In 180 Seconds You Will Be Voting For Bernie Sanders

originally posted by: crustyjuggler27
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

there are 2 types of people. people that think for themselves and people who let others think for them. its hard to tell which one of those you fall into. because type 1 people are really good at making type 2 people believe they are type 1.

Well... I don't really know what to say. I'm sure I'm not as aware as I could be, but I'm 57 years old, have never been a member of a political party, and I've voted for candidates of most political parties. I visit both right and left "news" sources, so I can get an idea of the truth, which usually lies in the middle somewhere.

No one told me to like Bernie Sanders or Rand Paul and I both agree and disagree with some of their positions.

what really matters for the average voter? i believe people primarily want things to stay comfortable.

I would agree completely with that. As long as people have their TVs, smart phones, fast food joints and THEY aren't currently affected by global warming, hunger, the disappearance of the middle class, the Iraq war, Citizens United or The Patriot Act, they seem not to notice that our entire system is circling the toilet drain at ever-increasing speeds. Their short term concerns are making sure to get the next release of the iphone, seeing the latest "Fast and Furious" movie and what they're doing over Fourth of July.

So, whatever type of person that makes me is something you will have to determine for yourself.

I really liked your post.

originally posted by: theplu
a reply to: xuenchen

I truly don't understand why anyone touts Libertarianism as a path to freedom. If everything was privatized, you would be at the mercy of corporations and people whose first goal is to maximize profits. You would have no control over who runs things since you can't vote someone out if you don't like how they're doing their job.

Best example I can think of: do you really want to stop and pay a toll on every road you drive on?

My comments were directed as strategy for candidates like Sanders.

Sanders professes Social Democracy and that I think comes to terms with corporations and does not eliminate their existences.

The more "Right" sided Libertarians prefer limited government control and limited big business.

I'm not sure what points you are making.

a reply to: Legman

I mean I work really hard. .... well really i don't... but I have a lot of student loans that need paying!

If he were elected, I have a feeling he would suggest retroactively forgiving ALL student loans that are currently in their bubble - too many can't afford to pay them....obviously.

a reply to: xuenchen

I know you weren't replying to me, but you said:

Sanders professes Social Democracy and that I think comes to terms with corporations and does not eliminate their existences.

That is exactly right.

The more "Right" sided Libertarians prefer limited government control and limited big business.

Are you sure? I thought Libertarians were all about big business ONLY. NO corporate controls. Hell, NO GOVERNMENT at all! Privatize EVERYTHING! Screw the poor if you can!!

originally posted by: MrAverage
a reply to: ugmold
"In 180 Seconds You Will Be Voting For Bernie Sanders"
I wouldn't vote for a freaking socialist in 180 years.

Why? What is a Socialist? Are you certain you understand the term?

a reply to: damwel

Bernie is the authentic Ron Paul. If you love Ron Paul, Bernie is the real thing. Give him a listen.

are you serous? Bernie sanders is a communist who believes the government should provide everything for everyone's health care,free education ect

originally posted by: Movingobject



Just remember that if you vote for Sanders, you will get higher taxes and more immigration.
Also, less privatization, more government mingling with the economy and a sacrificed individual freedom to protect others. A welfare state, so to speak.

HIgher Taxes: He actually wants to 'shift' spending priorities and end 'corporate' & 'weathly' welfare.

Immigration: He believes in people that are living here (and have been for years) have a path to legality and 'paying their fair share' for the services we all receive.

Privatizatiion: Yes he is opposed to privatization - the selling of public assets - to private intests. Public services in private for-profit hands is ALWAYS a disaster. It provides short time cash to 'cash strapped governing bodies' (see HIgher Taxes above) rather then long term reliable revenue streams - it's the very worst of corporatist thinking in the public sector.

Welfare State: Welfare for big business that takes their production overseas, Welfare for .1%ers - yes, I agree get rid of this type of welfare and take care of real people.

Stop parroting sh*t you heard without understanding.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Legman

I mean I work really hard. .... well really i don't... but I have a lot of student loans that need paying!

If he were elected, I have a feeling he would suggest retroactively forgiving ALL student loans that are currently in their bubble - too many can't afford to pay them....obviously.

Would that take legislation or just a simple EO or Memo?

I say (without knowing for sure) that it would take legislation.



