Will Joe Biden Drop Out of the Presidential Race

[Agema]

And yet if you look at social spending per capita, the US would be squarely in the middle rate of western Europe (unless you count private social spending, and then we blow everyone away).

Nope. Public social spending is low.

Social protection - Social spending - OECD Data

Find, compare and share OECD data by indicator.

data.oecd.org

Of course the USA has huge private social spending. To sum it up in one word: healthcare. Where due to truly staggering costs, the USA (public and private) spends about twice as much as many Western nations for an inferior average outcome. The nature of private social spending is also inherently the rich spending it plentifully on themselves, and the poor not because they don't have it to spend.

If you look at federal taxation, the US is more progressively taxed than nearly any other nation on the planet.

Firstly, precisely how progressive is that? Not very. And what about the less progressive non-federal taxation, because that's still money out of people's pockets? Also, consider that low pay in the USA is incredibly low relatively. The UK has a GDP/capita about 20-30% lower than the USA, but the low end of pay in the UK is actually better than the USA.

Also, http://inequalityindex.org/

Lots of people in America genuinely don't save for emergencies because they have that much confidence they'll be taken care of.

That's overreach - too specific. They don't save for emergencies for lots of reasons: because they're too chaotic to plan, or they think they'll deal with problems when they come, or they just prefer to enjoy life in the here and now. Bluntly, probably the main reason they'll be saving more is all the bars, cinemas, restaurants etc. are shut so they've got so many less places to spend.

From what I've seen, actual studies on economic mobility have the US well in line with Europe, pretty much in the middle. At worst, sitting roughly alongside countries like Spain or the UK.

Bottom end:

https://www.oecd.org/centrodemexico/medios/44582910.pdf

Ranked: The Social Mobility of 82 Countries

Ranked: The Social Mobility of 82 Countries It’s an unfortunate truth that a person’s opportunities can be partially tethered to their socioeconomic status at birth. Although winning or losing the “birth lottery” will continue to shape the lives of generations to come, climbing the socioeconomic...

www.visualcapitalist.com

The UK famously sucks on social mobility compared to the West - of course, it's also the Western country closest to the more laissez-faire economic policies of the USA and with high wealth inequality, plus its notorious, lingering class structure.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Yes, I'm sure after another eighteen electoral losses for the Democrats, those who died in the intervening decades (from drinking the polluted water, in workplace accidents, or in climate change-aggravated natural disasters-- y'know, many of which deaths could've been avoided had anybody but a fanatical Republican been in charge escalating them to high heaven) will feel it was worth it when they finally get to see Sanders enter the White House and make a start on sweeping up.

Flint happened during the Obama presidency. They still don't have clean water, and there is no particular reason to believe they would if Hillary was president.

 

[tstorm823]

Nope. Public social spending is low.

Social protection - Social spending - OECD Data

Find, compare and share OECD data by indicator.

data.oecd.org

That's a great site, you should use it. The only combination of options that supports your conclusion is public spending as a percent of GDP. You can change it to private spending or total spending or net public spending, or change it to per capita spending as I suggested. The US is 2nd in the world on two of those metrics, and beats out the UK in all 4, and if that tool had the option to choose total public and private set to per capita, as I said, the US would be 1st, not close.

Of course the USA has huge private social spending. To sum it up in one word: healthcare. Where due to truly staggering costs, the USA (public and private) spends about twice as much as many Western nations for an inferior average outcome. The nature of private social spending is also inherently the rich spending it plentifully on themselves, and the poor not because they don't have it to spend.

Private social spending is not private healthcare. If you spend money on yourself or your family, it isn't considered social spending. It has to be for those outside of you or your household, and the reporting of these numbers almost certainly pulls from charitable contributions as reported to the tax bureau. They don't say "well healthcare is a public good, how much did we spend on that?" The private spending stat is from charity.

 

[Silvanus]

Flint happened during the Obama presidency. They still don't have clean water, and there is no particular reason to believe they would if Hillary was president.

Yep, that's one example. This is another.

The point being that over decades of stewardship, workplace and environmental protections will generally get rolled back, dismantled, destroyed much more quickly under the Republicans, and as a direct result more people die whose deaths were avoidable.

