THE OFFICIAL POLITICS THREAD

[Kerfuffle]

Happy mediums include affordable public education (fixed low tuition) and making social security state-by-state and optional. That is say anyone born after 2018 will not be able to collect federally adminstered social security but can opt into a state run system or opt to go on their own, kind of like opting into a pension system vs a 401k on your own. Bernie's extremism is a starter to getting some really good things done for the working class. It's like if you're Brian Elliott. You don't start contract negotiations at a mil a year, you aim insanely high then dial it back. Bernie is the same. He's a smart man, he knows he's shooting too high, but you have to start high to get anywhere. You have to take chances.

We do need to keep social security and it is needed cause so many people would have nothing in retirement without it. I don't believe in letting people take control over their social security and opt out or risk it in the stock market. As would be the case, there would be a lot of stupids out there that lose it all on the market cause they don't know what they are doing and others that opt out and having nothing at retirement. And when that happens the government would be called upon to bail them out again. Hence social security needs to remain mandatory for all and not invested in the market. At the same time there should not be 'means' testing to determine that if someone has too much money that they suddenly don't qualify to receive checks at retirement. I paid into it, so I want my checks regardless of how much else I have at that time.

You can't have fixed low tuition - again who pays for this? This is a beef I always have with the Democratic party in that all these ideas sound wonderful but there is never a way to pay for it without taking money from others (wealth redistribution). Higher education has become unaffordable and the cost is out of control I agree - but you can't suddenly make it 'free' nor low cost. Other options are needed. I would equate it as a politician promising St. Louis residents that the Blues will get Ovechkin, Crosby, Kane, Toews, and all the other great players in the offseason to woo fans over and have people drooling but then not having a plan on how it could be done or how to pay for it. And then later it falls apart as an impossibility.

[WaukeeBlues]

God I hate Donald Trump and it disgusts me that the American public is even more gullible and dumb than I thought, which is saying something.

[glen a richter]

I think Trump supporters are seriously unaware of what he can and can't do as president. We went to see my dad for his birthday dinner last night, 68 years old. He's trying to convince me that since Sanders is toast, to vote for Trump so I said to him look, dad, Trump may talk a big game but honestly, do you think he'll get anything accomplished? So he says that if he doesn't, he'll just fire everyone and start over. Hello, you can't just fire congress, it's not a reality TV show, it's over 200 years of the way the American government is structured and run.

[glen a richter]

Well you can pretty much stick a fork in a contested convention on either side after Indiana tonight.

I just read an article bandying about the idea of Tim Kaine for vice president. Honestly, at this point, the only thing that can possibly convince me to vote for Hillary would be an acceptable selection for a running mate. Given her health history, it's distinctly possibly she won't even last the entire 4 years--and there's no question in my mind she would NEVER win re-election for a 2nd 4, I'd be very interested in her choice of running mate. Elizabeth Warren? Yes please. Tim Kaine? Meh.

[glen a richter]

Happy mediums include affordable public education (fixed low tuition) and making social security state-by-state and optional. That is say anyone born after 2018 will not be able to collect federally adminstered social security but can opt into a state run system or opt to go on their own, kind of like opting into a pension system vs a 401k on your own. Bernie's extremism is a starter to getting some really good things done for the working class. It's like if you're Brian Elliott. You don't start contract negotiations at a mil a year, you aim insanely high then dial it back. Bernie is the same. He's a smart man, he knows he's shooting too high, but you have to start high to get anywhere. You have to take chances.

We do need to keep social security and it is needed cause so many people would have nothing in retirement without it. I don't believe in letting people take control over their social security and opt out or risk it in the stock market. As would be the case, there would be a lot of stupids out there that lose it all on the market cause they don't know what they are doing and others that opt out and having nothing at retirement. And when that happens the government would be called upon to bail them out again. Hence social security needs to remain mandatory for all and not invested in the market. At the same time there should not be 'means' testing to determine that if someone has too much money that they suddenly don't qualify to receive checks at retirement. I paid into it, so I want my checks regardless of how much else I have at that time.

