Breaking down Bernie's plan

• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  like_that;1778506 wrote:I agree with you here, which is what I said in my post above. They shift away from petty social stances, they will be gaining a lot of new votes. I have a lot of friends who are on the same page as the GOP with many issues, but they specifically don't vote for them because of their social biblical stances. I think the GOP is slowly starting to realize this, but they are also catering to their older voters. They are playing with a fine line, and they can't do a complete 180 over night.

  There's still a lot of money in religion to turn away from. It's driving millennials away from their party though.
• like_that

  

  Also just want to add to the GOP is dying narrative. They lost last general election by less than 5%. Let's not turn this into ESPN hot takes. Also, I have my doubts, but if the FBI recommends Hillary to be indicted, you don't think that will bring a black eye to the Dems? The MSM does a good job sweeping a lot of scandalous shit under the rug for the libs, but this is one thing they would not be able to avoid.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  like_that;1778510 wrote:Also just want to add to the GOP is dying narrative. They lost last general election by less than 5%. Let's not turn this into ESPN hot takes. Also, I have my doubts, but if the FBI recommends Hillary to be indicted, you don't think that will bring a black eye to the Dems? The MSM does a good job sweeping a lot of scandalous shit under the rug for the libs, but this is one thing they would not be able to avoid.

  It probably would. There's a good portion of the DEM base (me included) that want nothing to do with Hillary or any Clinton, so it would make a lot of people happy.
• like_that

  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1778516 wrote:It probably would. There's a good portion of the DEM base (me included) that want nothing to do with Hillary or any Clinton, so it would make a lot of people happy.

  900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 house seats, and 13 senate seats is a lot for the Dems. I think they should worry about their own party instead of trying harder to make it seem like the GOP is dying. I think deep down you know both parties are here to stay.
• rrfan

  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1778516 wrote:It probably would. There's a good portion of the DEM base (me included) that want nothing to do with Hillary or any Clinton, so it would make a lot of people happy.

  So you don't want Hillary (I can't blame you for that) do you are bound to your party and are stuck with Bernie.
  
  I actually think it is impossible to believe that all those running are the best we have! That includes Dems and GOP
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  like_that;1778518 wrote:900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 house seats, and 13 senate seats is a lot for the Dems. I think they should worry about their own party instead of trying harder to make it seem like the GOP is dying. I think deep down you know both parties are here to stay.

  Of course they are. But there's no debating that the tea party is hurting the base. Time to put them out of their misery.
• sleeper

  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1778504 wrote:hardly. The GOP will be fine being fiscally conservative. The days of legislating morality are over and will kill the GOP if they don't move away from it. Ultimately I think they will because they know they have to.

  I think that's the biggest change we will see much like how the Dems have slowly removed their "morality" positions as well to be more in line with most Americans. That will take time as religion becomes less and less relevant to the American people.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  rrfan;1778519 wrote:So you don't want Hillary (I can't blame you for that) do you are bound to your party and are stuck with Bernie.
  
  I actually think it is impossible to believe that all those running are the best we have! That includes Dems and GOP

  Nope. I can't stand Hillary but that has nothing to do with why I support Bernie. I support Bernie because he's the first true voice of the majority of America in a very long time. The part of America that's never had a voice before b/c no one cares about them because they have nothing to offer for a politician. I support him because he's not afraid to tell people who he is. Hillary is a prime example of a politician who only supports what study groups suggest they should support. I support him because I support a candidate who's not afraid to show the importance of a social safety net that benefits our entire society instead of corporations. And I support him because us SJW's as we're likely to be called, know that there's reform needed after centuries of systemic racism and cronyism.
• wkfan

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1778529 wrote:Nope. I can't stand Hillary but that has nothing to do with why I support Bernie. I support Bernie because he's the first true voice of the majority of America in a very long time.

  The 'majority of America' are socialist?
  
  That economic platform has never worked in the history of the world. What makes you think it will work this time?
• like_that

  

  Another thing about Bernie, which is semi off topic from the OP, but I love how the same people who thought McCain's age was a huge issue in the 08' election see no problem with Bernie's age. Bernie is older than McCain was during the 2008 Election.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  wkfan;1778531 wrote:The 'majority of America' are socialist?
  
  That economic platform has never worked in the history of the world. What makes you think it will work this time?

  Majority of America isn't rich. Which is what both parties tend to represent.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  like_that;1778532 wrote:Another thing about Bernie, which is semi off topic from the OP, but I love how the same people who thought McCain's age was a huge issue in the 08' election see no problem with Bernie's age. Bernie is older than McCain was during the 2008 Election.

  Only idiots thought McCain's age was an issue b/c they had nothing else to go off of. I still think McCain wins if he doesn't take fucking Sarah Palin as a running mate.
• rrfan

  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1778535 wrote:Only idiots thought McCain's age was an issue b/c they had nothing else to go off of. I still think McCain wins if he doesn't take fucking Sarah Palin as a running mate.

  Wow! What could have been.
• like_that

  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1778535 wrote:Only idiots thought McCain's age was an issue b/c they had nothing else to go off of. I still think McCain wins if he doesn't take fucking Sarah Palin as a running mate.

