• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sanders fans may be excited for free stuff... but are less willing to pay for it.

I don't laugh this off. Bernie and Trump are symptomatic of the removal of the old guard in both parties. Now where do we go, and how?

We don't have the industrial base to get back to middle class wages all that easily. Bernie can win. But then what? Here is where we are: Socialism with Bernie, nationalism with Trump, and parochial school with Cruz. (Or constant tabloid exposes and scandals with the Clintons)

The nation is shifting under our feet and the establishment and the MSM are trying to pretend we are all imagining it! And we are all going to be affected by it one way our another.
 
Do you have a study that asked the voters whether they would be willing to pay as much as Germans are forced to or pay the amount the higher US costs would require?

From the article:

"Last week Vox and Morning Consult polled registered voters about whether they were “willing to pay additional taxes” to fund certain programs.

Naturally Vox reported the results as a repudiation of the Sanders agenda, even though few of Sanders’s programs would be paid for by individual tax hikes, and none of them would be pitched in such a politically clueless fashion. (Sanders’s single-payer health plan, even skeptics at PolitiFact admit, would help the average American family save hundreds if not thousands of dollars a year.)

But since the Right and the elite media do adopt this reactionary way of framing tax questions, it’s useful to see how Americans respond when confronted with it. Especially since the results showed that most American voters are willing to pay higher taxes in order to provide universal, progressive goods — Social Security, Medicare, education, and infrastructure improvements.

Remember, this poll asked voters not just if they support new taxes in a general sense — never mind taxes on the wealthy! — but if they are willing, individually, to pay more out of their own pockets. They are. And voters under forty-five appear eager to pay additional taxes for almost everything:"
 
:lamo And hows Trumps massive deportation effort gonna be paid for?

Trump will be Commander in Chief and the Navy deploys for training all the time....fill a ship and send them on their way........Hell, fill 4 or 5 ships. No additional cost to the taxpayers, except for a little food while at sea. Easy peasy.
 
[emoji38] hooray! magic!!!

I bet it comes in at least as on-feel-good-projection as Medicare/Medicaid!

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

We face no issue when it comes to funding medicare/medicaid. Money isn't limited.
 
Cutting overhead spending, which is what government most certainly is, is almost always a good thing. It isn't surprising the levels of waste, all of which needs to be curb / cut / reduced / eliminated.


You bet!
 
As a soon to be working professional I will pay back student loans on high interest that are pure profit for the gov on top of paying a large chunk of my income in taxes. As an individual who worked in high school and college and a student who paid money to invest in my future working 80+ hours a week to get through a doctoral program I'd expect similar standards from others who are able-bodied. The "living wage" at 40 hours per week is a farce. There is nothing wrong with requiring more than that if the same can be expected of students who are expected to pay off their education with interest compared to shelling out thousands in benefits to people who physically can work more to provide. As an American citizen I want better infrastructure, strong foreign policy, and a system that's set up to allow me to keep as much of my wealth with freedom over my personal prosperity instead of confiscating that to pay for others that are able-bodied and have an entitlement mindset. The government should be focused on allowing hard-working citizens to prosper and providing the framework for that.

The federal government can't "profit" in any real sense of the word. Our politicians are fools.
As an individual who worked in high school and college and a student who paid money to invest in my future working 80+ hours a week to get through a doctoral program I'd expect similar standards from others who are able-bodied.
This is a lame argument. Just because you were able to get through college working 80 hours a week doesn't mean every able bodied person can do it. In fact, the majority quite literally can't. Transportation, available jobs, work load, kids, etc, etc..
The "living wage" at 40 hours per week is a farce.
Why? The average hours worked weekly 80 years ago.. should that be the norm? Of course not, productivity has gone through the roof and living standards are increasing worldwide. There's no reason people should be working longer.
The government should be focused on allowing hard-working citizens to prosper and providing the framework for that.
I agree, we need more deficit spending!
 
I don't want anyone to get me wrong here......I kinda like Bernie, just not his politics. And anyone who can cause Hillary some heartburn, is ok with me.