You can't have fixed low tuition - again who pays for this? This is a beef I always have with the Democratic party in that all these ideas sound wonderful but there is never a way to pay for it without taking money from others (wealth redistribution). Higher education has become unaffordable and the cost is out of control I agree - but you can't suddenly make it 'free' nor low cost. Other options are needed. I would equate it as a politician promising St. Louis residents that the Blues will get Ovechkin, Crosby, Kane, Toews, and all the other great players in the offseason to woo fans over and have people drooling but then not having a plan on how it could be done or how to pay for it. And then later it falls apart as an impossibility.

Behold the power of a 15 second google search:



What bothers me so much is that the only candidate who had a legitimate plan was stopped because of 3 reasons: 1) Millennials are lazyyyyyyyyyyy, 2) The Democratic machine was behind Hillary since the get-go and 3) People are so turned off by the term socialist, even though Sanders is a Democratic Socialist which is much different, that they didn't even bother to research the man or the plan.

[cardsfan04]

Well you can pretty much stick a fork in a contested convention on either side after Indiana tonight.

I just read an article bandying about the idea of Tim Kaine for vice president. Honestly, at this point, the only thing that can possibly convince me to vote for Hillary would be an acceptable selection for a running mate. Given her health history, it's distinctly possibly she won't even last the entire 4 years--and there's no question in my mind she would NEVER win re-election for a 2nd 4, I'd be very interested in her choice of running mate. Elizabeth Warren? Yes please. Tim Kaine? Meh.

I'm not Hillary's biggest fan, but I view a vote for anybody but her as a vote for Trump. Hillary may be dishonest, but I don't think she would have 1/10th of the disaster that Trump would be as president.

[glen a richter]

Well you can pretty much stick a fork in a contested convention on either side after Indiana tonight.

I just read an article bandying about the idea of Tim Kaine for vice president. Honestly, at this point, the only thing that can possibly convince me to vote for Hillary would be an acceptable selection for a running mate. Given her health history, it's distinctly possibly she won't even last the entire 4 years--and there's no question in my mind she would NEVER win re-election for a 2nd 4, I'd be very interested in her choice of running mate. Elizabeth Warren? Yes please. Tim Kaine? Meh.

I'm not Hillary's biggest fan, but I view a vote for anybody but her as a vote for Trump. Hillary may be dishonest, but I don't think she would have 1/10th of the disaster that Trump would be as president.

Assume that a Hillary Clinton presidency will actually be a Bill Clinton presidency. Think he'll be able to keep himself out of the Oval Office?

And yes, I would never vote for Trump. I would be much happier voting for Hillary if I was content with her veep choice. New York isn't going red anytime soon, so a vote for a 3rd party candidate isn't going to hurt Hillary one bit.

[cardsfan04]

Well you can pretty much stick a fork in a contested convention on either side after Indiana tonight.

I just read an article bandying about the idea of Tim Kaine for vice president. Honestly, at this point, the only thing that can possibly convince me to vote for Hillary would be an acceptable selection for a running mate. Given her health history, it's distinctly possibly she won't even last the entire 4 years--and there's no question in my mind she would NEVER win re-election for a 2nd 4, I'd be very interested in her choice of running mate. Elizabeth Warren? Yes please. Tim Kaine? Meh.

I'm not Hillary's biggest fan, but I view a vote for anybody but her as a vote for Trump. Hillary may be dishonest, but I don't think she would have 1/10th of the disaster that Trump would be as president.

Assume that a Hillary Clinton presidency will actually be a Bill Clinton presidency. Think he'll be able to keep himself out of the Oval Office?

And yes, I would never vote for Trump. I would be much happier voting for Hillary if I was content with her veep choice. New York isn't going red anytime soon, so a vote for a 3rd party candidate isn't going to hurt Hillary one bit.

That's true. MO is a bit different in that it could swing red very easily. I think Trump might be the person to swing the state back blue though.

I've wondered about Bill's role as well. I'm sure he won't have anything official, but I imagine he'll be around quite a bit.

[cardsfan04]

Also, on re-reading my post, it came off as me telling you how to vote. That wasn't my intention when I posted it, but I think that's how it came out. I should have phrased it better.

[Kerfuffle]

Behold the power of a 15 second google search:

What bothers me so much is that the only candidate who had a legitimate plan was stopped because of 3 reasons: 1) Millennials are lazyyyyyyyyyyy, 2) The Democratic machine was behind Hillary since the get-go and 3) People are so turned off by the term socialist, even though Sanders is a Democratic Socialist which is much different, that they didn't even bother to research the man or the plan.

