn't read the article

Just factually incorrect

It would save money over time

This is a well-documeted fact

Look at any study, including that Mercatus study

I can find it if you would like

Oh yeah, this talking point

We have always had the worst healthcare, it's not because medicare exists or because of state lines, that is a ridiculous argument

Right, abolish the fed

Sounds smart

No, supply-side economics causes boom and bust cycles

The U.S has the worst healthcare by every measure

Boom and bust cycles are a result of supply-side economics. Every time we cut taxes and deregulate there is a crash.

And seniors have Medicare

```Ocasio Cortez raising taxes to 70% would cause a crash
Not to mention it’s never been as high as she says
(90%)```

I'm not even in favor of a 70% tax rate, but it wouldn't crash the economy

And that's not true, the statutory rate was above 90%

That's literally a lie, we have had tax rates well above 45%

It was 50% for most of Reagans' presidency

Around 50%, not sure what the exact amount was

She didn't propose a 70% effective tax rate

```It had no positive impacts and will just deter foreign investment
And wealth will leave the country due to tax avoidance schemes
no point of it then```

The positive impact is that it will reduce the deficit massively along with allowing us to invest in programs that help Americans

As long as it remains competitive with other countries, you don't have to worry about them moving to other countries

Yeah, if it's like a 95% effective rate

If the effective rate is similar to other developed country, you don't have to worry about a loss in revenue

I honestly don't feel like arguing with someone who is arguing in bad faith

I already told you I don't want a 70% tax rate

Probably closer to 45%

Because I am fiscally responsible

Yes, it spurs economic growth when you cut taxes for working people

Nah

I already answered this question

Just scroll up

I explained that it helps to reduce the deficit and allows us to invest in programs that will help this country

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ That is very misleading. You left out the fact that we would save trillions of dollars each year under a medicare for all system.

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ This is not a debatable issue. Of course we are talking about the people, no one thinks medicare would cost less than it does now if everyone was covered. According to conservative studies, we would save $2 trillion over the course of a decade. Almost every other developed country has universal healthcare, and it's much cheaper in all those countries

You can't debunk a fact. According to your study, which I have no reason to trust over all the others, we would save money. Pretty much every other country with single payer pays less on healthcare than we do, and they have better quality.

Seniors have Medicare in the United States. There are several countries with single payer that have lower wait lines than we do. Every country rations care, the difference is, here it's based on money, and in most developed countries, it's based on necessity

Patent extension + getting rid of regulation + lawsuit exemption = socialism?

Where did you get that chart?

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ

Btw, you should tag me after you finish your argument

Like right now, I see your tag, but I might forget to come back and look at it when you finish making your argument

Where did you get that chart?

So you concede that we would pay significantly less under a single payer system? I'm not sure since you didn't really respond to that point

And it's simply not true that we have better quality. If you have to go to the hospital, they will take you here and in those countries. The difference is you won't go bankrupt in most developed countries

Well, that's the only appealing argument you have made so far, so I would like to know if it comes from a reliable source