I'd like to see Bernie beat Hillary....and then get beat by Trump.
 
281huab.png

21cs7ea.png

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/04/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-dnc-primary-moderates/

It's good to know that americans don't want to "pay down" the national savings! (National debt)
 
The federal government can't "profit" in any real sense of the word. Our politicians are fools.

All I know is with interest and loan fees if I paid my loans of over 10 years as they recommend they're still making tens of thousands off of my education beyond my principal and way beyond inflation.
This is a lame argument. Just because you were able to get through college working 80 hours a week doesn't mean every able bodied person can do it. In fact, the majority quite literally can't. Transportation, available jobs, work load, kids, etc, etc..

Why is it lame? If I can do it why not others? Transportation was an issue for me. When I didn't have a car I took the public bus to and from school and scheduled my day around bus times. Even with a car my commute during rush hour is about an hour and a half. I have very very limited free time, but you adapt and move up to the point where you get paid and have more time on your hands as you advance. I don't see any valid reason why people can't work 40+ hours a week though to meet their needs. Many many Americans do this. The focus should be on lowering taxes and having job incentives to create jobs in the US, not tax more and spend out more in social programs. People should work for what they receive, nothing should be "free." All government assistance to non-disabled individuals should include some kind of work component or service. People shouldn't live such an excuse driven lifestyle. If something is difficult or if you have a barrier you overcome it and meet your own needs, not make excuses why you can't and be a burden on those who pay taxes and have their wealth confiscated.
Why? The average hours worked weekly 80 years ago.. should that be the norm? Of course not, productivity has gone through the roof and living standards are increasing worldwide. There's no reason people should be working longer.

I agree, we need more deficit spending!

To be brutally honest I do believe the work week should be lowered or shifted to reduce rush hour burdens. I definitely believe 3-4 weeks of paid vacation should be a mandated minimum for full time workers because people should be able to enjoy life. However, if you can't pay your bills or live the lifestyle you want on your 40 hour a week job the answer is to work more or work another, not get a government handout if you're an able-bodied individual.
 
All I know is with interest and loan fees if I paid my loans of over 10 years as they recommend they're still making tens of thousands off of my education beyond my principal and way beyond inflation.


Why is it lame? If I can do it why not others?
To be brutally honest I do believe the work week should be lowered or shifted to reduce rush hour burdens. I definitely believe 3-4 weeks of paid vacation should be a mandated minimum for full time workers because people should be able to enjoy life. However, if you can't pay your bills or live the lifestyle you want on your 40 hour a week job the answer is to work more or work another, not get a government handout if you're an able-bodied individual.
All I know is with interest and loan fees if I paid my loans of over 10 years as they recommend they're still making tens of thousands off of my education beyond my principal and way beyond inflation.
And in all reality, the government doesn't need your money. The government doesn't "save." It simply spends. The government should just directly subsidize education and skip the loan bull**** that is raising costs and burdening students.
Why is it lame? If I can do it why not others? Transportation was an issue for me. When I didn't have a car I took the public bus to and from school and scheduled my day around bus times. Even with a car my commute during rush hour is about an hour and a half. I have very very limited free time, but you adapt and move up to the point where you get paid and have more time on your hands as you advance. I don't see any valid reason why people can't work 40+ hours a week though to meet their needs. Many many Americans do this. The focus should be on lowering taxes and having job incentives to create jobs in the US, not tax more and spend out more in social programs. People should work for what they receive, nothing should be "free." All government assistance to non-disabled individuals should include some kind of work component or service.
Lame argument. Your personal experience cannot be applied to everyone else. For example, my cousin Samuel had to drop out of college due to a child. He now works 2 jobs and doesn't have the time to get back into college.
I don't see any valid reason why people can't work 40+ hours a week though to meet their needs.
I suppose some people can if they don't have kids/face any serious issues, but why should they? It's a pointless burden.
The focus should be on lowering taxes and having job incentives to create jobs in the US
I agree, suspend the payroll tax. "Job incentives." The private sector doesn't have any reason, even if taxes are lowered. Costs will always be lower in developing countries, and trade agreements are a benefit. Manufacturing is gone forever, unless the government wants to prop up public sector employment in regards to manufacturing for the purpose of employing the citizens. Might not be a bad idea. The only reason the government raises taxes for social programs is because politicians and economists still believe we're on the gold standard. There's no reason to increase taxes to when there's plenty of supply/potential and not enough demand, especially with our trade deficit and the desire of the private sector to save. Do you recall when george bush simply gave people money? Was there any inflation? Did taxes go up? What about iraq? Did taxes go up? Reagan's deficit spending, did taxes go up? The recent obama stimulus, did taxes go up? You see, the government has no reason to tax to fund spending. Taxation is a tool to control inflation and reduce demand. Why shouldn't stuff be "free?" If the government decided to increase food stamp benefits by $50 every month right now, communities would experience a boom in economic activity. People would have more money to spend, businesses would get more profits, the poor would be better off.. It's simply a fact, we don't have a problem of to much demand. Hell, I actually agree with your point about government assistance, which is why I support a job guarantee. You can read about it if you want, but it's essentially a transitional job to essentially eliminate involuntary unemployment.
I definitely believe 3-4 weeks of paid vacation should be a mandated minimum for full time workers because people should be able to enjoy life.
Oh, absolutely. Richest country on earth, productivity through the roof.. no reason not to.
not get a government handout if you're an able-bodied individual.
I don't have a problem with it, even if they spend the dollars on steaks. That's all contributing to demand, and helping whoever sells the steaks.
 