But Glen that whole ad above is the reason to reject Bernie - everything in his grand 'plan' is just pie in the sky and no plans to pay for it all. Anyone can run on a platform like that but the realists know it's not possible. I'm surprised he didn't say minimum wage is $50 an hour or lowest salary is $100K per worker. Or that everyone can buy a house regardless of qualifying. It's a nice way to win over the voters that want free stuff but everyone else that has to work does not want to pay more for those who want something for nothing. Glad he's not going to make it.

[cardsfan04]

Behold the power of a 15 second google search:

What bothers me so much is that the only candidate who had a legitimate plan was stopped because of 3 reasons: 1) Millennials are lazyyyyyyyyyyy, 2) The Democratic machine was behind Hillary since the get-go and 3) People are so turned off by the term socialist, even though Sanders is a Democratic Socialist which is much different, that they didn't even bother to research the man or the plan.

But Glen that whole ad above is the reason to reject Bernie - everything in his grand 'plan' is just pie in the sky and no plans to pay for it all. Anyone can run on a platform like that but the realists know it's not possible. I'm surprised he didn't say minimum wage is $50 an hour or lowest salary is $100K per worker. Or that everyone can buy a house regardless of qualifying. It's a nice way to win over the voters that want free stuff but everyone else that has to work does not want to pay more for those who want something for nothing. Glad he's not going to make it.

I think I said it earlier in the thread, but I'll say it again. While there's a populist appeal to Bernie, you don't have to want free stuff to support him. For better or worse, money tends to speak loudest in this country. Because of all the money in politics, major corporations and the super-wealthy get to influence policy-making far more than your average joe. "Coincidentally" there is a widening wealth gap between the upper class and lower class. Many people that support Bernie just want to see that widening gap stopped, because it's bad for the country. We're not looking for a handout.

Along those lines though, is one of my biggest pet peeves in politics. I echo the spirit of the right on economic policies. Spending and the deficit are real problems that need to be gotten under control. But, why do we always hear about people wanting everything for free (which isn't really accurate--most people just want reasonable prices for necessities such as healthcare and education), but nothing about the trillions of dollars we have dumped into the defense budget largely due to an ill-advised war? Not saying that every idea on the left is a winner. But, it's not like the right doesn't want to spend recklessly in its own right. And, just to be clear, that's not a shot at the military or veterans in the least. I'm speaking solely of policy-makers in how they spend money.

[Kerfuffle]

Many people that support Bernie just want to see that widening gap stopped, because it's bad for the country. We're not looking for a handout.

But those 2 sentences are contradictory. In order for those at the bottom to catch up and narrow the gap the plan they always want is to take from those at the top and give to those on the bottom. That is wealth redistribution and a handout even if they don't call it that directly.

But, why do we always hear about people wanting everything for free (which isn't really accurate--most people just want reasonable prices for necessities such as healthcare and education), but nothing about the trillions of dollars we have dumped into the defense budget largely due to an ill-advised war?

Free stuff is a strong selling point for the left and one that is nearly impossible to overcome. Obama knew it and ran on it in 2008 very heavily. Bernie has gone beyond that now with his call for 'free' college and all the other items from his list in that picture on the post above. Millennials are the most likely to be drawn into this as they are young and love the messages they are hearing in regards to the free items they would receive. If I was still 18 I can see myself being drawn to that as I would have loved to have the free handouts too. But at 44 I've been around and know it's not possible and the only real way to get ahead is by getting an education and working really hard. I push my own kids to have a strong work ethic because I dont' want them growing up thinking they are entitled to someone else's money nor being dependent on the government from cradle to grave.

[cardsfan04]

Many people that support Bernie just want to see that widening gap stopped, because it's bad for the country. We're not looking for a handout.

But those 2 sentences are contradictory. In order for those at the bottom to catch up and narrow the gap the plan they always want is to take from those at the top and give to those on the bottom. That is wealth redistribution and a handout even if they don't call it that directly.

But, why do we always hear about people wanting everything for free (which isn't really accurate--most people just want reasonable prices for necessities such as healthcare and education), but nothing about the trillions of dollars we have dumped into the defense budget largely due to an ill-advised war?