Abstaining from elections because neither candidate will address economic inequality in a meaningful way (and I don't dispute that neither will do so) is, nevertheless, to forfeit a say over a hundred other areas of policy on which there are material differences between the parties, and to gamble with those lives.

The differences might not be as substantial as they should be. They might be not nearly as substantial as they should be in some areas. But what differences there are will be the difference between large numbers of lives lost and not. And it'll specifically be the most vulnerable groups in society who're adversely affected, and who're treated as expendable by blasé abstention (EDIT: To clarify, I'm speaking in the most general sense, and am not accusing you or crimson5pheonix of "blasé abstention").

 

[Agema]

That's a great site, you should use it. The only combination of options that supports your conclusion is public spending as a percent of GDP. You can change it to private spending or total spending or net public spending, or change it to per capita spending as I suggested. The US is 2nd in the world on two of those metrics, and beats out the UK in all 4, and if that tool had the option to choose total public and private set to per capita, as I said, the US would be 1st, not close.

% GDP is what usually counts, though.

If US healthcare staff earn more than their European equivalents, you might have to pay 20% more to get the same service. So saying the USA spends $6000 per person on healthcare and a European $5000 does not necessarily mean that US people are getting superior healthcare.

Secondly, where is the money being spent? Social spending to reduce inequality needs to be redistributive from rich to poor. Large amounts of social spending can be captured by the relatively affluent. (Healthcare again might be an example, where richer people have more expensive and better healthcare insurance.) Take unemployment benefits, which would generally constitute a very redistributive form of spending. The OECD lists the USA at about 0.2% GDP where France is 1.6%. Even accounting for France's considerably higher unemployment rate (about twice the USA), that suggests France is considerably more generous. Although there will be a lot of devil in the detail about what benefits are available as unemployment benefits may not be the whole story.

Private social spending is not private healthcare. If you spend money on yourself or your family, it isn't considered social spending. It has to be for those outside of you or your household, and the reporting of these numbers almost certainly pulls from charitable contributions as reported to the tax bureau. They don't say "well healthcare is a public good, how much did we spend on that?" The private spending stat is from charity.

Americans clearly do not give ~13% GDP in charity: that would be upwards of $2.5 trillion a year (current $). Actual figures suggest >$400 billion.

Private social spending is things like having health insurance supplied through your employer. An awful lot of private social spending will be healthcare; it may also include private pensions, but I'm not sure. This sort of spending is overwhelmingly for the affluent, as poor people don't get these sorts of job perks to anything like the same degree.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Yep, that's one example. This is another.

The point being that over decades of stewardship, workplace and environmental protections will generally get rolled back, dismantled, destroyed much more quickly under the Republicans,

Will they, though? "Much" more quickly? One tendency is that such things aren't reported on in anywhere approaching the same manner if they happen under Democratic administrations or because of Democratic lawmakers because it doesn't fit the narrative that the Democrats are better for the mass of people than Republicans-- better for the environment, more peaceful, favoring a kinder, gentler capitalism. They very well may be, marginally, but it's far from obvious if you separate policy from rhetoric. And their priority is clearly not preventing the Republicans from enacting their policy; Republicans winning is a fundraiser for Democrats. Their priority, and this is what is absolutely unforgivable, is preventing the rise to power of a real left that would do what Democratic Party public relations fodder claims Democrats do and much, much more beyond that. The Democratic Party by and large campaigns on vacuous pablum, governs for the rich, and treats their base with contempt.


There is one thing I can do with my vote in order to punish the Democratic Party's duplicitous behavior and I'm not going to stop doing it until they've reformed in a meaningful way or they are destroyed. Anything else would be capitulation to extortion.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Will they, though? "Much" more quickly? One tendency is that such things aren't reported on in anywhere approaching the same manner if they happen under Democratic administrations or because of Democratic lawmakers because it doesn't fit the narrative that the Democrats are better for the mass of people than Republicans-- better for the environment, more peaceful, favoring a kinder, gentler capitalism. They very well may be, marginally, but it's far from obvious if you separate policy from rhetoric. And their priority is clearly not preventing the Republicans from enacting their policy; Republicans winning is a fundraiser for Democrats. Their priority, and this is what is absolutely unforgivable, is preventing the rise to power of a real left that would do what Democratic Party public relations fodder claims Democrats do and much, much more beyond that. The Democratic Party by and large campaigns on vacuous pablum, governs for the rich, and treats their base with contempt.


