Sanders dominates Clinton in California with 61.25%

[Socrates1]

How have the Democrats screwed up?

I admit Benghazi was pretty sick but who would have intended this happening even the Reprobates who cut funding except after the fact.

They screwed up by loosing in 2000.

They let Bush do the hard job, but he screwed up and gave Obama a hard job.

Now let's all be very nice to the lady, the first woman President and give her everything she asks for except a ban on assault weapons. If she signs a ban on assault weapons then she screwed up. The American people need to be well armed and it would be just time for Trump and you would have Trump for the Tribulation (2020.)

How much time do you think I have ? Take a look at Detroit , Baltimore , California , then trade agreements , the Iran blunder , .., .Obamacare, ....., 19 trillion dollar debt ,..... voter fraud , .....Immigration,....
Tax Reform , ..........fast and furious..,..spending , ..Obama ,...........the Clinton's . My God ! :lamo

 

[robertblake60]

I was surprised at the dozen BTC comment.. Do you realize how much $$ that is?

Roughly $5 grand; it's been a while since I looked at how much they were worth. I only have 12 though, so that's all that I could bet.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Sanders steps up in California — will Clinton?

We agree that Clinton should keep the promise she made in February to participate in three previously unscheduled debates, including one in California. She may have a significant lead in delegates, but she has yet to clinch the nomination or compel Sanders to leave the race — and, until that happens, she has an obligation to do more than go through the motions of campaigning.

Democrats: California’s primary still matters

What the elite in both parties have missed is a broad yearning for change across the political spectrum, and voters of all stripes who are fed up with what Sanders aptly calls “establishment economics and establishment politics.”

Bernie Sanders Rallies 15,000 in Sacramento for California Primary

 

[Erod]

Damn, Hillary loses more states than any "front runner" I've ever seen. 20 and counting.

And to a 74-year-old socialist from Vermont?

LOL

 

[Ikari]

Damn, Hillary loses more states than any "front runner" I've ever seen. 20 and counting.

And to a 74-year-old socialist from Vermont?

LOL

But it's her "turn", the DNC will make sure of that.

 

[Vioric]

Maybe. But it also does not make sense to allow the country to run up a debt that could make the question virulent.

your right it doesn't so in order to stop doing that we should probably raise taxes and stop going to war maybe downsize our bloated military.

 

[joG]

your right it doesn't so in order to stop doing that we should probably raise taxes and stop going to war maybe downsize our bloated military.

In fact, increasing taxes is usually the less beneficial way to go for general welfare. It is under most circumstances better to reduce spending. Where you are right is that it would be very good to reduce military spending and interventions. That is only viable, however, if the security we have been producing is produced by someone else. You see, international security is like its domestic twin one of the only true public goods that government actually should go about supplying.

 

[robertblake60]

Damn, Hillary loses more states than any "front runner" I've ever seen. 20 and counting.

Obama lost 23 contests just in 2008. Wasn't that long ago.

 

[Erod]

Obama lost 23 contests just in 2008. Wasn't that long ago.

But he wasn't running against a 74-year-old socialist corpse who never had a paying job until he was 40. Bernie was supposed to be the towel boy.

 

[Exquisitor]

But he wasn't running against a 74-year-old socialist corpse who never had a paying job until he was 40. Bernie was supposed to be the towel boy.

So what if he erodes her lead. It shows us good, how close we came to having one Socialist take over as the waters of his wave recede leaving us on the beach of history.

 

[Vioric]

In fact, increasing taxes is usually the less beneficial way to go for general welfare. It is under most circumstances better to reduce spending. Where you are right is that it would be very good to reduce military spending and interventions. That is only viable, however, if the security we have been producing is produced by someone else. You see, international security is like its domestic twin one of the only true public goods that government actually should go about supplying.

I'm not sure what your talking about, increasing the top income tax brackets has little to no effect on general welfare, in fact re appropriating those funds to social programs will actually help the general welfare. And while your right it would be better to reduce spending in general lets talk about places where we can make a meaningful reduction in spending. 1. the military alright we already talked about that we would have to be able to have another place to attain international security, I have some ideas on this but I don't think they could possibly happen in todays world, but I digress. 2. Medicare and Medicaid, now I want Medicare for all so this right there makes no sense to me but my guess is you disagree with it. everything else would be small dents in the deficit

 

[joG]

