Kieran McConville
ONE love, blood, life
If Sanders is even close in New York, this could remain interesting.
2016 US Presidential Election Thread - VII
- Thread starter Oregoropa
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
prbiker15
Blue Crack Addict
I also think that the chances of Bernie clinching the nomination are starting to get really slim. If he doesn't turn out to be the nominee, I'll gladly support Hillary.
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
Why is the only option to pay for health care drastically raising taxes anyways?
There will never be another grand-army conventional war. Cutting the defense budget could easily pay for universal health care, or at least enough that the cost to the individual tax payer would be relatively low. It's insane that any country feels the need to maintain such a ridiculously overpowered military for no good reason.
There will never be another grand-army conventional war. Cutting the defense budget could easily pay for universal health care, or at least enough that the cost to the individual tax payer would be relatively low. It's insane that any country feels the need to maintain such a ridiculously overpowered military for no good reason.
OP
OP
Oregoropa
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Our allies should start contributing more to their own defense budgets so we aren't the World's Rent A Cops. Then again empowering certain actors in the Far East could lead to greater instability. Cutting the military budget to pay for Social programs sounds attractive on paper but has far reaching implications.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
A 25% cut would still leave the United States with more than double the defense budget of China.
$150 billion free to spend on Americans (theoretically).
$150 billion free to spend on Americans (theoretically).
Bingo. Let's start with getting our spending under control and get the most bang for our buck. Let's also work to close corporate loopholes and regulations on certain segments of financial industry who have gone unchecked.
Then, and only then, should we start talking about significant tax increases on the middle and upper middle class.
Then, and only then, should we start talking about significant tax increases on the middle and upper middle class.
OP
OP
Oregoropa
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Don't touch taxing the middle class as a whole right now. I know many people who haven't seen a raise in the past 5 years. Wages are stagnant. Health premiums keep shooting up. I know Bernie prefers a Scandinavian model of social spending. I think it's easier for those countries who's populations are under 10 million to get on board with and implement that spending regime. If the USA was 50 different countries I could see New England and Washington state able to pull it off.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
deep
Blue Crack Addict
'
China defense planning includes losing 30 per cent of their population as they ramp up eventually win the war. It's a good plan.
Mack_Again
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i swear i'm going to throw my computer out the window if i have to witness one more dumbshit argument between Bernie Bros and Clintonistas on FB.
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
I had my first one (in my own FB post) last night! My Hilary supporting friend was civil and kept his cool. My Bernie supporting acquaintance was kind of a dick about it.
Like, way to keep that stereotype going.
Like, way to keep that stereotype going.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i feel like the Hillary folk hate the Sanders folk, whereas the Sanders folk hate Hillary.
as Sinead O'Conner once said: "fight the real enemy."
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
but take heart. our next president will not be Donald Trump.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/31/nightmare-nominee-nobody-likes-donald-trump-not-even-white-men/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/31/nightmare-nominee-nobody-likes-donald-trump-not-even-white-men/
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
This. With the Republican Party imploding as it is right now, this is a great opportunity for the Democrats to show solidarity and try and combine the best of both Bernie and Hilary's messages into something worth voting for. If we want to have another Democratic president, we need to not be at each other's throats.
Obviously there's stuff worth criticizing in both Bernie and Hilary's campaigns or messages, and I appreciate that we're willing to have that discussion, and are actually thinking about what they have to say and offer. But in my eyes, that just means fans of one candidate have a great opportunity to go to events for the other and ask things like, "So what do you think about x or y issue? How would you address this or that situation? What's your plan to help _____ (insert whatever group of people you feel deserves a lot of focus here)" And so on. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation.
I get being upset if your favorite candidate doesn't get the nomination, but I don't get the refusal some people have to support the person who wins it instead. Considering who we're up against on the GOP side, we need as much support as we can get.
Bluer White
New Yorker
Great thoughts, digit.
My guess is that we all recognize tax rates need to be adjusted periodically. And every class, from fast food employees hoping for 15 bucks per hour, to the trendy upper middle class homes bringing in 225K+, to the millionaires and up....they all have very "nuanced" positions as to why their rates shouldn't be increasing much. It's a healthy discussion to have and Sanders is sparking it.
Kieran McConville
ONE love, blood, life
No mention of his proposed tax on financial transactions of the Wall Street variety. At a fraction of the rate of existing sales taxes (which it would be analogous to), that alone would help significantly in funding such things as university tuition. In the hypothetical future world where such things became law.
Mack_Again
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I thought his tax pal would tax high frequency/high risk trades on the stock market. and that'll fund shit tons of money for his plans.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
you can stop right there and add, and a decent chance to pick up? the senate
(that will advise and consent)
deep
Blue Crack Addict
a tax pal? is this a socialist concept?
There is absolutely nothing about this plan that is a good idea. It's strictly pandering to anti-Wall Street anxiety. At the very least, the tax on trades is strictly more harmful than an increase on tax rates for all income at a certain level.