  Nobody was beating Obama in 2008.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  like_that;1778540 wrote:Nobody was beating Obama in 2008.

  All the swing states were relatively close, he just lost all of them. There's no question to me that the Palin choice torpedoed that campaign.
• QuakerOats

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1778529 wrote:........the importance of a social safety net that benefits our entire society instead of corporations.

  
  Bernie doesn't pay for that, neither do his out-of-work socialist supporters; rather taxpayers and corporations pay for the the 'social safety net'. And those payments would even be larger than they are, except for the fact that corporations employ tens of millions of people (who because of their corporate employment do not need a social safety net).
  
  
  Imagine that.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  QuakerOats;1778550 wrote:Bernie doesn't pay for that, neither do his out-of-work socialist supporters; rather taxpayers and corporations pay for the the 'social safety net'. And those payments would even be larger than they are, except for the fact that corporations employ tens of millions of people (who because of their corporate employment do not need a social safety net).
  
  
  Imagine that.

  I pay a good chunk into taxes. I don't mind paying for social services.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  There is no, zero, none, way that plan will fly in a general election.
  Fantasy.
  
  No one in Congress will ever come to support it for fear they will lose in the election.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  QuakerOats;1778550 wrote:Bernie doesn't pay for that, neither do his out-of-work socialist supporters; rather taxpayers and corporations pay for the the 'social safety net'. And those payments would even be larger than they are, except for the fact that corporations employ tens of millions of people (who because of their corporate employment do not need a social safety net).
  
  
  Imagine that.

  Corporations are not altruistic nore economically efficient. They are controlled by people who are compensated diproportionately to their conteibution. Those who are LUCKY enought to receive an officer position in a publically traded company have every reason to be called upon to contribute their fair share to a society that provides help to those who require it.
• sleeper

  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1778585 wrote:Corporations are not altruistic nore economically efficient. They are controlled by people who are compensated diproportionately to their conteibution. Those who are LUCKY enought to receive an officer position in a publically traded company have every reason to be called upon to contribute their fair share to a society that provides help to those who require it.

  I think everyone agrees they should contribute. It's the question "What is their fair share?" that people disagree on.
  
  From my perspective, we already have the highest or 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world. This scenario has created numerous tax strategies by companies to hold trillions of dollars in cash overseas. Maybe instead of raising taxes on corporation we lower them to be more competitive with the rest of the world and reduce the incentive to hold cash abroad. Again, that doesn't fit the narrative of the left that corporations are the reason people are poor.
• sleeper

  

  I'm still in the tank that we need to cut spending, across the board before I'm willing to consider paying more in taxes. The DoD in particular is BLOATED beyond imagination and I will be dancing in the streets when that budget is slashed and burned to pieces.
• QuakerOats

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1778560 wrote:I pay a good chunk into taxes. I don't mind paying for social services.

  Most people don't mind paying, nor do corporations. However, when you are paying 50% more than the next guy, or a foreign corporation who is stealing your market, then you react and change, including moving elsewhere so as to save yourself, or continue your ability to compete.
• FatHobbit

  

  sleeper;1778470 wrote:Here's the actual reality of Bernie's plan. The tax increases won't come anywhere near the revenue needed to cover all these entitlement programs so they US will continue to rapidly produce unsustainable deficits that we will ultimately pass down to the next generation.

  Does his medicare for all program do anything to control the rising cost of healthcare? Because if healthcare costs continue to rise at their current rates they will have to raise taxes substantially to continue to get an offset between what you pay in taxes and what you would pay in Health insurance premiums. Even if his numbers do add up this year, without controlling healthcare costs they will not next year.
• QuakerOats

  It is government involvement in health insurance that is driving the cost escalations. Until government gets the hell out of the way, costs will continue to rise. The entire medicare system should change to a voucher type system, where The People are put in charge of THEIR health care dollars, and they can allocate them in a way that will allow true market forces to work, which ultimately will bring costs under control.
  
  Until then, well ........................ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, and bend over taxpayers.
• sleeper

  

  FatHobbit;1778607 wrote:Does his medicare for all program do anything to control the rising cost of healthcare? Because if healthcare costs continue to rise at their current rates they will have to raise taxes substantially to continue to get an offset between what you pay in taxes and what you would pay in Health insurance premiums. Even if his numbers do add up this year, without controlling healthcare costs they will not next year.

  There's a lot of variables here to consider. If the US went to a single payer system like Medicare, you would have the government essentially saying "this is the most we will pay you for this procedure/drug/etc" and because everyone has the same plan, doctors would accept it or go out of business. That may reduce cost but it may also reduce quality of care. You also have to factor in how to fund R&D costs for new medicine/etc. because right now the US markets are the only way for medical companies to earn a return on their R&D. Bernie will probably tell you that the government will fund R&D but that's more money not only managed by the government but also more money that needs to come in the door from people to pay for.
  
  I think single payer can be cost effective and save people money on healthcare in total, but I don't think its a perfect savior type system that Bernie and the delusional left believe that it is. It's mostly to buy votes.