Bern it up with Sanders or burn it down with Trump

[Belsnickel]

(03-09-2016, 07:57 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Ehhhh, let's face it....things work best when the Establishment is the adult in the room getting things done and the radicals in both parties shape, rather than dictate, direction.

Part of the problem is the moderates in both parties have lost their voice and the inmates are running the asylum.

There is more truth to this than a lot of people would like to admit.

[Benton]

(03-09-2016, 07:27 PM)Vlad Wrote: Eh..Bernie is a Jewish ultra liberal. He gets a pass on the old white man thing. That label is served best for the old white conservative Christian man, not so much for dorks like Joe Biden.


Speaking of, how much of the "Bernie is too old" rhetoric have you heard from the mainstream as compared to what John McCain received? ...not nearly as much, and McCain was younger.

So you support Crazy Bernie? What finally did it for you?...when he said what is music to the ears of white guilt self loathing liberals ... " a white man has no idea what it's like to be poor"..?

I'd disagree. That's one of the biggest criticisms I hear is his age, especially when pundits are trying to match up him versus Rubio or Cruz. 

As far as the questions, I was a Paul supporter. I don't really have any candidate I'm supporting, but a few I'm against (in case you're wondering, it's Clinton, Cruz, Trump and Carson). I just find it funny how many people are grossly misinformed on how Bernie has voted and what he's advocated, comparing that to what Clinton has advocated in the past.

[6andcounting]

Someone who is new to politics and doesn't really have an ideology might be able to switch between Trump and Bernie just on the anti-establishment factor. Outside of promoting American economic protectionism, they don't have much else in common. Bernie supporters who despise Hilary just won't in an election between Trump and Clinton. That still helps Trump because it's one less vote for Hillary, but it will only be a net gain of +1 not +2 for Trump.

The better and longer Bernie performs in the primary, the more likely his supporters who are otherwise Democrat voters just sit out when Hilary's nominated. However, Trump is getting votes from people who normally don't vote, or at least not for republicans. Some republicans don't like him, but he certainly has energized the base. Cruz supporters are still going to end up voting for Trump because of his energy and pure dislike for Hillary and the Obama policies she will continue. Bernie is bringing the energy for the left, so when he drops out so does their energy. About as many people are truly thrilled and excited to vote for Hillary as Jeb Bush, and 95% of those people are just caught up in the fact that she has (semi-safe assumption) a vag.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(03-09-2016, 07:22 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: I'm a Bernie supporter but I could never vote for Trump. How someone could back Bernie whos message is about honesty and integrity then flip to Trump is beyond me.

Trump is a bigot and a piece of garbage.

because a lot of their policy isn't that far off. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-09-2016, 06:54 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You mean, you''ll post some economic "analysis" you don't understand and then pretend we disagree?  Yep, pretty much the same as with healthcare.

It's not what I'm conditioned to believe, it's what I'm educated to understand.  That's why Bernie's message is so powerful with the economically ignorant.

But back to the question....Bernie's plan isn't to blow out spending and increase taxes???

It doesn't really matter who wins, in order for the US infrastructure to get paid for, we're going to have to raise taxes somewhere.
Raising it on the top annual earners for a few years would be the best way to procure that money. (as I said, it doesn't have to be permanent). 

I'd be all for pulling some of it, if not all of it from our Defense Budget, but that's not going to go over very well with Repubs.

How nice it would be to spend some of that 40 billion we send annually to other countries on fixing up our own infrastructure?

SNAP can be addressed just like it was in Massachusetts, all single able bodied people on it, need to get out and do something weekly in the community. No more just sitting around and collecting your benefits.

I know you place a high value on Education, so do I. There are other countries out there that offer free college education to all of their Citizens. I think we can make it work. Not a big fan of the way Bern wants to do it, but it needs to be done. Hillary keeps telling everyone that she'll help them, sliding scale etc, and when they are done, they will be debt free.. Not sure exactly how she plans to get people to pay and come out debt free. 

Healthcare. The biggest reason for rising costs is .... administrative fees. Remove that by going to Medicare for all USC's, irregardless of income. Transfer the money that you would've been paying for premiums into a tax rate. Make it consistent with all income. No exceptions/exemptions. Bern estimates 6.2% of everyone's annual income. That number is very doable. I already pay more than that in premiums, co-pays and oop expenses. 

(03-09-2016, 08:35 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: because a lot of their policy isn't that far off. 

Correct.

[fredtoast]

(03-09-2016, 06:54 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: But back to the question....Bernie's plan isn't to blow out spending and increase taxes???

That was not the question you asked.

Then question was if Bernie and Hillary were going to do the exact same thing.  And they are not.