There is one thing I can do with my vote in order to punish the Democratic Party's duplicitous behavior and I'm not going to stop doing it until they've reformed in a meaningful way or they are destroyed. Anything else would be capitulation to extortion.

Well enough to want to punish the Democratic Party, but does it lead to a substantial gain and who else gets punished in the crossfire

 

[lil devils x]

Will they, though? "Much" more quickly? One tendency is that such things aren't reported on in anywhere approaching the same manner if they happen under Democratic administrations or because of Democratic lawmakers because it doesn't fit the narrative that the Democrats are better for the mass of people than Republicans-- better for the environment, more peaceful, favoring a kinder, gentler capitalism. They very well may be, marginally, but it's far from obvious if you separate policy from rhetoric. And their priority is clearly not preventing the Republicans from enacting their policy; Republicans winning is a fundraiser for Democrats. Their priority, and this is what is absolutely unforgivable, is preventing the rise to power of a real left that would do what Democratic Party public relations fodder claims Democrats do and much, much more beyond that. The Democratic Party by and large campaigns on vacuous pablum, governs for the rich, and treats their base with contempt.


There is one thing I can do with my vote in order to punish the Democratic Party's duplicitous behavior and I'm not going to stop doing it until they've reformed in a meaningful way or they are destroyed. Anything else would be capitulation to extortion.

Teamsters Say Final Stimulus Bill Must Retain Multiemployer Pension Partition Fix

(WASHINGTON) – With the House returning at the end of the week, the Teamsters are urging lawmakers to take quick action and pass new broad stimulus legislatio

teamster.org

So let me get this right, the one party that does so much more than the other party in control is the one who should be punished until they are destroyed, in effect rewarding the Republicans for doing worse and making the people suffer for it. The bill overwhelmingly does far more good than bad. Unions being dissatisfied that it contains the GROW act, which likely was only put in there in a negotiation to get enough support to pass the bill in the first place, does not seem to be a reason to punish democrats until they are dead, leaving us ONLY with Republicans who would assume kill off the poor all together rather than help them.

When we only have two options, destroying the only one willing to help the people at all= rewarding the one who wants to kill off the poor. Weakening the democrats at all right now only helps ensure that the Republicans take away what little the people have left. The idea that destroying the democrats will some how result in the people gaining more power to fight back is a terribly false one, it instead only cements the republican ability to crush them into oblivion. By weakening democrats, you are directly giving Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham what they need to strip unemployment benefits, food stamps, medical care housing to those who need them most.

'Over our dead bodies': Lindsey Graham vows Congress won't extend additional $600 coronavirus-related unemployment benefits, as US death toll crosses the 60,000 mark

The South Carolina senator said he believed the additional unemployment funds would incentivize people not to work.

www.businessinsider.com

The thing is, Trump and Senate republicans are already threatening to veto relief for the unemployed already so this isn't going to pass anyhow. The unemployed during this pandemic better make sure they are rationing every little thing they already have, because more help is likely not on the way at all. People will literally become homeless and lose access to basic necessities without this relief being passed.

It not having everything everyone wants added to it does not somehow make it okay to deny people the "charity" they need to stay alive here. In order to get ANYTHING through the republican senate and to get Trump to sign it, they have to have have the " bribes for the wealthy" or the people who need that relief to stay alive right now will never see a dime. At this point they have to do whatever it takes to get the relief to the unemployed and those that will become homeless soon or many of these people will literally die here. Millions of people are now behind on their rent and mortgages. Having a crushing amount of people become homeless during a pandemic is a nightmare situation become reality.

Millions of homeowners and renters already are behind on payments in the economic collapse, and the jobless ranks are growing

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/05/03/may-rent-mortgages-coronavirus/

 

[crimson5pheonix]

And still to this day, Biden still won't support M4A, and pushes COBRA, which as I pointed out before is a terrible idea.