Staying realistic is half the battle you know.

originally posted by: randyvs
Odds are, he doesn't even understand the
fight he's talk'n about either. Because he doesn't address the
first question about all that he says, " We just have to stand
up and fight " for.

I think he very well knows that this 'fight' is an ongoing millenial battle.

He also knows the attention span and educational background of the people he needs to reach and hopefully inspire to begin the 'fight'.

He is doing more then running for President, and I believe he is very serious about the run, he is educating the corporatist indocrinated. Corporations, big business, big money, control nearly all aspects of education, formal and informal, in the USA and it is a dauting delusion needing light and clear vision.

I don't think he's naive in the least.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

Are you sure? I thought Libertarians were all about big business ONLY. NO corporate controls. Hell, NO GOVERNMENT at all! Privatize EVERYTHING! Screw the poor if you can!!

Maybe some "Left" Libertarians.

There are different factions.

I was referring to "Right" Libertarians (as in true Conservatives).

originally posted by: lovebeck
Two seconds into Google pretty much dashed any interest I have in Bernie Sanders...

Bernie's Pervy Essay

How uni-dimensional of you and puritanical. Many past and good Presidents have had much worse (in my opinion) peccadilloes in their pasts (and futures - LOL).

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.
a reply to: ugmold
Not getting my vote. He didn't say one word on how the national debt is going to get paid off. I have heard little to nothing on how the debt is going to get paid off. Want to know why................because they no we're screwed. Bernie also lost me when he said the word FREE. Nothing is free, it's costing someone something. Might be free for the person getting it, but not the person who has to dig in their pocket to pay for it. He sounds like a true politician.

The 'national debt' is a boogy man. Personal finance does not scale up to National finance.

Myths vs. Realties for the United States National Debt

Myth #1: The National Debt will cause the United States to go bankrupt

Reality: The U.S. is not like you or me.

The U.S. government has the power to tax the largest economy in the world, the power to print money and has an infinite life expectancy. All of these factors mean the federal government can incur large amounts of debt.


Myth #2: We have to pay back all of the $5.6 trillion in debt

Reality: The U.S. can simply "roll over" its debt year after year.

That is, the Treasury Dept. issues new bonds to pay off the old ones. This is not a problem as long as investors are willing to hold U.S. Treasury bonds. U.S. Treasury bonds are very popular due to their liquidity (they are easily converted to cash), their low risk (they have zero default risk because they are backed by "the full faith and credit" of the U.S. government), and certain tax advantages.

Myth #3: The interest payments on the national debt are a burden to future generations.

Reality: U.S. citizens or even agencies of the U.S. government own most of the debt. Thus we are just paying interest to ourselves.

Myth #4: Foreign ownership of the debt causes money to flow out of the U.S.

Reality: Foreign interests own only about 15% of the debt, and this proportion has remained virtually unchanged since 1980. They typically reinvest their interest payments in the U.S.

Myth #5: The national debt is out of control.

Reality: The true measure of the debt of a nation is the ratio of that debt to the size of the economy. The debt-to-GDP ratio for the U.S. is relatively modest compared (1) to other nations and (2) historically.



There are, however two potential problems with our national debt:

The interest payments on the debt redistribute income from taxpayers to bondholders. This redistribution is potentially regressive since wealthier households hold Treasury bonds.

So all taxpayers pay debt interest but mostly wealthier taxpayers receive that interest.

However, higher income households also bear a larger tax burden than low- and middle-income households: In 1999 the top 1% of household in terms of income paid over 30% of all income taxes.


Large debts may produce the crowding out effect. Large debt levels by the U.S. government increase the demand for loanable funds, which increases interest rates and reduces the amount of private borrowing for investment spending. The size of this effect is a subject of debate among economists.

www.oswego.edu...

www.businessinsider.com...

George H.W. Bush:
Took office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion
Left office 20 January 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion
Percent change in total debt: +55%

Bill Clinton:
Took office 20 January 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion
Left office 20 January 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion
Percent change in total debt: +37%

George W. Bush:
Took office 20 January 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion
Left office 20 January 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion
Percent change in total debt: +86%

Barack Obama:
Took office 20 January 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion
Total debt (as of the end of April 2011): $14,288 billion
Percent change in total debt: +34%
Read more at www.snopes.com...