I do think the education needs to be better-funded in this country, though, and I'm not against raising taxes to do it. BUT, I think that making public universities free is a ridiculous place to allocate increased education dollars. First of all, most public universities aren't really what's contributions to massive debt problems, being relatively affordable. (I'm looking at you, small liberal arts schools and for-profit degree mills.) Second of all, this would be a fairly regressive way to spend money. Where it really should be spent is on K-12 education in low-income communities, not buying the votes of white college-age Bernie Bros from relatively well-off families (okay, sorry, stereotyping a bit off of what I see at UT).
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Kieran McConville
ONE love, blood, life
Really? A tax of maybe max. 1% (or less) or so on certain financial transactions is that harmful?
I wonder if at this point the useful parts of university education (ie. not mere credentialism, diploma-for-the-wall stuff) should properly be considered an essential along with the grade 1-12 primary and secondary education. My own experience, many years gone now and in a different country, is that at least the first year of a typical undergraduate course would have been better off treated as a sort of high school 'grade 13' and made available to everyone on the same basis as high school already is. I'm drifting a little here, off the topic.
Re: tax - yes, certainly harmful. There's no such thing as a free lunch. 1% is terrifyingly huge, so I hope it's smaller than that. But it would come with reduced liquidity across the board, reduced money in investment accounts for the rich and poor, increased bid/ask spreads, etc., none of which is true. You can say that this disproportionately affects the rich, which is true, but there absolutely no good reason to then not just levy the tax on the entirety of the high-income-earning population instead of concentrating it in financial services. And concentrating it here also affects non-rich savers, pension funds, etc., which are already doing fairly terribly at the moment. Of course, no tax (ceteris paribus) has good economic effects, but it's much better to spread the impact of necessary taxes broadly than to concentrate them arbitrarily. This is just a way to feast off of anti-Wall Street sentiment... and, I suppose, to tax normal savers without letting them realize that.
Re: education - yes, a bachelor's degree is increasingly necessary. It also still has a highly positive return on investment in most cases, without being free. The thing that deters people from going to college is awful K-12 education. It would take a lot more K-12 funding there to convince me that putting the marginal dollar into paying for getting rid of public university tuition is a better idea than giving it to low-income K-12 districts.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
I guarantee you no nation's war plan in the history of humanity has ever involved losing 30% their population.
BigMacPhisto
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
- Messages
- 6,351
Sanders now ahead of Clinton in the latest Wisconsin polls. Should have no problem winning there although he needs to make it a big enough win. Barely winning, or worse, losing means it's the end of the road as there's no way in hell he would succeed in states like New York or Pennsylvania if he loses Wisconsin. A defeat in Wisconsin effectively closes his small window at winning a pledged delegate majority to a 0% chance.
Meanwhile, he is quickly pulling in on Clinton's numbers in New York which doesn't even vote for another two weeks. Sizable wins in New York and Wisconsin would quickly make the delegate math not so troubling for the guy as he's only some 92 delegates behind the benchmarks that 538 has set for him to win the majority of pledged delegates. Exceeding the benchmarks in Wisconsin and New York by a good margin could really close that gap.
Meanwhile, he is quickly pulling in on Clinton's numbers in New York which doesn't even vote for another two weeks. Sizable wins in New York and Wisconsin would quickly make the delegate math not so troubling for the guy as he's only some 92 delegates behind the benchmarks that 538 has set for him to win the majority of pledged delegates. Exceeding the benchmarks in Wisconsin and New York by a good margin could really close that gap.
BigMacPhisto
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
- Messages
- 6,351
you can stop right there and add, and a decent chance to pick up? the senate
I don't even think about the Democrats picking up the Senate because I view it as an absolute given. The Republicans have to defend so many damn seats that they won in 2010 when nobody voted...the only real struggle for Dems is that they gave up too many damn seats in the 2014 elections that they now need to win a lot more to win it all back...but I think it's totally doable, and with a shitty Republican nominee hurting everyone down-ballot, it might even be a cake walk.
But the House? I mean, holy hell, even the out-of-touch Clinton campaign gave up on that pipe dream forever ago. We're stuck with Republican obstructionism until at least after the next census.
Mack_Again
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
my commie fingers are not so accurate.
LuckyNumber7
Blue Crack Addict
Speaking of college and affordability...
Not only is tuition skyrocketing past inflation, but holy hell try getting a loan these days. I'm in the process of applying for a federal loan. My sister was telling me about her loan rates etc. in the late 90s/early 2000s... getting a government loan back then used to mean something. Now, you're pretty much getting a private loan, with Uncle Sam's name on it.
Not only do I need almost twice the amount in a loan that she did over the same period, but I have to pay it back under much shittier conditions.
Not only is tuition skyrocketing past inflation, but holy hell try getting a loan these days. I'm in the process of applying for a federal loan. My sister was telling me about her loan rates etc. in the late 90s/early 2000s... getting a government loan back then used to mean something. Now, you're pretty much getting a private loan, with Uncle Sam's name on it.
Not only do I need almost twice the amount in a loan that she did over the same period, but I have to pay it back under much shittier conditions.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Nobody is making you borrow it.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Census won't matter that much Dems are too stupid to get the govnorships and legislators to control the gerrymandering.
Similar threads
- Locked