Corporatist first, last, and only.

 

[lil devils x]

And still to this day, Biden still won't support M4A, and pushes COBRA, which as I pointed out before is a terrible idea.

Corporatist first, last, and only.

COBRA 100% sucks and does not work, at all. The thing is though, there is nothing Biden could say here at all that will make him worse than Trump. The ACA however, makes it so we don't really need COBRA at all anymore anyhow. Just because they offer it does not mean you should use it. You are better off applying for an Obamacare subsidy on the health exchange instead of using COBRA, as it worked for my brother when he became unemployed. Due to being unemployed he was able to have his monthly insurance payments to Blue Cross Blue Shield shifted to his tax return, and since he was unemployed he did not have to pay them at all at the end of the year and they were instead paid by the subsidies that the Trump administration has been trying to get out of paying. That is currently the best way to keep healthcare access if you become unemployed or underemployed. At least until November... If Trump wins in November, it is likely all of those receiving healthcare access this way will lose their access to the medication and treatment they need to survive as Trump has the case on hold to strip them of it until after the election.

Biden is stupid, completely ignorant about healthcare, ( not as stupid as Trump, but still) that is why I am glad he isn't writing the bills, he just needs someone to hand him the pen and he will sign them if democrats manage to get them passed. I don't care if he understands how it works or not at this point, just as long as the end result is saving lives.

 

[lil devils x]

Come to think of it, it likely would be in republicans favor to allow the unemployed to lose their homes, It is extremely difficult to vote when you are homeless, so they would have less people to vote against them when they force the unemployed into homelessness right before the election.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

COBRA 100% sucks and does not work, at all. The thing is though, there is nothing Biden could say here at all that will make him worse than Trump. The ACA however, makes it so we don't really need COBRA at all anymore anyhow. Just because they offer it does not mean you should use it. You are better off applying for an Obamacare subsidy on the health exchange instead of using COBRA, as it worked for my brother when he became unemployed. Due to being unemployed he was able to have his monthly insurance payments to Blue Cross Blue Shield shifted to his tax return, and since he was unemployed he did not have to pay them at all at the end of the year and they were instead paid by the subsidies that the Trump administration has been trying to get out of paying. That is currently the best way to keep healthcare access if you become unemployed or underemployed. At least until November... If Trump wins in November, it is likely all of those receiving healthcare access this way will lose their access to the medication and treatment they need to survive as Trump has the case on hold to strip them of it until after the election.

Biden is stupid, completely ignorant about healthcare, ( not as stupid as Trump, but still) that is why I am glad he isn't writing the bills, he just needs someone to hand him the pen and he will sign them if democrats manage to get them passed. I don't care if he understands how it works or not at this point, just as long as the end result is saving lives.

The current corporate Dem backed stimulus bill expands COBRA. He's just parroting what the corporate party is doing.

 

[lil devils x]

The current corporate Dem backed stimulus bill expands COBRA. He's just parroting what the corporate party is doing.

The only people who can afford COBRA are well off to begin with, so it isn't going to impact those needing M4A anyhow. It isn't like tossing them a bone in this somehow changes what we already have under the ACA. The unemployed and poor are still better off using Obamacare subsidies instead of COBRA, so I do not care what bribes they have to give the upper class inorder to pass the bill to get the unemployed the money they need in hand right now to keep from being evicted and becoming homeless. How do you think they can pass a bill in a republican senate and white house without bribes for the upper classes?

Right now, the MOST important thing that needs to happen by any means necessary immediately and with great urgency is get money in the hands of the unemployed ASAFP. People are losing everything they have as we speak and are not going to last long in this environment. Who really cares if they bribe the wealthy to get this passed if that means we just prevented millions of people from becoming homeless?

How are they going to pass help for the unemployed if a republican senate who has said "over my dead body" on unemployment assistance without bribes for the wealthy?

What is your alternative proposal for getting a bill passed through Mitch McConnell's senate and signed by Donald Trump to get money into the hands of the unemployed immediately if not with bribing them?

 

[tstorm823]

% GDP is what usually counts, though.

