Serious question for Sanders supporters.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
'Should be'. How about trying other solutions like making healthcare companies actually compete first?

How do they not compete? Every insurance provider pays something different based on contracts with the multitude of health care providers who charge something different. Capitalism is working well for the health care industry, just look at drug prices!

This is pointless to spend money on if we are gonna constantly import people.

What? More jobs=more tax revenue

How will that make it solvent when SS is the honey pot everyone dips into?

You stop paying into SS after $117,000/year. So, if you make $234,000/year, you stop paying into SS funds on June 1st but still receive the same amount as everyone else when you retire. Eliminate the cap now and SS is solvent until 2060.

Whats going to stop fast food from eliminating people and automating everything? And how about a simple tax code? In fact why just stop at infrastructure jobs? Why not make the US a manufacturing powerhouse again? Oh right, that would require actual thought to work and not just buzzwords.

Infrastructure jobs are, almost, completely government driven. Repairing and rebuilding our infrastructure could generate millions of jobs and pump trillions of dollars into the economy generating secondary and tertiary sources of tax revenue.

It's nice that you think so, but the black market is still going strong where its legal. Still waiting on this magical influx of cash. And no, 'record income' for this year is nothing more than just better than last year, which was far lower than projected.

Colorado generated $70 million in tax revenue from legal marijuana alone. Prior to that the state was spending $60 million on prohibition. Add that up and that's $130 million the state has made/saved from legalization.

We don't need to generate new revenue, the IRS claimed record tax revenue for last year alone. What we need to control is spending. You guys think cutting military is gonna get you a huge chunk of the pie back? There's a reason why you never see MS along with entitlements on the same pie chart, think about it... Or is that the point? Hmmm.

We don't need to but we could and we should. Not enough high-earners are paying their fair share. Spending wouldn't be a problem if we could effectively manage our revenue.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

'Should be'. How about trying other solutions like making healthcare companies actually compete first?

Health insurance companies generate their profits and compete with each other by lowering their costs of doing business and they do that by denying claims.

They employ entire depts. who's sole purpose is to find ways to deny your claim to coverage.

In other words, their entire business model is dependent on denying coverage in order to maximize profits which is exactly why private insurance can't compete with any of the universal, single-payer systems anywhere in the industrialized world.

They've had their chance and they've used it to prove that their ultimate goal is NOT to improve your health but rather to maximize their bottom line.

originally posted by:
Wardaddy454

This is pointless to spend money on if we are gonna constantly import people.

When immigrants come here and work, they pay taxes including SS & Medicare. If those taxes are not being withheld and submitted to the govt., it's the fault of their American employer.

originally posted by:
Wardaddy454
How will that make it solvent when SS is the honey pot everyone dips into?

Via the process that Bill Clinton talked about during the last election. It's called simple arithmetic.

originally posted by:
Wardaddy454
Whats going to stop fast food from eliminating people and automating everything? And how about a simple tax code? In fact why just stop at infrastructure jobs? Why not make the US a manufacturing powerhouse again? Oh right, that would require actual thought to work and not just buzzwords.

Automation is inevitable as technology advances, in both the fast-food industry as well as manufacturing and that's precisely why education is so vital. In the future, if you can't build, repair or program these machines, you won't be employable.

Furthermore, when it comes to job creation, no one (other than yourself) has said that we should stop with infrastructure. It's going to take a renegotiation of our trade pacts coupled with tax code restructuring to bring back manufacturing and that's precisely what Bernie is proposing.

originally posted by:
Wardaddy454
It's nice that you think so, but the black market is still going strong where its legal. Still waiting on this magical influx of cash. And no, 'record income' for this year is nothing more than just better than last year, which was far lower than projected.

Black market alcohol, (moonshine) is also available despite the fact that that prohibition was ended generations ago. Does that mean we should abandon the legalization of alcohol?

FYI; The state's that have adopted legalization of marijuana have indeed realized "record" influxes of new tax revenue and the term "record" does not just refer to beating last year's levels. Unless of course, last year's level was the existing "record" to beat.

And that's not mentioning the huge savings those states are realizing by not arresting and incarcerating people for non-violent crimes.

originally posted by:
Wardaddy454
We don't need to generate new revenue, the IRS claimed record tax revenue for last year alone.

Record tax revenue? Do you mean they just beat the previous year's record? How are you using the term "record" now?

I take it vocabulary is not your strong suit.

originally posted by:
Wardaddy454
What we need to control is spending. You guys think cutting military is gonna get you a huge chunk of the pie back? There's a reason why you never see MS along with entitlements on the same pie chart, think about it... Or is that the point? Hmmm.

Military spending is also an entitlement. It's entitlement for the industrialized military complex and yes, we spend far too much on it.

The pie chart you should be wondering about is the one that would show corporate welfare/entitlement along side of social welfare/entitlement.

Ever wonder why they don't show that one?

a reply to: TheBulk

And conservatives never mock progressives? Its part of the dailog. It used to be people would say "its a free country" when they disagreed with you. Now, its that your an idiot or a traitor or worse. There is no civil political discourse anymore. and it goes for BOTH sides.