Free stuff is a strong selling point for the left and one that is nearly impossible to overcome. Obama knew it and ran on it in 2008 very heavily. Bernie has gone beyond that now with his call for 'free' college and all the other items from his list in that picture on the post above. Millennials are the most likely to be drawn into this as they are young and love the messages they are hearing in regards to the free items they would receive. If I was still 18 I can see myself being drawn to that as I would have loved to have the free handouts too. But at 44 I've been around and know it's not possible and the only real way to get ahead is by getting an education and working really hard. I push my own kids to have a strong work ethic because I dont' want them growing up thinking they are entitled to someone else's money nor being dependent on the government from cradle to grave.

I don't dispute everything you say. When I say he has a populist appeal, I'm conceding a lot of what you're saying. People hear "free <insert anything here>" and they immediately want to support it without thinking of how it can be free.

My problem is that the opposing viewpoints tend to be, "We can't do that." Hard stop. OK, maybe we can't do everything he says as he says it. As glen has said many times, Bernie probably knows that too. Just because we can't implement something exactly as he has suggested it, doesn't mean that what he's talking about aren't legitimate issues that deserve being addressed.

The solutions that I want to see involve people that want to get ahead having the opportunity to get ahead. While I don't think free education is necessary for that to happen, it's worth noting that free education and hard work are not opposites. You don't measure how hard somebody works to get ahead by how much they spend on their education.

There are certain markets that have an extraordinarily high demand just by their nature. Education and healthcare are the two major examples, but there might be others. The problem with markets that are more or less necessities is that it creates a dynamic for price gouging. There's a reason that education and healthcare costs have skyrocketed. The solution to this doesn't need to be to make them free (at least education). But, the problems won't ever be solved if the people profiting from this dynamic are the same ones in the pockets of the people being elected.

To me, the real contradiction is to tell people that they need to work hard to get ahead, make it really really difficult for the lower class to afford the opportunity to get ahead, then blame social immobility on laziness. I think that misses the mark and enables a climate for a legitimate problem to not be fixed.

[Kerfuffle]

My problem is that the opposing viewpoints tend to be, "We can't do that." Hard stop. OK, maybe we can't do everything he says as he says it. As glen has said many times, Bernie probably knows that too. Just because we can't implement something exactly as he has suggested it, doesn't mean that what he's talking about aren't legitimate issues that deserve being addressed.

I disagree - a lot of what he preaches as an issue really isn't and therefore I wouldn't want to negotiate it with him. Want to talk about ways to reduce crime? Okay I'm all for it. Want to talk about how to slow the rate of higher education? Yep let's negotiate. How to reduce federal spending? Let's talk. But Bernie doesn't come in with any of that. The 'issues' he presents are all about taking from those who produce to give to those who don't. i.e Free college, $15 minimum wage, condemning police for a so-called epidemic of racism and senseless shootings against minorities, etc. His whole perspective is focused on serving the 'grievance' industry - and we live in a time where everyone is offended about something and feels they are entitled or owed something. And for Bernie that always means taking from the rich and giving it to others.

The solutions that I want to see involve people that want to get ahead having the opportunity to get ahead.

This is the one country in the world with the most opportunity for those who want to learn a skill and work hard to get ahead. I don't understand why people think they don't have an opportunity and that the deck is stacked against them.

To me, the real contradiction is to tell people that they need to work hard to get ahead, make it really really difficult for the lower class to afford the opportunity to get ahead, then blame social immobility on laziness.

Yes but if someone makes a choice to work at McDonalds at age 35 and complains about getting only $10 an hour who's fault is that? Republicans believe as do I that it is the person's fault and they made their own bed so lay in it. They can still turn things around - get a marketable skill and work hard. Democrats see it as the deck is stacked against them and want a bailout in terms of either free stuff (obamaphones, welfare, food stamps), government subsidies (section 8, Obamacare) etc that are all payed for by the taxpayers. Remember when Bush 43 passed his bill to give everyone a tax refund back in 2000? It was a bad move of course but I recall the Dems fighting for people to get tax refunds that never paid any tax and he had to give in to that in order to get it through. Again, another free handout. That's what I'm against.