Why? The cost of living comparison is relatively equal, the money goes just as far in the US as it does in Europe. Why would being more productive necessitate we spend proportionately more than other nations. GDP isn't a big pot of money and some gets given to support the poor. That's a nonsense metric.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

The only people who can afford COBRA are well off to begin with, so it isn't going to impact those needing M4A anyhow. It isn't like tossing them a bone in this somehow changes what we already have under the ACA. The unemployed and poor are still better off using Obamacare subsidies instead of COBRA, so I do not care what bribes they have to give the upper class inorder to pass the bill to get the unemployed the money they need in hand right now to keep from being evicted and becoming homeless. How do you think they can pass a bill in a republican senate and white house without bribes for the upper classes?

But they're expanding COBRA and touting that as the big win here.

Right now, the MOST important thing that needs to happen by any means necessary immediately and with great urgency is get money in the hands of the unemployed ASAFP. People are losing everything they have as we speak and are not going to last long in this environment. Who really cares if they bribe the wealthy to get this passed if that means we just prevented millions of people from becoming homeless?

In fact, funding COBRA has caused the Dems, by their own words, to cut assisting the poor out of their bill because it's "too expensive", even if they know it's the most efficient thing they can do.

The Dems opening shot is gutting the poor to pay the rich. That's where they start, whatever Republicans say or do, they start off kissing their feet.

 

[lil devils x]

But they're expanding COBRA and touting that as the big win here.




In fact, funding COBRA has caused the Dems, by their own words, to cut assisting the poor out of their bill because it's "too expensive", even if they know it's the most efficient thing they can do.

The Dems opening shot is gutting the poor to pay the rich. That's where they start, whatever Republicans say or do, they start off kissing their feet.

They still have help for the poor in this though. They HAVE to start off kissing the republicans feet because the republicans starting position is "over my dead body" for help for the unemployed. How do you propose you bring the republicans back to the table to pass help for the unemployed when they have already stated they will veto any unemployment aid expansion?
We cannot get help to the unemployed at all without getting it through the republican senate and have Trump sign it. What is your plan to get them to do so?

It is going to take some SERIOUS bribes to get this passed by republicans, what should those bribes be?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

They still have help for the poor in this though. They HAVE to start off kissing the republicans feet because the republicans starting position is "over my dead body" for help for the unemployed. How do you propose you bring the republicans back to the table to pass help for the unemployed when they have already stated they will veto any unemployment aid expansion?
We cannot get help to the unemployed at all without getting it through the republican senate and have Trump sign it. What is your plan to get them to do so?

It is going to take some SERIOUS bribes to get this passed by republicans, what should those bribes be?

I'd start with something that helps the poor, establish a victory condition.

The Dems haven't even made it that far, COBRA isn't even a bribe for Republicans, it's a payout to corporate Dems and the healthcare industry that pays them. Hell if I were a Republican I'd say no to that on the spot anyway, it's inefficient. This is inane, there's a whole section of the party with ideas for where to start, but they're ignored because only Republican ideals matter, even to the Democrat party. Even if the Dems held all the cards, they'd still kowtow to Republicans because that's just what the corporate Dem party is.

Instead we need people like this.

'We Should Be Leading With Bold Ideas': Despite Progressive Objections, House Pushes HEROES Act Forward

"This unprecedented crisis needs us to show leadership today, not tomorrow."

www.commondreams.org

Republicans have to govern too, and a real minority party would be extracting deals from them, not the other way around.

 

[Seanchaidh]

So let me get this right, the one party that does so much more than the other party in control is the one who should be punished until they are destroyed, in effect rewarding the Republicans for doing worse and making the people suffer for it.

Yes and no.

No, because they mostly only pretend to be what you describe. Yes, because the situation you describe is extortionate and it's best not to capitulate to extortion. Democrats like that Republicans are so terrible because it allows them to be more terrible than otherwise unless the voters don't capitulate to extortion. If you act like a captured constituency-- if you "vote blue no matter who"-- then your policy preferences can be absolutely disregarded because you have no standards. The party that doesn't get your vote under any circumstances will ignore you and the party that gets it unconditionally will also ignore you.

The reason that Republicans are allowed to be so terrible is because Democrats keep triangulating themselves further and further right.

