Mr. Unelectable Won Another Huge Endorsement

originally posted by: Puppylove
Actually I like your plan, is simple and sounds effective. It actually fixes a lot of things in one broad stroke, including illegal immigration.

It does sound possible.

We need to tweak it.

I don't have the person's manuscript, so we have to "wing it" so to speak.

I see a huge advantage to taking politics out of the picture.

I think the 8% withholding tax that replaces the existing SS/Medicare tax as perhaps too low.

Not sure it would fund the program.

But since they seem to spending enough already, 8% could be enough.

And, we need to establish some details on how the health insurance would be regulated State by State.

Perhaps some Federal regulations would need to be simplified.

Simplicity is the key along with no "micro-managing" by useless politicians.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

A feasible plan?

He has not plan. He is against Wealth and inequality according to his website.

He would demand a larger tax for the rich
He would enact a WAll Street speculation tax
Increase the minimum wage to 15.00
Investing a trillion dollars in infrastructre ( Trump says the same thing and gets bashed so how is Bernie paying for it? He never says)
Reversing NAFTA, CAFTA and PNTR attacking China who has driven down wages ( HEY TRUMP AGAIN!)
Investing 5.5 billion in youth programs (wheres that money coming from Bernie?)
Oh here's how, by lifting the SS Tax cap.
Gauranteed health care (MOre taxes for this!!!)
REquiring sick leave of employers(costing employers more to cover workers and paying them more in the4 minimum wage bracket would kill small business)
Making tuition free ( WhoTF pays for this!!!!!)

THIS is his tax plan...it sucks....bottom line is more taxes across this board. And this is not a GOP/Right leaning site...

It is from berniesanders.com

HEEEEEEEERRE"S the link

berniesanders.com...

He also supports the Iran deal? Really?

Oh, and much of what he refers to are existing bills 'he' has worked on. Not a plan.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Sanders, who did not specify a source of funding for his bill, said targeted investments would be made in roads, bridges, transit, rail lines, water systems, ports and inland waterways, national parks, municipal broadband systems and the electric grid.

With Taxes!!!!!

a reply to: xuenchen

I'll be honest, the proposal seems to be a pragmatic one, but of course not with its issues.

I've literally been drawing out diagrams (I am incredibly bored) using the figures, and honestly it seems to be sound, albeit some tweaking is never a bad thing.

My biggest dilemma regarding this is - and of course, those who are unemployed and who currently leech off of and abuse the system.

I can far too easily see those who refuse to work, using this as an easy means of consistent funds from the government, and at least in Central, IL - one can EASILY live off of $25k/year, throw in a significant other and without even working, that's salary pay.

But - this eliminates the "safe line," that is SS and other welfare programs, so it certainly would broaden the notion of personal responsibility and being fiscally conservative, which is never a bad thing.

Wouldn't it also stand to reason that more people would have children, in order to reap the monetary benefits? I personally know people who have done this in order to get more taxes back each year... it's despicable, and many people pride themselves on "beating the system."

My biggest problem is unemployment, but I may have a sort of solution.

Let's say that after an established time of being unemployed, the checks for "X," amount of dollars are no longer sent out - but instead, a mandated debit card that has a balance equal to the next check of "X," amount. Every purchase made is then deduced from the next check, and again - employment is a factor in recieving these checks.

So - if one is unemployed, and goes over what the next check of "X," would ultimately be, it moves on to the next check, and continues onward. To the point that the purchases you make when unemployed, are directly deduced from the next check by the government. Therefore, if one simply uses the mandated card and expects that to be their lifeline, they are actually taking money away from themselves. And to prevent one from doing this repeatedly, expecting never to work so therefore never recieving a check, cut them off after a certain period. After a certain threshold is hit of their own checks being used to cover the purchases made by the card, shut the card off.

Let's say if one has been unemployed for longer than twelve months - with no health related reasons - the "lifeline," of the card used for purchases, backed by the future checks, is cut off.

It may sound harsh, but I believe that is more than a fair amount of time in order "to get back on your feet," if you will. Also, those who are retired or unable to work due to health-related issues are exempt from this, although a scrutinizing process should be used in order to deem whether or not one truly is "not healthy," enough to work. My girlfriend younger sister, I think she's 17, refuses to work because "she has bad knees," and says that she literally cannot work because she cannot stand for extended periods of time. I would not consider this to be a valid "health," reason, unless a serious medical issue where to be the cause (which it isn't).

I personally don't know if I'm in favor of just "giving," everyone a check equalling welfare programs, I feel as if there are way too many people who find themselves to be clever and ingenious who would do anything to "beat the system," but one thing is absolutely certain:

This takes away the partisan debate, equally measures every American citizen, and it seems much more pragmatic and simpler than having multiple different programs for welfare.

It sounds possible, and if cooler-heads were to prevail, I could see something such as this being constructed in a way that is both assisting the American people and trimming away at the inflated beaucracy.

