Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Finance, the economy & Economics The Debate: Is America’s future capitalist or socialist?

How about a little substance? Elizabeth Warren plans to propose a "wealth tax" (NBC); AOC Proposes 70% tax rate... Dang, those Dems sure are a conservative bunch.

I think both of these proposals are moving fiscal policy to sound footing. Moreover, neither are likely to hurt, but rather would stimulate, the economy, as would a real boost in the corporate tax rate - even conservative economists think the current rate is too low, and it has actually harmed the economy.

Hillary Clinton proposed higher taxes for the wealthy too. It didn't go down that well with the voters last time. It's a lot easier to run on tax cuts than increases.

I got extremely mad about Bloomberg's and Schultz's BS, calling Medicare for all "unaffordable" and "un-American", because it demonstrated that they are either stupid (unlikely), or dishonest (probable). Here's a good explanation as to why: The media is badly botching the Medicare-for-all debate. (WaPo, subscription).

Let me start with an obvious observation: Bloomberg and Schultz are both billionaires. Billionaires are not like us. But Schultz started life poor. He certainly knows better. Or, maybe, money causes myopia. Schultz calls himself "self-made". That's a clue. It automatically ignores all of the circumstances that assisted his success.

But more importantly, to be successful in business one should be aware of the ecosystem in which one's business exists. Here's why their basic argument is stupid. And I mean STUPID: The majority of the countries in which they do business have universal healthcare. If they were "bankrupt", how are they doing business there? If they are bankrupt, how are they kicking our collective butt in health care outcomes and costs?

I always go back to the Constitution. What contract did I tacitly sign? It says, "promote the general welfare". The Founders did not define what they meant, but certainly we can use common sense to derive some reasonable conclusion as to what they envisioned.

Does the highway system, starting with the National Highway in 1814, promote the general welfare? Yep on many levels. So the question should not be what is viable or not but what do Americans expect from their government? If the majority expect nothing but a highway system, then so be it, but I suspect when the electorate is apprised of the many ways government can assist them i.e. promoting the general welfare, then they would be more attentive to a variety of plans.

Once the electorate knows what it wants, then we can talk about how we pay for it. I think it is clear SS and Medicare promote the general welfare. Would it be such a large leap to expand coverage for all citizens?

As you say, NWP, many countries have universal coverage and Germany has had it since 1888 and they have a variety of systems to ensure their citizens have coverage. The people making claims we can't afford it or that it is unAmerican are misinformed or disingenuous.

Have the debate!

aside:: should government not fulfill its obligation, I believe the Constitution tacitly implies the contract is null and void and should be dissolved.

Last time Democrats had control, 2008-2010, the first thing on the agenda was healthcare. It was a massive struggle to get the ACA passed and we did it without a single Republican vote.

It cost Democrats control of the house, then the Senate, then the Presidency and the supreme court.

ten years later we have gained back the House and are guardedly optimistic about the 2020 elections.

Republicans have fumed over it the whole time.

Hillary Clinton tried it back in the day too, when Bill was president. She was a marked woman from that day forward.

I'm not gonna say that history predicts the future but...

History Predicts The Future!

That's pretty sound path to take.

It was written by capitalists. Who didn't want to pay taxes.

and yet these same writers and thinkers left open the possibility of a strong central government which could provide the glue for a disparate set of independent states which could actually provide services citizens wanted, which would fulfill their contractual obligation.

we would not be here today if not for compromises made in hope that those who rejected the concept would some day be persuaded a democratic government would be a good thing worth the sacrifices made by those who believed.

I don't think they could ever have imagined what the future would bring.
But the point is...our Constitution makes no allowances for socialist rule. It was written by and for wealthy landowners and whenever "people" are mentioned it is wealthy white male "people" it talks about. With one tiny reminder not to be too cruel to the rest of the population.

such a cynic

The Constitution makes no reference to any economic systems.

While it is true James Madison was a landowner of some substance, there were many attorneys and judges, as well as businessmen. On the other hand did you want say one of my 13 ancestors to be a writer, contributor? My ancestors were all poor and mostly uneducated farmers. I would rather have an educated person write such an important document rather than my ancestors.

The question is, do you want one unified country or 13 separate countries in NA? If it doesn't matter, then sure, you could say it was written by wealthy folks for wealthy folks, but remember, these guys had to make a many compromises to get to the point the Founders would agree on a document to present to the various colonies. Looking into the rear view mirror of history one could say why didn't they do this or that which is widely accepted today. The heat in Philadelphia in the summer can be stifling. I wonder what the temperature was in that small room in Independence Hall, packed with representatives debating these very questions and modern criticisms. It amazes me that they could come to a compromise document, especially considering the modern divide between liberals and conservatives. It would be impossible to write such a document today.

If you appoint me Master of the Universe, the world you envision would probably come to fruition, otherwise, I will continue to uphold the faulty document we have for guidance in the immediate future.

Amazing, indeed. I think that the fundamental reason they were able to make the compromises necessary to create the document that endures today is that they approached the task in a good faith belief that everyone had a similar goal. They didn't agree, and some of those disagreements became very nasty (even fatal). If we can reengender that sense of common purpose, even in this fractious environment, I think progress, in the spirit of the Constitution, can still prevail.

The Constitution is an agnostic document. It sets forth parameters, processes, and aspirations, but it doesn't dictate conclusions - economically or ecumenically. The men who drafted it believed in the power and merit of reason. Would that that condition were to prevail today!