[McC]

(03-09-2016, 06:45 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Considering most of Trump's own manufacturing and labor is outsourced or immigrants, it's safe to say it is double talk. 

What does Trump even manufacture?   I thought he was a property guy.

[fredtoast]

(03-09-2016, 08:04 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Some republicans don't like him, but he certainly has energized the base. 

The only people Trump has energized are the ones controlled by hate, fear, and ignorance.

I don't think the Republicans see that as their "base".  At least I hope they don't.

[Vlad]

(03-09-2016, 07:22 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: I'm a Bernie supporter but I could never vote for Trump. How someone could back Bernie whos message is about honesty and integrity then flip to Trump is beyond me.

Trump is a bigot and a piece of garbage.

Bernie is a bitter old man. His bitterness was glaring ever since I first heard him open his mouth.. The only reason Bernie got into politics is because he was a loser at life. This bitter old man now champions for all the bitter losers at life out there looking for hand outs.

This is a crazy election.
I tend to support Trump because anything is better than a damn democrat, especially those two gems...but I must be honest, regarding Trump there is an equally strong voice inside me telling me to be careful what I wish for. 

[Vas Deferens]

(03-10-2016, 12:32 PM)Vlad Wrote: Bernie is bitter. His bitterness was glaring ever since I first heard him open his mouth.. The only reason Bernie got into politics is because he was a loser at life. This bitter old man now champions for all the bitter losers at life out there looking for hand outs.

You come across as a very bitter individual yourself.  Way to exclude your usual "HE'S A JEW!" comment though.  

[Benton]

(03-10-2016, 12:13 PM)McC Wrote: What does Trump even manufacture?   I thought he was a property guy.

Money.

Give the guy $40-100 million of FHA-loan created money (his inheritance), let him leverage that against several billion in property and then when it falls apart, banks and taxpayers fund the loss. And when taxpayers run out of money to give you, ask the Saudis and other foreign investors (who are getting money from U.S. taxpayers) to pay off your stuff.

Man, I can't wait to see how a guy who got rich off taxpayer programs and bailed out by other businesses is going to turn it around and create money for... er... well, that's got to work out somehow.

[Vas Deferens]

(03-10-2016, 11:51 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: It doesn't really matter who wins, in order for the US infrastructure to get paid for, we're going to have to raise taxes somewhere.
Raising it on the top annual earners for a few years would be the best way to procure that money. (as I said, it doesn't have to be permanent). 

I'd be all for pulling some of it, if not all of it from our Defense Budget, but that's not going to go over very well with Repubs.

How nice it would be to spend some of that 40 billion we send annually to other countries on fixing up our own infrastructure?

SNAP can be addressed just like it was in Massachusetts, all single able bodied people on it, need to get out and do something weekly in the community. No more just sitting around and collecting your benefits.

I know you place a high value on Education, so do I. There are other countries out there that offer free college education to all of their Citizens. I think we can make it work. Not a big fan of the way Bern wants to do it, but it needs to be done. Hillary keeps telling everyone that she'll help them, sliding scale etc, and when they are done, they will be debt free.. Not sure exactly how she plans to get people to pay and come out debt free. 

Healthcare. The biggest reason for rising costs is .... administrative fees. Remove that by going to Medicare for all USC's, irregardless of income. Transfer the money that you would've been paying for premiums into a tax rate. Make it consistent with all income. No exceptions/exemptions. Bern estimates 6.2% of everyone's annual income. That number is very doable. I already pay more than that in premiums, co-pays and oop expenses. 

REP ++++

[RoyleRedlegs]

(03-10-2016, 12:13 PM)McC Wrote: What does Trump even manufacture?   I thought he was a property guy.

Trump clothing line is made in China, you know, that place with that great wall he loves...

(03-10-2016, 12:49 PM)Benton Wrote: Money.

Give the guy $40-100 million of FHA-loan created money (his inheritance), let him leverage that against several billion in property and then when it falls apart, banks and taxpayers fund the loss. And when taxpayers run out of money to give you, ask the Saudis and other foreign investors (who are getting money from U.S. taxpayers) to pay off your stuff.

Man, I can't wait to see how a guy who got rich off taxpayer programs and bailed out by other businesses is going to turn it around and create money for... er... well, that's got to work out somehow.

What's funny is, I actually read something about Trump under performing by about 50% or something like that over his time in business. They looked at what other people had done over the time with similar investments and holdings, and Trump way under performed. I'll have to try and find it. 

[JustWinBaby]

(03-10-2016, 12:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That was not the question you asked.

Then question was if Bernie and Hillary were going to do the exact same thing.  And they are not.