We face no issue when it comes to funding medicare/medicaid. Money isn't limited.
We can print our way out! We'll all be as rich as Zimbabweans! Or, if we are lucky, Argentineans!

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
We can print our way out! We'll all be as rich as Zimbabweans! Or, if we are lucky, Argentineans!

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

"We can print our way out."
Ah, so you're starting out your response by throwing out silly statements like this. First of all..

Zimbabwe experienced a destruction of supply, and demand spiraled upward, causing inflation to occur. Zimbabwe was screwed either way. Inflation isn't a problem. It's a boogieman.
Argentina? Pegged currency. And not really comparable to the united states. Anyways, here's something I've found in a comments section on one of John Harvey's articles:
April 6, 1992 – “The new siren is a frank and gloomy assessment that the national trust fund that pays hospital bills for 34 million Americans on Medicare will be broke in 10 years.” The would be George H.W. Bush telling us that Medicare would be broke in 2002.
January 9, 1984 – “Some adjustments are needed to head off bankruptcy in the Medicare system. The trust fund that helps pay doctor and hospital bills for 29 million Americans will run out of money by 1990 if nothing is done” That would be President Reagan saying that Medicare would be broke by 1990.
June 20, 1980 – “Unless Congress acts, the Social Security fund will run out of money to pay retirement and survivors’ benefits by late 1981 or early 1982, the funds government trustees reported Thursday.”
May 6, 1978 – “The social security trust funds that pay benefits to retired and disabled workers will be in good shape for several more decades but the fund that pays hospital insurance under Medicare will go broke by 1990, the trustees told Congress today.” That would be President Jimmy Carter again with a “go broke date of 1990.
August 30, 1960 – “That the [Medicare] bill passed was totally uninformed and almost totally irrational made no difference; the Democratic Presidential candidate can cry that he wanted to do more the old folks and the Republican candidate can say that the Congress might have done less if he hadn’t been so busy…We said that he bill was total uninformed, and it is…Nobody knows what it is right to do about medical aid to the aged because nobody has determined how many need help….Moreover, the political promoters have not had the courage to declare bluntly that everybody at age 65 receive a government health stipend, regardless of need…”
Oct. 8, 1940 – Republican Presidential candidate Wendell Willkie addressed social security – “…I want to say this in connection with social security that unless there is a change in administration those people who are presently paying into social security fund will never get any benefit there from…If it continues down the present path it will eventually bankrupt this country. We are bound to have either bankruptcy or inflation, and I say it very solemnly that those who are paying in on their social security will never get the principal of the social security when they need it in their old age…”
So, in other words Social Security has been going bankrupt for over 70 years! Social Security was on the verge bankrupting the entire country before your father was even born. What is more, 70 years from now, when your children are approaching retirement it will still be going bankrupt.
 