The thing is, Trump and Senate republicans are already threatening to veto relief for the unemployed already so this isn't going to pass anyhow. The unemployed during this pandemic better make sure they are rationing every little thing they already have, because more help is likely not on the way at all. People will literally become homeless and lose access to basic necessities without this relief being passed.

People will literally become homeless and lose access to basic necessities with this relief being passed. We have an unprecedented spike in unemployment and this is all the Democrats can muster? The very least they could do is propose much better and indicate in some way that they would do better if they could, but they're not even doing that! And do you know why? Because they don't actually want to do better. They're not angry at Republicans for being in the way of progress, they're thankful to them for being so terrible that they can use the Republican alternative as a cudgel against the left.

When we only have two options, destroying the only one willing to help the people at all= rewarding the one who wants to kill off the poor.

It's a two party system. Destroying one party allows space for another to grow. By all means, destroy the Republican party too. I'm not voting for them either. The Democratic Party is the more immediate obstacle because it is the nominally left party that is supposed to represent workers and the marginalized, but it doesn't to anywhere near an adequate degree. We have two parties of big business. One of them is less opposed to abortion than the other. One of them likes gay marriage so long as it maintains 56% or more support in polling. One of them is less offensive in how it describes the goals of its very similar immigration policy. One of them says they believe the science on climate change while still absolutely not proposing anything adequate to address it.

I'm not going to reward a party media complex that engineered the nomination of a handsy segregationist to stop some mild social democracy just because they're going to say "but Trump is worse!" No. It is the job of the Democratic Party to assemble a coalition. They are not going to get my support with contempt for my policy preferences and extortion.

 

[lil devils x]

I'd start with something that helps the poor, establish a victory condition.

The Dems haven't even made it that far, COBRA isn't even a bribe for Republicans, it's a payout to corporate Dems and the healthcare industry that pays them. Hell if I were a Republican I'd say no to that on the spot anyway, it's inefficient. This is inane, there's a whole section of the party with ideas for where to start, but they're ignored because only Republican ideals matter, even to the Democrat party. Even if the Dems held all the cards, they'd still kowtow to Republicans because that's just what the corporate Dem party is.

Instead we need people like this.

'We Should Be Leading With Bold Ideas': Despite Progressive Objections, House Pushes HEROES Act Forward

"This unprecedented crisis needs us to show leadership today, not tomorrow."

www.commondreams.org

Republicans have to govern too, and a real minority party would be extracting deals from them, not the other way around.

What incentive do the Republicans have to give democrats a deal on anything at all? The republicans view the millions of people that are about to become homeless as an opportunity to sweep in and buy their property, you know the sort of thing Trump has bragged about doing in the past? That was his business model here. People losing their homes to the Republicans is an opportunity for them to make money off their misfortune, so what can democrats possibly do right now to get the republicans to act to stop it from happening? Or are you proposing they just let it happen? Action has to happen now, these people do not have time to wait here, any delay at all here means more people will be homeless and without prospect of relief.

Republicans have already made their plans for governing here quite clear. They want to cut medicaid, unemployment, medicare, social security, food stamps, housing programs and force people to work for slave wages. If the poor suffer badly enough they will work for whatever republicans are willing to pay them and will fall in line.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

What incentive do the Republicans have to give democrats a deal on anything at all? The republicans view the millions of people that are about to become homeless as an opportunity to sweep in and buy their property, you know the sort of thing Trump has bragged about doing in the past? That was his business model here. People losing their homes to the Republicans is an opportunity for them to make money off their misfortune, so what can democrats possibly do right now to get the republicans to act to stop it from happening? Or are you proposing they just let it happen? Action has to happen now, these people do not have time to wait here, any delay at all here means more people will be homeless and without prospect of relief.

What incentive do the Democrats have to give republicans a deal on anything at all? The republican's policies are fundamentally opposed to the supposed democrat policies. But as we know even when the democrats held the house, senate, and presidency they let millions of people go homeless and had their properties swept up by people like Trump and Kushner through their bad policy making.

So what the democrats need to do to stop them is actually legislate against that, and extract that as deals against the republicans as a minority party would do, not bow to them out of the gate.