[glen a richter]

As the wealth gap gets wider and wider, it's only natural that we'll shift from capitalism to democratic socialism. Millennials don't want free stuff, they want a chance to go to college and not be strapped with never ending student loan payments that make college not worthwhile. They want the opportunities they heard about from their grandparents and great-grandparents. I want my children to live in a country where a middle class exists, and that's why I lean towards the democratic socialistic side.

I am very conservative on one issue: I don't look kindly on people who prey on children, and those pedophiles and sex offenders should be either castrated or hanged publicly.

[glen a richter]

The incentive to go out and get a good education is largely missing these days because kids know they're going to get the screw when it's time to start paying back their student loans. With the economy in the toilet--even though it's improved a lot over the past few years it's still in the toilet--college isn't a financial option for a lot of kids. They know this from the get-go. Without a good education, everything else goes to pot. What we need to be spending money on is promoting STEM careers and making college, at the very least, affordable for every American student, otherwise we'll just keep going along the downward spiral. Without college, the kids won't get good globally competitive jobs, the economy will continue to tank, and only those at the very very top will get richer and richer. To quote a former president and future first man, it's the economy, stupid. Everything affects the economy, and a crap economy = a country gone to hell. A crap economy is one in which 1% or less of the people control 99% of the money.

[Mojo_Jojo]

No. A crap economy is based on our current GDP. We've been creeping along at just above 1.3 for several years now and we are basically stagnant. Check out the economic growth in the Reagan and Bush years. This is how you stimulate and grow an economy, raise more tax revenue and pay for social programs.

Actually, Kasich had this right (Cruz did too but he's way too socially conservative for most.

Libs / Dems just appeal to the lowest common denominator and say its unfair that 'this person' makes this much money and that's why our economy is tanking. It's much more complicated than that.

Reduce corporate tax, bring 'manufacturing' jobs back and you'll see no complaint from people. Really they just want a decent living wage for their family and you cant do that with Robin Hood schemes. Eventually, everyone that has money will either run out of money or move out of the country.

[Mojo_Jojo]

No. A crap economy is based on our current GDP. We've been creeping along at just above 1.3 for several years now and we are basically stagnant. Check out the economic growth in the Reagan and Bush years. This is how you stimulate and grow an economy, raise more tax revenue and pay for social programs.

Actually, Kasich had this right (Cruz did too but he's way too socially conservative for most.

Libs / Dems just appeal to the lowest common denominator and say its unfair that 'this person' makes this much money and that's why our economy is tanking. It's much more complicated than that.

Reduce corporate tax, bring 'manufacturing' jobs back and you'll see no complaint from people. Really they just want a decent living wage for their family and you cant do that with Robin Hood schemes. Eventually, everyone that has money will either run out of money or move out of the country.

[Mojo_Jojo]

Also, college tuition is unbelievably expensive now. We need some oversight on our education system and where the money is going?

[glen a richter]

BS argument. Reaganomics started the rapid death of the US economy. Trickle down would work lovely if the money trickled down to the workers, but it's just progressively trickled deeper and deeper into offshore bank accounts, never to be seen by the middle class workers who keep the wheels of America moving. When a 1%'er buys a Lambourghini, that doesn't do squat to boost the economy. When a working class 99%'er takes his or her family out to dinner once a week, or on vacations, or buys their kids birthday presents or new clothes when the old ones don't fit anymore because they can afford to, that keeps the economy humming.

There need to be more protections for the working class to earn a decent living, which by and large DOES include bringing jobs back to America where we can make and sell our own products instead of buying Chinese trash. It doesn't have to be lower taxes on the corporations, it needs to be harsh financial penalties on American corporations who do their manufacturing abroad--maybe goods made abroad by American companies are subjected to a 100% import tax, payable by the manufacturer, but domestically produced goods are subjected to no tax whatsoever. If Nike is making stuff in China and has to pay handsomely to bring it into America, obviously passing that expense to the consumer, the consumer won't buy the things made in China anymore, Nike will learn and bring the jobs back stateside. More Americans to work, more Americans making decent wages, more purchasing power for the 99%'ers. That's how to get the economy going, not by protecting the already sickeningly wealthy scumbags. Honestly, putting the 1% before the 99% is the most un-American thing anyone can do.