[qqqwerty]

It is a complicated issue and there were number of unintended consequences. But the main one is that long time property owners (NIMBYs) are insulated from (if not down right incentivized to support) anti-development measures. Because their property tax rates were frozen at time of purchase, they do not feel the impact of rising property prices. It also has a chilling effect on housing 'liquidity', because moving out of your existing home to upsize/downsize would mean you loose your preferential tax treatment.

I added a link below that goes into some of the other issues that it created [1]. And in case you think I am trying to blame Republicans for the housing crisis, I am not. Local politics rarely align cleanly with national partisan fault lines. In California, the NIMBYs tend to be more conservative and have aligned themselves with liberal anti-gentrification and anti-development environmentalists. And the liberal leaning millennials (who are heavily impacted by the housing crisis) are aligned with right leaning pro-development groups.

Regarding your RINO comment. I think this link is relevant [2]. The current Republican party would be considered extremely right wing in any other time or in any other first world country. Universal Healthcare receives bipartisan support in every advanced economy in the world other than the US. ObamaCare, the 'radical socialist left wing policy', was originally proposed by the Heritage Foundation[3]. And Universal Basic Income was originally proposed by none other than Milton Friedman, the champion of free market economics[4]. So these 'socialists' that you deride aren't socialist at all, but rather centrist democrats pushing center-right policies.

[1] https://www.kqed.org/news/11700683/too-few-homes-is-proposit... [2] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-republican-party-ha... [3] https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr... [4] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-19/univer...

[syshum]

>>And Universal Basic Income was originally proposed by none other than Milton Friedman

100% false, Friedman's negative income tax WAS NOT a UBI. it was a replacement for all welfare. It was the lesser of 2 evils and if you watch any of the talks he gave on the subject it is presented just as that. Better than massive government welfare programs

Further with UBI there are "good" ways to do it, (i.e I would be in favor of a Geo-Libertarian UBI) and there are Bad ways to do it (i.e UBI paid for with Income based Taxation)

> US. ObamaCare, the 'radical socialist left wing policy', was originally proposed by the Heritage Foundation[3]

That is 100% misleading, Some parts where yes but many parts where not. 2 of the Big Differences is that the 90's plan included Tort Reform which is need to lower costs, and did not expand medicare like Obamacare did

It was also viewed as an unacceptable compromise by many republicans, the purpose of the bill was to compromise with the Democrats that wanted Single Payer, this is the exact compromise that was made for the ACA and as predicted by the Republicans in the 90's it simply gave the democrats grounds to then claim "it was not enough" and that the only option now is single payer government run healthcare.

It has more or less removed Free market alternatives from the debate which is sad

> The current Republican party would be considered extremely right wing in any other time or in any other first world country.

Wrong actually, if you look at any data the democrat party is pulled WIDELY to the left, where the Republican Party has more or less stayed the same or has shifted slightly to the left since 2000

Republicans have not changed their principles or policies in a large number of year, it is the "left" that has changed considerably.

[qqqwerty]

> 100% false, Friedman's negative income tax WAS NOT a UBI

Uhhh, you are flat out wrong. They are basically the same thing[1]. Here is a link from CATO (a conservative outlet) talking about how the benefit of UBI is it would replace existing welfare programs[2]. Maybe try using google before making ridiculous claims.

> the 90's plan included Tort Reform which is need to lower costs

Tort reform was a straw man argument that was used by Republicans in a desperate attempt to explain why the ACA was not a 'conservative' policy. Pointing out small differences in policy details to try and explain away the origins of the policy is straight up dishonest. And just to be clear, tort reform was left out because it does not have a meaningful impact on health care costs[3]. Including it in the ACA would have been pointless and just added more complexity to an already complex piece of legislation. It was 100% the right thing to do.

> it simply gave the democrats grounds to then claim "it was not enough"

Largely because Republicans have continued to knee-cap the ACA at every turn. We tried to fix healthcare with a bipartisan policy, and you all threw a hissy-fit and decided to do everything in your power to make it fail. So I have zero sympathy with your single-payer fear mongering. The democrats shift towards stronger support for single payer was entirely in response to the shortcomings of the ACA, which largely happened due to Republican obstruction. You brought this on yourselves.

> Republican Party has more or less stayed the same or has shifted slightly to the left since 2000

I posted a link that was using data from a non-partisan research institute, and the conclusions of that research was that Republicans have been shifting rightward, even since 2000. Here is the link again[4]. Please show me credible non-partisan research to support your claim that the 'democrat party is pulled WIDELY to the left'. If you think the rise of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren some how proves your point, consider this: Bernie Sanders has been in politics since the 1980s. And as mentioned in my original post, his policy proposals would be considered center-left in any other time or in any other country. The only thing that has changed in the past 25 years in American politics is the complete take over of the Republican party by overzealous ultra right-wing anti-government partisans.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/BasicIncome/comments/6djjsj/whats_b... [2] https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/universal-basic... [3] https://publicintegrity.org/health/analysis-the-mythical-ben... [4] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-republican-party-ha...

[syshum]

>>>Uhhh, you are flat out wrong.

I am somewhat of a Friedman expect so pretty sure I am not

>>> They are basically the same thing

Not in economics they are not. Negative Income Tax is a poverty prevention plan, designed to ensure people are not living in poverty

UBI Provides a basic income FOR ALL PEOPLE, does not matter if you make 1 billion dollars, or $1 of other income everyone gets the same basic income

>>>Maybe try using google before making ridiculous claims.

I have studied economics, and most people in the Chicago and Austrian schools of economics for more than 20 years, I do not really need google to understand the difference between UBI and Negative income taxation

>>> We tried to fix healthcare with a bipartisan policy, and you all threw a hissy-fit and decided to do everything in your power to make it fail.

Well first off lets get one thing perfectly clear, I am not Republican. I am Libertarian. Republicans want far more government than I do, and I believe all income based taxation is theft. I want people to be able to protect their marijuana gardens with fully automatic machine guns. So my positions do not align with either Republicans or Democrats as both parties are generally Authoritarian in nature simply arguing over what area's of my life they want to control never arguing if they have the ethical or moral right to that control

As to "fix healthcare with a bipartisan policy" which of those exactly where suppose to fix Healthcare? Certainly not ACA.

>>> Please show me credible non-partisan research to support your claim that the 'democrat party is pulled WIDELY to the left'.

[1] https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/pew-research-c...

[2] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-democrats-have-...

>>> If you think the rise of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren some how proves your point, consider this: Bernie Sanders has been in politics since the 1980s

yes socialists have always been a part of the Democrat party, a minor one. Even Bernie Sanders from 2016 and Bern Sanders in 2020 is WIDELY different having shifted FAR to the left on many issues including immigration (in 2016 is was very much against open boarders, in 2020 he is now not only for Open Boarders but giving everyone in the world Free Medical Care paid for by stealing money from US Workers if that is not extreme left well...)

In the last 4 years alone we have seen the Democrat party take a Hard Left turn and stomp on the Gas....

>>> The only thing that has changed in the past 25 years in American politics is the complete take over of the Republican party by overzealous ultra right-wing anti-government partisans

Yea,,, no. I do not see any of that, If anything in the last 25 years the Ultra Right (generally viewed as the Extreme Religious Right that wants to do things like ban Video Games and porn) have LOST large amounts of power. Of course as with any debate I guess we need to define our terms because what you "Ultra Right" to you may not be what I view as "ultra Right"