1)I'm not sure what your talking about, increasing the top income tax brackets has little to no effect on general welfare, in fact re appropriating those funds to social programs will actually help the general welfare.
2)And while your right it would be better to reduce spending in general lets talk about places where we can make a meaningful reduction in spending.
1. the military alright we already talked about that we would have to be able to have another place to attain international security, I have some ideas on this but I don't think they could possibly happen in todays world, but I digress.
2. Medicare and Medicaid, now I want Medicare for all so this right there makes no sense to me but my guess is you disagree with it. everything else would be small dents in the deficit

1) That is not quite true. The money that stays with the rich individual is used in some way and tend to go into investment with all the impacts down the line.
2) That is, what the discussion should be about. And the simple answer is that primarily we should think about the difference between public and private economic goods. In as many situations as possible the private type should be privately and the public type publicly, while government should have no right to produce private goods.
1. True. Domestic and foreign security are typical public goods and fairly solidly in the public domain. How high the spending should be is something we must decide.
2. Health care is not primarily a public good, though, it includes certain areas that are. These should be dealt with by government. All else should be private domain with the government making sure that everyone is well informed and gets whatever coverage they want from private insurers with possibly a general and low cost basic services fallback program.
2) There are other areas, where the government is massively producing private goods and should be relieved of these tasks. Social Security and education come to mind.

 

[Celebrity]

So what if he erodes her lead. It shows us good, how close we came to having one Socialist take over as the waters of his wave recede leaving us on the beach of history.

Look how close the NY primary was. Not very close, and HRC is no longer a sitting senator there. Same thing with California. After eight years, how much has "changed" under the Obama administration?



Better pray for a border collie in CA.

 

[Vioric]

1) That is not quite true. The money that stays with the rich individual is used in some way and tend to go into investment with all the impacts down the line.
2) That is, what the discussion should be about. And the simple answer is that primarily we should think about the difference between public and private economic goods. In as many situations as possible the private type should be privately and the public type publicly, while government should have no right to produce private goods.
1. True. Domestic and foreign security are typical public goods and fairly solidly in the public domain. How high the spending should be is something we must decide.
2. Health care is not primarily a public good, though, it includes certain areas that are. These should be dealt with by government. All else should be private domain with the government making sure that everyone is well informed and gets whatever coverage they want from private insurers with possibly a general and low cost basic services fallback program.
2) There are other areas, where the government is massively producing private goods and should be relieved of these tasks. Social Security and education come to mind.

1) the money that stays with rich individuals is generally 80% saved/invested, that investment does not have nearly the same level of economic stimulus that 50% of that 80% would if it was giving to the poor/middle class

2) we agree

1. we should spend effectively 60 new tanks that the army doesn't need a year is bad, when the coast guard gets a new ship and their reaction is guess we have to man a 9th cruiser, rather great now we can more effectively guard the coast is bad. trillions on a failed new air-plane that we keep funding is bad.

2.if you want to pay a private insurer more money than you would for public health care be my guest but the advantage to public health care is lower cost for medium to good healthcare for everyone. with the private system we have now unless you are paying primo dollars you are getting shafted by insurance companies either 1. over charging you or 2. are being sent to an underfunded understaffed too small public hospital regardless of how far away it is because the company gets better rates there rather than the private hospital down the street that is 50% occupied because the company would have to pay more. and I want to be clear if all hospitals were being used only by the populations they were meant to serve or being used equally this public hospital would not be underfunded or understaffed or too small.
3) the have privatized social security, if you can afford it great but ss is a plan to provide quality of life for individuals after they retire, if you privatized it many people would be without any form of retirement and would work until they die, or simply live in destitute poverty until they die because many people do not make enough money to save for retirement, short term they would rather spend that money that is taken out for ss on feeding their kids a little better or paying for Johnny's soccer team, they would never have the means to save so privatizing ss would lead to a net loss as a first world society, not only that ss is guaranteed, privatizing it is not and many people who invested in extra ss retirement saving rely on ss because their saving went away due to bad investments. Privatizing education costs more and comes directly out of the pocket of the the person poor people would not be able to provide an education for their children and would further exasperate the cycle of poverty we already have. their is no logical and realistic argument for private education, and the only argument for private healthcare is one in which the country has a powerful middle class and even then it is arguably better for a public healthcare system anyway.

 

[joG]

1) the money that stays with rich individuals is generally 80% saved/invested, that investment does not have nearly the same level of economic stimulus that 50% of that 80% would if it was giving to the poor/middle class

2) we agree

1. we should spend effectively 60 new tanks that the army doesn't need a year is bad, when the coast guard gets a new ship and their reaction is guess we have to man a 9th cruiser, rather great now we can more effectively guard the coast is bad. trillions on a failed new air-plane that we keep funding is bad.