So while you, as a government employee, were serving the people, all those around you were not?


lol... your answer is talking point claptrap you can't back up.

"I hate gubamint. Gubamint bad.. except for me and the people around me in gubamint. Everyone else bad. Fire bad! I like chocolate!"

His about instead of a lateral attack on some other participant, responding to the OP that reveals Sanders' own supporters don't even understand or really personally support his positions?
 
The Germans are fools, led around by the nose.

The German Public Service TV station that interviewed me in October, ARD, is funded in part by mandatory payment from all German citizens...$18 a month, whether you watch the programming, have a TV, or not!

I mention them mainly, because they are always touted here in the forum to have a functional social system better than that of the US.
 
From the article:

"Last week Vox and Morning Consult polled registered voters about whether they were “willing to pay additional taxes” to fund certain programs.

Naturally Vox reported the results as a repudiation of the Sanders agenda, even though few of Sanders’s programs would be paid for by individual tax hikes, and none of them would be pitched in such a politically clueless fashion. (Sanders’s single-payer health plan, even skeptics at PolitiFact admit, would help the average American family save hundreds if not thousands of dollars a year.)

But since the Right and the elite media do adopt this reactionary way of framing tax questions, it’s useful to see how Americans respond when confronted with it. Especially since the results showed that most American voters are willing to pay higher taxes in order to provide universal, progressive goods — Social Security, Medicare, education, and infrastructure improvements.

Remember, this poll asked voters not just if they support new taxes in a general sense — never mind taxes on the wealthy! — but if they are willing, individually, to pay more out of their own pockets. They are. And voters under forty-five appear eager to pay additional taxes for almost everything:"

How many are willing to pay over 20 percent of earnings for health care insurance at the level of Medicaid or maybe Medicare?
 
His about instead of a lateral attack on some other participant, responding to the OP that reveals Sanders' own supporters don't even understand or really personally support his positions?

Sure they do - someone else will pay the new federal taxes and they will get the new federal benefits. ;)
 
Sure they do - someone else will pay the new federal taxes and they will get the new federal benefits. ;)

Assuming that federal taxes are needed to fund federal spending. If all spending was funded by taxes, how would we have any net financial assets? The entire private sector would be driven by bank created money, which is not sustainable. Not saying I am a Bernie supporter, but assuming that all spending when we run a net deficit has to be funded by taxes is false. It's impossible.
 
Assuming that federal taxes are needed to fund federal spending. If all spending was funded by taxes, how would we have any net financial assets? The entire private sector would be driven by bank created money, which is not sustainable. Not saying I am a Bernie supporter, but assuming that all spending when we run a net deficit has to be funded by taxes is false. It's impossible.

We seem to agree that Bernie's plan is impossible but that such income redistribution schemes are still popular - feel the Bern. ;)
 
How very astonishing.




Those promising to take from Peter to give to Paul can always count on Paul's vote.

When Peter is a bloated military, militarised and bloated police, sticky-fingered bankers, and nosy-parker bloated intelligence apparatus, then yes, Paul can be forgiven for voting in favour, as could every Tom, Dick and Harry with no direct vested interest in such redistribution.
 
Trump will be Commander in Chief and the Navy deploys for training all the time....fill a ship and send them on their way........Hell, fill 4 or 5 ships. No additional cost to the taxpayers, except for a little food while at sea. Easy peasy.

How politically clueless are you?

"You can think about the cost of mass deportation as $400 billion to $600 billion. Or you can think of it as more than 100 Donald Trumps:

350pb1j.png

"
The cost of mass deportation, measured in Donald Trumps - Vox
 
Back
Top Bottom