It is the EXACT question I asked, twice.  Because Hillary is a typical tax and spend liberal, and Bernie is that on steroids.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-10-2016, 11:51 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I know you place a high value on Education, so do I. There are other countries out there that offer free college education to all of their Citizens.

Ehhh, there's no shortage of funding available - with still the greatest ROI in the world - for people with the ability to go to college.  It should not be on the taxpayer to fund poor decisions of people incapable or immature.

Kasich nailed it by the way - go to a community college, do well, and transfer to a 4-year program for your degree.


And I'm more concerned about creating actual good jobs for all these well-educated young entitlements.  You simply don't need 10M college degrees for 1M jobs requiring a degree.  Which brings up a fascinating contradiction of philosophies - Liberals don't believe in supply-side economics except, apparently, when it comes to education and Conservatives are just the opposite.

[McC]

(03-10-2016, 11:51 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: It doesn't really matter who wins, in order for the US infrastructure to get paid for, we're going to have to raise taxes somewhere.
Raising it on the top annual earners for a few years would be the best way to procure that money. (as I said, it doesn't have to be permanent). 

I'd be all for pulling some of it, if not all of it from our Defense Budget, but that's not going to go over very well with Repubs.

How nice it would be to spend some of that 40 billion we send annually to other countries on fixing up our own infrastructure?

SNAP can be addressed just like it was in Massachusetts, all single able bodied people on it, need to get out and do something weekly in the community. No more just sitting around and collecting your benefits.

I know you place a high value on Education, so do I. There are other countries out there that offer free college education to all of their Citizens. I think we can make it work. Not a big fan of the way Bern wants to do it, but it needs to be done. Hillary keeps telling everyone that she'll help them, sliding scale etc, and when they are done, they will be debt free.. Not sure exactly how she plans to get people to pay and come out debt free. 

Healthcare. The biggest reason for rising costs is .... administrative fees. Remove that by going to Medicare for all USC's, irregardless of income. Transfer the money that you would've been paying for premiums into a tax rate. Make it consistent with all income. No exceptions/exemptions. Bern estimates 6.2% of everyone's annual income. That number is very doable. I already pay more than that in premiums, co-pays and oop expenses. 




Correct.

I don't think any of those countries with free college education are as big as the US and, even if they are, I hate the idea of the government sending everyone to college.  Nobody paid my way but me and it was far from easy but I did it.

It is not remotely the government's responsibility to educate its citizens in a democracy and it would force an already too large gov't to become even bigger.  The price tag would be enormous and the extra miles of red tape that comes with gov't involvement would be ridiculous.  You want to ruin something?  Involve the gov't in it.

I can't buy any plan for such an undertaking.  It would be the death of higher education and create an enormous tax burden on the middle class.  Hell no.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-10-2016, 01:55 PM)McC Wrote: I can't buy any plan for such an undertaking.  It would be the death of higher education and create an enormous tax burden on the middle class.  Hell no.

It really is a bad idea.  There's already enough college degrees out there that it's lost tremendous value relative to the cost.  If you really want to advance in today's world, you need an advanced degree.  So all these people railing about the deck being stacked and the cost to compete are actually raising the cost of success even higher.

There also is no doubt in my mind that all the easy money and govt subsidies has caused colleges to compete for students on expensive frills that have little to do with the quality of education.  Would love to see a comparative study breaking down the % of tuition that actually goes to education today vs, say, 20 years ago.

And, by the way, would it just be a blank check? The taxpayer is going to pay for someone to get an art history major from Columbia, or do we say if you want a free education you're going to study a core subject at state university?

[Benton]

(03-10-2016, 01:55 PM)McC Wrote: I don't think any of those countries with free college education are as big as the US and, even if they are, I hate the idea of the government sending everyone to college.  Nobody paid my way but me and it was far from easy but I did it.

It is not remotely the government's responsibility to educate its citizens in a democracy and it would force an already too large gov't to become even bigger.  The price tag would be enormous and the extra miles of red tape that comes with gov't involvement would be ridiculous.  You want to ruin something?  Involve the gov't in it.

I can't buy any plan for such an undertaking.  It would be the death of higher education and create an enormous tax burden on the middle class.  Hell no.

I don't see free college working out here because there's no cost controls. You can't tell consumers to get what they want and businesses to send you the bill. It works in some countries because there's some regulation of people going into different industries, but you wouldn't have that here.