NOTE: Scopes is on my 'questionable' list but I do use them for questions with further backup.

a reply to: xuenchen

I say (without knowing for sure) that it would take legislation.

Yes, because that is the Legislative Branch vs the Executive Branch.
What we've had for the last 8 years is right-wing obstructionism. EIGHT YEARS.
John Boehner is largely to blame for that.

Staying realistic is half the battle you know.

Yes, I know.

originally posted by: Legman
Id honestly Vote for this guy... BUT... his tax brackets scare the ducklings out of me. I work too hard to lose 50-60 percent of my income. I mean I work really hard. .... well really i don't... but I have a lot of student loans that need paying!

Look up "progressive tax brackets" to understand how they work before you condem them. The right wants people to believe that 'all income' is taxed at the highest rate and it simply isn't true.

Here’s how tax brackets work, an example
Say you’re single with no dependents, and your taxable income is $9,000.

Your marginal tax rate, according to the Federal Income Tax Brackets chart below, is 10%. You pay $900 in income tax. That’s simple.

What if your taxable income is $19,000?

As a Single filer, you’re now in the 15% tax bracket. That doesn’t mean you pay 15% on all your income, however.

You pay 10% on the first $9,075, plus 15% of the amount over $9,075.

Here’s the math:

First tax bracket: $9,075 X 10% = $907.50
Second tax bracket: ($19,000 – $9,075) X 15% = $1,488.75
Total income tax: $2,396.25

blog.taxact.com...

Personally, I'd prefer a single rate for Federal, State and local without ANY deductions but it would put thousands of rich accountants and lawyers out of work.

In 180 Seconds You Will Be Voting For Bernie Sanders

Nope. I'm not going to vote for someone based on a three minute video clip, or because of a used-car-salesman type gimmick catch phrase, or because of party affiliation, etc etc ...

If I'm going to vote for someone, I'm getting in depth information and not just be carried away by a tide of sentiment. I like a LONG vetting process. There is no one that I"m ever going to agree with completely, but if I'm going to vote for him/her, they darn well will be properly vetted first. And I've vetted Sanders enough to know I don't want him. Sorry.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I've vetted Sanders enough to know I don't want him. Sorry.

On what grounds?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

If this "obstructionism" you talk about didn't happen, what would be different today.

Details are welcome with some examples.

Speculation and conspiracy theories are welcome too.

TIA.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

In 180 Seconds You Will Be Voting For Bernie Sanders

Nope. I'm not going to vote for someone based on a three minute video clip, or because of a used-car-salesman type gimmick catch phrase, or because of party affiliation, etc etc ...

If I'm going to vote for someone, I'm getting in depth information and not just be carried away by a tide of sentiment. I like a LONG vetting process. There is no one that I"m ever going to agree with completely, but if I'm going to vote for him/her, they darn well will be properly vetted first. And I've vetted Sanders enough to know I don't want him. Sorry.

Yeah, just how are you going about this 'vetting' process? What sources do you use and 'believe' and why'? Who have you 'vetted' sufficiently?

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Excallibacca
a reply to: amazing

Because carbon tax is (to me, obviously), a stupid idea. Climate change is real, has been happening for billions of years. Do I think humans have caused it? No.

I don't know. I'm still going with Majority Scientists and organizations. Meaning any candidate that actually is pro science get's a huge nod from me. Not to derail the thread but being pro science is a big deal to me. I don't like Carbon Taxes either though.

Can you explain how a 'carbon tax' would be insitituted? I hear a lot about how 'awful' it would be - by never why or how?

a reply to: xuenchen

Maybe you should start another thread. It's painfully obvious to me that Boehner and the Republicans have shot ALL of Obama's initiatives down....regardless of how good those initiatives could have been.

I voted for him, TWICE. Then I realized that Congress wasn't going to give an inch - not budge a millimeter - just so they could get "revenge." Now I just see Obama as having entered into his position willingly, and LATER having discovered that the corporate OWNERS OF GOVERNMENT would pay any sum they could (and did) to shoot him down.

It makes me sick. Schoolyard thugs. And idiots.

Details are welcome with some examples.

Brownback and the Republican platform - that's my detail. Kansas - that's my example. His 'governance' wrecked this state, and this is where the "Koch Brothers" are HQed......