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Kali74


When Bernie does rallies and interviews etc... he usually gets in a word about needing a better Congress.

And what you both mean by that is a congress without dissent. You folks are scary.

Translation for Bernie: My ideas are so terrible that I need a supermajority of non-critical thinkers who believe money grows on trees to pass my proposed legislation that even current Democrats won't touch with a ten-foot pole.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Kali74


When Bernie does rallies and interviews etc... he usually gets in a word about needing a better Congress.

And what you both mean by that is a congress without dissent. You folks are scary.

Translation for Bernie: My ideas are so terrible that I need a supermajority of non-critical thinkers who believe money grows on trees to pass my proposed legislation that even current Democrats won't touch with a ten-foot pole.

The only Democrats that won't touch Bernie's ideas with a ten ft. pole are those who are beholden to their corporate donor base.

Truth be told, I think most Democratic politicians love his ideas, they just know that under our current system where big money donors rule the day, they're afraid to step out on that limb.

Hell, Hillary can't flip-flop fast enough to keep up with Bernie. A year ago the pacific trade pact was the "gold standard" and now all of a sudden, she's not so sure. (At least not until she's in the White House where she'll surely sign off on it.)

Now she's also promoting the same free public college as Bernie too. Only difference is, she doesn't support the Wall St. speculation tax to pay for it. I wonder if that could be because she's in Wall Street's pocket?

Repeal Citizen's United, take the big money out of politics and let's see where they really stand.

Sanders is a scary novelty item. He's in the race to determine how many Americans hate capitalism, independence, and freedom. He won't go anywhere but the next person will be "packaged" differently (Sanders 2.0) to see if socialism, communism, and a repudiation of the Constitution is possible.

People will either vote for this or they won't. I hope I'm not around to see it.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Sanders is a scary novelty item. He's in the race to determine how many Americans hate capitalism, independence, and freedom. He won't go anywhere but the next person will be "packaged" differently (Sanders 2.0) to see if socialism, communism, and a repudiation of the Constitution is possible.

People will either vote for this or they won't. I hope I'm not around to see it.

"The only thing to fear is fear itself." Bernie is only "scary" to scaredy-cats.

This isn't about hating capitalism, it's about recognizing and regulating it's downsides.

It's not about hating independence, it about recognizing our interdependence and utilizing that truth to advance society.

It's not about hating freedom, it's about freeing ourselves from the binds of the uber wealthy oligarchs and corporate special interest.

Socialism does not equal communism and no one is promoting either one of those anyway.

Bernie is promoting "Democratic Socialism." He's not calling for the elimination of capitalism as only the fearful would suggest.

He's talking about a hybrid system where capitalism is regulated to insure that people and the planet don't come second to profits.

We know it can be done because other free, independent, democracy loving, capitalistic countries are doing it around the world.

Personally, I hope you live a long and happy life that includes the opportunity to see what society is like when it gets to share the wealth it generates.

a reply to: Flatfish

Your opinion and mine differ. I think we will end up seeing the end of capitalism and freedom in the US and your ideals will win the day because too many already want to rely on government to take care of them.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Flatfish

Your opinion and mine differ. I think we will end up seeing the end of capitalism and freedom in the US and your ideals will win the day because too many already want to rely on government to take care of them.

Funny how you mention freedom and capitalism as if they're one and the same. What this essentially says is that there is no criticism against capitalism that can be made, because , after all, if you criticize capitalism you're against freedom.

My concern about a jump to $15 min wage:

I'm in sales. I sell to small businesses. I have asked many of my customers what they would do if min wage were raised to $15. A high percentage of them admitted that they would more than likely close their doors. Not out of greed, but because they are working on such low margins already. What does this mean? I would be out of a job within months, along with all the owners of these small businesses, and their employees.

A $15 min wage jump, without the proper flow of money first, will destroy small businesses in small towns across the nation. There is not the population to support such a hike in wages. It may work in large cities, where they may sell enough product to support the wage, but not in the smaller towns or rural areas.

Such a hike in min wage will destroy Main St across these towns, and leave us all with Walmart's and McD's. If this min wage hike does come to be, I hope to be proved wrong, but from my own research, the outlook is scary.

a reply to: whatmakesyouright

The exact same wage hike will be applied to Walmart and any other competition the business has, so how does it suddenly put him at a disadvantage?

originally posted by: GD21D

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Flatfish

Your opinion and mine differ. I think we will end up seeing the end of capitalism and freedom in the US and your ideals will win the day because too many already want to rely on government to take care of them.

Funny how you mention freedom and capitalism as if they're one and the same. What this essentially says is that there is no criticism against capitalism that can be made, because , after all, if you criticize capitalism you're against freedom.

I think your definition of freedom would be different from mine. Too many have already given up freedom for security from the government. I don't see anything good from a bigger government. It's corrupt now. Republicans and democrats are self-serving and only want more of what we have.

Do you think our government is corrupt?