But I am no economist, I've studied it - and wanted to shove an icepick through both of my eyes. It is not my cup of tea, but with some tweaking, it doesn't seem all too bad.

Some good points.

I think people are already "not working" because of benefits they get.

I think the steady income would produce extra balanced commerce and would even out.

Also, a great incentive would exist for people really get ahead even with a minimal job.

Unemployment compensation would be eliminated.

And, parents and guardians would not be able to "tap into" a child's account.

The savings bonds would be available at age 18 and could be used for anything somebody would want.

People could use them as collateral or cash 'em in when mature at 30 years.

Great financial cushion.

Homelessness could effectively end, and people with "problems" would be treated because everybody would have an insurance policy.

Immigrants would still be able to get hospital treatment because the existing law would not be changed apparently.

"Green Carders" and "Illegals" would have to strive for Citizenship or hit the road.

However, I would propose those groups could buy an insurance policy if they wanted to.

The main advantage to being a Citizen is obviously the guaranteed income for life and retirement would be a breeze.

I stress that any "micro-management" could be detrimental.

Keep it simple and keep the useless politicians out of the pork barrels. The pork belongs to the Citizens.

a reply to: RomeByFire

To be fair the reason a lot of people don't work is that the amount of work they are expected to do and the pay they get for it, makes the work simply not worth it.

In the modern world we have more workers than we do work, and working part time doesn't pay the bills.

We need to make working part time viable. A lot of people who don't work would if they felt they could make a living without sacrificing their lives to still struggle.

Also a lot of people, such as myself, would in this scenario with this money, go back to college, and go into research and become a professor and/or teacher.

I just don't have what it takes for working full time and going to college. I tried, twice. Got debt for my troubles. I did good in school, but the stress of school and a full time job kept resulting in falling apart and losing both eventually both times when life stresses added to the stress load.

The issue is, it's hard to motivate oneself to work for peanuts long hours or hold multiple jobs when it's common knowledge iot's not necessary and your being taken advantage of.

a reply to: Puppylove

Good response.

See, already people are perking up.

This plan could also reduce crime in big ways too.

Put this kind of income in the high poverty/crime areas, and it would certainly get better results than we have seen from the dumb politicians.

Commerce will balance itself out on free-market principals alone.

Advocacy groups would be available to help people who need help without the petty jealousies that exist today.

I'm still wondering why the American Socialists haven't thought of this?

The insurance details need to be ironed out.

Start with who pays the premiums and how much.

I propose a minimum policy gets paid for from payroll taxes.

Same policy for everybody.

Perhaps some extras if people want to pay extra.

a reply to: Puppylove

But with hard work, even working for those peanuts, there is more if you try. The fact is that in the US, as you stated, people do not try. It is hard but it is attainable. Lots of people do it but most are to lazy or want to simply blame the man or blame the rich. Not all of those who are rich were handed the silver spoon.

Investing in your local economy and paying it forward does work.

a reply to: matafuchs

It's unnecessary, people know it is. People aren't lazy, they just refuse to be taken advantage of. If it were necessary people would be more willing to do it, they have the motivation. But it's not necessary, just because you CAN succeed in a system that takes advantage of you does not make it a good system. Times are changing, technologies are changing, populations are growing.

It's a matter of balance, you see people being lazy, I see people doing the math and saying screw you. Like alchemy in fullmetal alchemist, it's a matter of equivalent exchange. There is none, and as result things are falling apart.

People aren't lazy, they just know a raw deal when they see it.

Give up the bulk of my live slaving for peanuts when by all rights not a person alive should need to with modern tech, current resources, and the pool of workers we have today. Is no wonder a lot of people choose to live in poverty rather than support this corruption.

Things need to change. Just because people had to do it before to survive doesn't mean we should keep doing it when it becomes no longer necessary. People need to allow society to progress and improve dammit, not kick people in the nuts just because it's the way it was always done before.

a reply to: Puppylove

You are correct, but with those changes we moved into a tech era. Instead of training for those jobs or keeping them keep they were outsourced. It is discouraging to work a #ty job but you have to. Sometimes two or three.

A person or household making 100k today can still live paycheck to paycheck. It is not just the wages that have stayed stagnant for over 30 years but the price of goods. A dozen eggs is 3 or 4 dollars. Bacon is 7 dollars a package. A pound of ground beef can be 5 dollars...but beer is still cheap.

It is not all that are lazy, I should have clarified, but people feel more entitled than they used to. They will pass up a job making 12-14 bucks an hour because it will not pay the rent. Many however are living outside their means. Trying to project an image that you have to work to obtain. I know people coming out of college in the IT field looking at DBA jobs for example and you will make half of what you made 10-15 years ago. This means the person who made that their live who loses their jobs is also screwed.

It is not about raising wages but creating more and better jobs to spur businesses to compete. Then the salaries will increase as well as the benefits.

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

People know that he is campaigning for what he truly believes in. NOT to just be another puppet, tell the people what they want to hear just to get elected and then screw everybody (CLINTON comes to mind)

Nope, just another puppet. See the sanders amendment on the federal reserve bill. When it counted ol' "hero of the people" bern delivered for the bankers and obozo.

