Buttigieg: Warren 'evasive' when Colbert asked her about middle class taxes

[Skya Rhen]

Link to tweet

[JI7]

1. i think Pete is trying to be Bidens VP

[PBC_Democrat]

4. I like Biden a lot and I like Mayor Pete ...

But I don't want to see a ticket with two white guys ...

We have so many great candidates, Let's get a woman or a POC on the ballot.

[JI7]

6. Pete is still a minority as part of the lgbt community. so it would be bringing diversity

if he were picked.

but i still think Beto is the best choice for Biden even if it is 2 straight white guys.

[blm]

2. She said overall costs to taxpayer would go down.

My health insurance costs $7200 for me alone. If my taxes go up $1000, I am banking over $6000.

What is the exact mystery here? What part of overall costs will go down, is unclear?

[Skya Rhen]

3. Question: Will the middle class taxes go up? Please post a link of her saying either "yes" or "no"?

I’ll wait...

[blm]

9. I say yes, and she says overall costs go down. No GOP cameras are on me ready

To lie about what I said in the editing room.

Pretty sure you’d give your preferred candidate that type of understanding, too. He’s mindful of general election traps, right?

You just don’t think Warren should have the room you’d easily make for your candidate.

[potone]

11. The problem with that...

is that it is a right-wing talking point. If she says "yes" and then goes on to state that the overall cost will go down, all the headlines will scream that she will raise middle-class taxes, and the video that will be used in Republican campaign ads will be edited to leave out the rest of her statement. Mayor Pete surely knows this, so this is not fair criticism of her. She is avoiding falling into a trap.

[Gothmog]

7. Societal savings are not tax revenues and can not be used to pay for Warren's program

Such a plan in theory may generate societal savings but such savings would not pay for a program. Governments can only spend tax revenues and/or borrowings. This study does not say how one would pay for such a program in the real world. I note that Prof. Krugman like the concepts of such a plan in theory but notes that taxes will have to be raised a great deal to pay for such a plan
Back in 2016, here is his position Prof. Krugman compares Sanders hoped for health care savings to the GOP tax cuts. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/weakened-at-bernies/?_r=0

On health care: leave on one side the virtual impossibility of achieving single-payer. Beyond the politics, the Sanders “plan” isn’t just lacking in detail; as Ezra Klein notes, it both promises more comprehensive coverage than Medicare or for that matter single-payer systems in other countries, and assumes huge cost savings that are at best unlikely given that kind of generosity. This lets Sanders claim that he could make it work with much lower middle-class taxes than would probably be needed in practice.

To be harsh but accurate: the Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan, which relies on fantasies about huge supply-side effects to make the numbers supposedly add up. Only a little bit: after all, this is a plan seeking to provide health care, not lavish windfalls on the rich — and single-payer really does save money, whereas there’s no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth. Still, it’s not the kind of brave truth-telling the Sanders campaign pitch might have led you to expect.

Today, Prof. Krugman says that such a plan is feasible if you are willing to pay a great deal more in taxes
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/paul-krugman-explains-why-single-payer-health-care-entirely-achievable-us-and-how

If we went to government provision of all insurance, we’d pay more in taxes but less in premiums, and the overall burden of health spending would probably fall, because single-payer systems tend to be cheaper than market-based."

The amount of higher taxes are not quantified in this article by Krugman. To pay for any such plan will require massive tax hikes

Again sanders has utterly failed in his attempts to get Vermont to adopt his magical single payer plan because the state of Vermont cannot use hypothetical societal saving to pay for this plan. Even Krugman admits that much higher taxes are needed

[Hoyt]

10. Don't think MFA is going to cost only $1,000 a year, or so, at the same time

we pick up 40 Million un/under-insured, dental, hearing aides, $0 deductibles and coinsurance, etc.

Those are great goals, but we’ll be lucky to save 10%, and not many people are going to believe it until they see the calculations.

[customerserviceguy]

13. Agreed

If we someday get universal coverage with low/zero deductibles, we're going to see a great utilization of medical services, and they will cost money.

With the current system, people without Cadillac coverage avoid seeking medical help until things have gotten bad.

[Gothmog]

5. Opinion: Buttigieg tells Medicare-for-all proponents to show their cards

Against my better instincts, I am slowly beginning to like Mayor Pete.

Link to tweet

Now, I’d like to get more detail on those “cost savings” and the “corporate tax reform” (and why aren’t Democrats promising to raise the capital gains tax rate to equal or nearly equal the rates for salary income, a much bigger revenue-generator?). Buttigieg also promises “additional plans to address issues such as drug pricing, innovation and health equity,” which will need to come with funding mechanisms.

Nevertheless, Buttigieg has a compelling argument: Candidates are obligated to offer bold ideas that are doable. He argues, “Rather than flipping a switch and kicking almost 160 million Americans off their private insurance, including 20 million seniors already choosing private plans within Medicare, my plan lets Americans keep a private plan if they want to.” The latter is a reference to Medicare
Advantage, which would go away under a strictly single-payer system.

The approach favored by Buttigieg, Biden, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and other moderates would be cheaper and allow people to gradually migrate to Medicare (if that is what they want). Moreover, if Democrats want to accomplish anything, it likely will require a Democratic majority in the Senate and use of reconciliation; they would at least need a majority. There is not, as we speak, a majority of Democrats in both houses who support Medicare-for-all.

Part of the problem with this discussion is that the Medicare-for-all advocates are adept at deflecting pesky questions about cost, logistics and political feasibility. They shouldn’t be allowed to skate by on ad hominem attacks (That’s a Republican talking point!) or non sequiturs (Let me tell you how great Medicare-for-all is!) or platitudes (We’re going to fight!).

[True Dough]

8. Pete will win you over

It is inevitable!

[customerserviceguy]

14. I understand where you're coming from

If Pete Buttigieg is viable by the time of the SC primary, I will vote for him. However, if his campaign crashes and burns, then Joe Biden is my go-to candidate.

Of course, I will vote for the nominee, no matter what the circumstances that they achieved that nomination. It's that important.

[melman]

17. Jennifer Rubin

lol

[Cha]

18. "Show your cards!"

[jcgoldie]

12. This anti-tax anti-universal health care argument...

Republicans would be so proud.

[Docreed2003]

15. Pete is right

We need details.

[highplainsdem]

16. She's been very evasive on this, and despite fans like Frank Bruni applauding her for being evasive

(I think Bruni even referred to her "slipperiness" ), I think it hurts her in terms of credibility, at least with people who aren't fans.

Bruni column applauding her for being a slippery politician:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287277107

Perhaps most crucially, she was evasive, which isn’t a noble quality but is as essential as any other when you’re running for office. Idealism puts you in play. Slipperiness gets you the prize.

[BootinUp]

19. K&R