And if so, how does growing government ever eliminate corruption?

originally posted by: whatmakesyouright
My concern about a jump to $15 min wage:

I'm in sales. I sell to small businesses. I have asked many of my customers what they would do if min wage were raised to $15. A high percentage of them admitted that they would more than likely close their doors. Not out of greed, but because they are working on such low margins already. What does this mean? I would be out of a job within months, along with all the owners of these small businesses, and their employees.

A $15 min wage jump, without the proper flow of money first, will destroy small businesses in small towns across the nation. There is not the population to support such a hike in wages. It may work in large cities, where they may sell enough product to support the wage, but not in the smaller towns or rural areas.

Such a hike in min wage will destroy Main St across these towns, and leave us all with Walmart's and McD's. If this min wage hike does come to be, I hope to be proved wrong, but from my own research, the outlook is scary.

I actually, agree with this concern as well in regards to a min wage hike across the board.

Although, I do think there needs to be a min wage increase, I think it should be done in small increments to see how it affects the economy as a whole and in isolated segments.

It's one thing to have an idea that sounds good, it's another to put it into practice. A single large increase could end up causing big problems in ways we may not see, and once the damage is done it may be difficult to reverse.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: GD21D

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Flatfish

Your opinion and mine differ. I think we will end up seeing the end of capitalism and freedom in the US and your ideals will win the day because too many already want to rely on government to take care of them.

Funny how you mention freedom and capitalism as if they're one and the same. What this essentially says is that there is no criticism against capitalism that can be made, because , after all, if you criticize capitalism you're against freedom.

Do you think our government is corrupt?

And if so, how does growing government ever eliminate corruption?

There is corruption in every walk of life and it existed long before our government. To postulate that total "elimination" is even possible is as foolish as believing that building a "huge" wall with a big beautiful door will "eliminate" illegal immigration.

And to answer your question; Just off the top of my head, I'd say the creation of the FBI, (a government agency) has definitely helped to limit and prosecute those involved in corruption.

originally posted by: DBCowboy


I think your definition of freedom would be different from mine. Too many have already given up freedom for security from the government. I don't see anything good from a bigger government. It's corrupt now. Republicans and democrats are self-serving and only want more of what we have.

Do you think our government is corrupt?

And if so, how does growing government ever eliminate corruption?

Do I think government is corrupt?

Of course

Do I think eliminating government is going reduce corruption?

Nope

You can eliminate large segments of the government if you like, but it won't do squat to reduce corruption. As a matter of fact it'll probably make it worse.

a reply to: Flatfish

Umm, did you seriously just ask that question? Walmart has the money flow to handle the wage increase, ma & pa's bookstore/diner/whatever business you like does not.

originally posted by: GD21D

originally posted by: whatmakesyouright
My concern about a jump to $15 min wage:

I'm in sales. I sell to small businesses. I have asked many of my customers what they would do if min wage were raised to $15. A high percentage of them admitted that they would more than likely close their doors. Not out of greed, but because they are working on such low margins already. What does this mean? I would be out of a job within months, along with all the owners of these small businesses, and their employees.

A $15 min wage jump, without the proper flow of money first, will destroy small businesses in small towns across the nation. There is not the population to support such a hike in wages. It may work in large cities, where they may sell enough product to support the wage, but not in the smaller towns or rural areas.

Such a hike in min wage will destroy Main St across these towns, and leave us all with Walmart's and McD's. If this min wage hike does come to be, I hope to be proved wrong, but from my own research, the outlook is scary.

I actually, agree with this concern as well in regards to a min wage hike across the board.

Although, I do think there needs to be a min wage increase, I think it should be done in small increments to see how it affects the economy as a whole and in isolated segments.

It's one thing to have an idea that sounds good, it's another to put it into practice. A single large increase could end up causing big problems in ways we may not see, and once the damage is done it may be difficult to reverse.

If we really want to address the problem without the overkill that yourself and "whatmakesyouright" are talking about, we would adopt a split-level minimum wage.

By that, I mean one where anyone who claims themselves and/or others as dependents on their tax returns should be entitled to the higher $15 rate, while those who live at home as someone else's dependent could fall into a lower category like maybe $10 per hr..

originally posted by: whatmakesyouright
a reply to: Flatfish

Umm, did you seriously just ask that question? Walmart has the money flow to handle the wage increase, ma & pa's bookstore/diner/whatever business you like does not.

Yeah Walmart does have a large volume business, but they also have the huge employee base required to handle that volume.

How many employees does your mom & pop business have?

a reply to: Flatfish

I don't want to derail the entire thread here. This is not a min wage thread, just my concern on Sander's policies.

Ma & Pa might hire less than 20 employees, but some of these shops are bringing in less $80k for themselves. A $5 hourly wage increase over the course of a year is $10,400. Imagine losing $10k per employee.

Some Walmarts may close down as well, but for the most part, probably not. Even Walmarts in the smallest of towns are so busy that you can run into missing items on a shelf at any given time. With Walmart, they have a collective money income from many Walmarts. With Ma & Pa, it's only that one location.

Maybe you think that those businesses not bringing in too much money don't even deserve to exist. But as for me, I prefer a dinner at Bill's Restaurant over Applebee's any day of the week.