Just another excuse for politically aware libs to vote for someone because saying you would support Clinton is pretty much ridiculous to all but the biggest Kool aid drinkers.

a reply to: pyramid head

Erm, it's not just "politically aware libs" who support him. There are many people from the Republican side of things who have switched for the sake of supporting Sanders.

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

People know that he is campaigning for what he truly believes in. NOT to just be another puppet, tell the people what they want to hear just to get elected and then screw everybody (CLINTON comes to mind)

Humm, I heard this same claim before...who was it?... Oh yeah... Obama... No one remembers the claims made even by many members in these same forums that he was "the saviour", some media types, such as Newsweek editor Evan Thomas, even claimed that he is sort of God...

Newsweek editor Evan Thomas brought adulation over President Obama’s Cairo speech to a whole new level on Friday, declaring on MSNBC: "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
...

www.newsbusters.org...



Are still people not understanding what it means when certain representatives claim to pretty much bring heaven to Earth?... in fact they bring hell to Earth.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Mayor of Burlington, Congressman and then Senator, he has consistently been a voice denouncing the corporatocracy and standing up for veterans

a reply to: RomeByFire

Calm down, sir--I swear allegiance to neither of the parties currently holed up in Congress.

But it seems to appear by your comment that you know very well about which party I'm speaking: Democrats--especially the Progressive Democrats--preach to the segment of their voting base who think white privilege and wealth (and especially both together) are terrible things. I don't believe for a second that any of the politicians actually believe it, but that's part of the political ideology Dems are known for.

I think it's a load of horse mess, myself, but that's just me.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Many?

Really? That'd be an interesting thing to prove, because if someone went from claiming republican ideology to supporting Sanders, they either (a) weren't really republicans and didn't hold republican ideology close to their heart, or (b) are supporting him in voice alone but probably won't cast a vote for him.

But seriously, the political ideologies between a self-proclaimed "Socialist-Democrat" and a Republican are so far removed from each other that one can't switch without having left the republican ideology long ago.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

He said he will not accept them....

www.newsmax.com...

However, He accepts Union monies already. He did in previous elections. There are also PAC's that are spending money to promote him right now.

www.cnn.com...

www.theatlantic.com...

The difference is he is not 'officially' recognizing them but the money is out there and promoting him. Learn our candidate.

We have debunked this so many times already. How about you look into them yourself for a change.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Pertinent.

However, perhaps you are correct. Perhaps they were not true Republicans. That does not matter. Even if they did not otherwise agree with his ideology, they may have decided to support him because they believe he is the only person who will genuinely attempt to (and be capable of) removing the corruption from the political system. Bernie is Bipartisan.

"Socialist-Democrat"

This is incorrect. Socialist-Democrat would mean "A Democrat party member who is also a Socialist." Bernie refers to himself as a "Democratic Socialist", which means "A Democratic Socialist."

originally posted by: matafuchs
He also supports the Iran deal? Really?

Oh, and much of what he refers to are existing bills 'he' has worked on. Not a plan.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Sanders, who did not specify a source of funding for his bill, said targeted investments would be made in roads, bridges, transit, rail lines, water systems, ports and inland waterways, national parks, municipal broadband systems and the electric grid.

With Taxes!!!!!

Would you rather bomb another country with our tax money?

a reply to: xuenchen

Nobody wanted to debate it, so I will.

The problem is the $25,000 in "free money". It represents the same dilemma as a base minimum/living wage. The devaluation of currency in a fiat system forces prices to rise. $25,000 would be quickly consumed by the adjusted prices in housing, utilities, transportation (gasoline, public transit), higher education, medicine, legal aid and food. Proof of this is to look at small boom towns for oil sand extraction in where local economy is effected by higher wages from the oil fields.

The $50 million in savings would be quickly offset by population growth. How quickly? As soon as 2000 more people became eligible because 2000 X 25000 = 50,000,000.

Actually the costs savings would be gone faster than that. 300 million Americans do not currently dip into SS, Medicare and Unemployment. Essentially 40-47% of the population use these benefits. The medical costs would eat into that chunk faster than anything as evidenced by the Obamacare debacle in which United Healthcare is opting out of making policies for the exchange due to expenses versus profits realized.

Socialism/Communism does work on small scales where input and outcome by the participants are nearly equal. It is because of inequalities of input and outcome that it fails on large scale operations. The easy demonizing is laziness and greed but other factors contribute to overall failings such as drought/famine to not just food but any vital production such as overpopulation, disease, war or any other factors that hamper production force ratios to consumer force ratios.

Assuming a perfect harmony with the above proposal, in a free society there is nothing to prevent a significant number of the working population to accept and attempt to "get by" on just the $25,000. Placing a law that requires attempted production (by employment or self-employment) fundamentally changes the system of government to that of feudalism.

And this is why I say that the end goal of Progressives is Feudalism because it is the only way for their grandiose schemes to work.