2.if you want to pay a private insurer more money than you would for public health care be my guest but the advantage to public health care is lower cost for medium to good healthcare for everyone. with the private system we have now unless you are paying primo dollars you are getting shafted by insurance companies either 1. over charging you or 2. are being sent to an underfunded understaffed too small public hospital regardless of how far away it is because the company gets better rates there rather than the private hospital down the street that is 50% occupied because the company would have to pay more. and I want to be clear if all hospitals were being used only by the populations they were meant to serve or being used equally this public hospital would not be underfunded or understaffed or too small.
3) the have privatized social security, if you can afford it great but ss is a plan to provide quality of life for individuals after they retire, if you privatized it many people would be without any form of retirement and would work until they die, or simply live in destitute poverty until they die because many people do not make enough money to save for retirement, short term they would rather spend that money that is taken out for ss on feeding their kids a little better or paying for Johnny's soccer team, they would never have the means to save so privatizing ss would lead to a net loss as a first world society, not only that ss is guaranteed, privatizing it is not and many people who invested in extra ss retirement saving rely on ss because their saving went away due to bad investments. Privatizing education costs more and comes directly out of the pocket of the the person poor people would not be able to provide an education for their children and would further exasperate the cycle of poverty we already have. their is no logical and realistic argument for private education, and the only argument for private healthcare is one in which the country has a powerful middle class and even then it is arguably better for a public healthcare system anyway.

1) What the exact multipliers are for spending on consumption vs investment depends on the impacted period and the nature of the two. But in general terms, the sum of multipliers will be more positive for investments.
2) As I have pointed out, we deal with multi-period questions in complex systems. It is quite unclear, that the health care level can be maintained in the social systems in many of the European countries, that are, in fact, reducing the service levels of health care so that the elder cohorts that paid during their youths for a level of care when they did not need it are now faced with losing that level, when they require better and more. Now this might seem okay to a socialist. I don't know. But it does seem to take a good part of the argument away from the populists that want to sell you social medicine.
3) SS is a snowball system that works as long as it grows. When demographics change it is not sustainable, which is the problem that a number of European societies are now facing. The pensions are being reduced in a number of ways, while the levy on income remains the same and has even been increased. The question facing the German system for instance is not, if the system can be sustained, but how to manage its downsizing without causing too much damage to society.

 

[Vioric]

1) What the exact multipliers are for spending on consumption vs investment depends on the impacted period and the nature of the two. But in general terms, the sum of multipliers will be more positive for investments.
2) As I have pointed out, we deal with multi-period questions in complex systems. It is quite unclear, that the health care level can be maintained in the social systems in many of the European countries, that are, in fact, reducing the service levels of health care so that the elder cohorts that paid during their youths for a level of care when they did not need it are now faced with losing that level, when they require better and more. Now this might seem okay to a socialist. I don't know. But it does seem to take a good part of the argument away from the populists that want to sell you social medicine.
3) SS is a snowball system that works as long as it grows. When demographics change it is not sustainable, which is the problem that a number of European societies are now facing. The pensions are being reduced in a number of ways, while the levy on income remains the same and has even been increased. The question facing the German system for instance is not, if the system can be sustained, but how to manage its downsizing without causing too much damage to society.

1) 1st sentence is great, the second sentence is dead wrong for everyone except those who own the company.
2) they reason ss is failing and European welfare states are faltering or flailing is the rise of dependents due to the post ww2 baby boom which is the same problem we have in america. The level of medicine access and quality tho those that are poor is far greater than in america, if you need healthcare here you will probably go bankrupt (which doesn't help anybody), or you will lose your home, your car, or go hungry. in Europe this does not happen, for the next 30 years Europe will struggle, especially with an economic migrant/refugee crisis, and perhaps the European countries will have to throw people on the streets and leave them to die or find a more heartless solution for the elderly or the migrants/refugees. but it is not that their system doesn't work, its that it is under a stress that no system can handle.
3) the same problems mentioned previously address part of this. the second part is that raising caps on ss make it soluble again (in fact we might be able to increase benefits). as for snowballing, your mostly entirely correct, when populations begin to flat line then it wont snowball anymore and will actually get easier to fund as long as the economy continues to grow, which it will unless we are in a crash, where hopefully we realize that we can cut benefits a bit if needed and simply hit some debt untill we recover, on the other hand if we privatize it and the economy crashes then all the senior citizens are f'd.