The problem isn't with having more degrees, it's having more people with training to do something. Anything. Not everybody needs a BS in literature just because they didn't know what they wanted to do when they were 20. But that person might have an aptitude and interest in something else.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-10-2016, 02:10 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It really is a bad idea.  There's already enough college degrees out there that it's lost tremendous value relative to the cost.  If you really want to advance in today's world, you need an advanced degree.  So all these people railing about the deck being stacked and the cost to compete are actually raising the cost of success even higher.

There also is no doubt in my mind that all the easy money and govt subsidies has caused colleges to compete for students on expensive frills that have little to do with the quality of education.  Would love to see a comparative study breaking down the % of tuition that actually goes to education today vs, say, 20 years ago.

And, by the way, would it just be a blank check?  The taxpayer is going to pay for someone to get an art history major from Columbia, or do we say if you want a free education you're going to study a core subject at state university?

(03-10-2016, 02:37 PM)Benton Wrote: I don't see free college working out here because there's no cost controls. You can't tell consumers to get what they want and businesses to send you the bill. It works in some countries because there's some regulation of people going into different industries, but you wouldn't have that here.

The problem isn't with having more degrees, it's having more people with training to do something. Anything. Not everybody needs a BS in literature just because they didn't know what they wanted to do when they were 20. But that person might have an aptitude and interest in something else.

Who said we can't have stipulations/regulations in place and place more emphasis on certain fields and only paying for certain publicly funded colleges?

My plan and Bern's plan are different. I think most of you don't even like my plan lol

For starters, we need to break it down at the beginning. Longer School days and quit focusing so much time on teaching kids how to take a test. We need to be teaching them the basics and ramp it up as they progress in grade levels, also make some common sense classes mandatory such as how to cook basic foods, maintain a budget, teach them how to use basic tools, and I'm sure there's more we could add to it.

In the last week of High School, take a comprehensive test that will help determine what you like and what you are good at, to help give you a career guide path. Then after HS is done, and you have graduated, shortly there after I want all kids to spend at least 2 years in the military, no exceptions. The idea of putting them into the military is to help them learn discipline (if they don't already have it) and teach them to respect guns and each other and get them in good physical shape.



Once done with their 2 years, they can either opt to stay in for longer or opt to get on with a civilian life. Take a test again and see what your career path could be. Of course not everyone will want to go to college, but for those that do, at least they are a couple years older and would have a better idea of what they might want to do. Emphasis on degrees will be based on which fields are needed in the market or projected to be understaffed. IE: Nursing, Systems Technology. And not all fields require a degree, some require certification and that would be a path they could go down as well. People that wish to go to a private school, will pay the difference between the cost of going to a public school vs private school.

Just a thought. Feel free to add/change things that you don't like.

[Benton]

(03-11-2016, 02:42 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Who said we can't have stipulations/regulations in place and place more emphasis on certain fields and only paying for certain publicly funded colleges?

My plan and Bern's plan are different. I think most of you don't even like my plan lol

For starters, we need to break it down at the beginning. Longer School days and quit focusing so much time on teaching kids how to take a test. We need to be teaching them the basics and ramp it up as they progress in grade levels, also make some common sense classes mandatory such as how to cook basic foods, maintain a budget, teach them how to use basic tools, and I'm sure there's more we could add to it. 

I like all of this. And the "common sense" classes are something I and a few others (Lucie I know) have advocated in the past. They aren't taught in schools and unfortunately they aren't taught at home any more either.

To the bold, I don't think I've ever posted it, but that's something I'd like to see. As an employer, it's hard to balance employee child care when several of my employees need to leave at 3 p.m. In our area, work days are typically 7-5 p.m. I'd like to see schools something closer to that, at least 8-4 p.m.

Quote:In the last week of High School, take a comprehensive test that will help determine what you like and what you are good at, to help give you a career guide path. Then after HS is done, and you have graduated, shortly there after I want all kids to spend at least 2 years in the military, no exceptions. The idea of putting them into the military is to help them learn discipline (if they don't already have it) and teach them to respect guns and each other and get them in good physical shape.



Once done with their 2 years, they can either opt to stay in for longer or opt to get on with a civilian life. Take a test again and see what your career path could be. Of course not everyone will want to go to college, but for those that do, at least they are a couple years older and would have a better idea of what they might want to do. Emphasis on degrees will be based on which fields are needed in the market or projected to be understaffed. IE: Nursing, Systems Technology. And not all fields require a degree, some require certification and that would be a path they could go down as well. People that wish to go to a private school, will pay the difference between the cost of going to a public school vs private school.

Just a thought. Feel free to add/change things that you don't like.

I'm not big on mandatory military. But something similar to some kind of civilian corps wouldn't be out of the question. How much it would cost to operate versus how much it would help taxpayers, dunno. But it's an interesting idea.