Presidential Race 2016

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, StevenR84 said:

The thing that kills me about most of the anti-Bernie crowd is their "he's going to give my money away" rhetoric. All of the people I know complaining would not pay any more in taxes, but for some reason think they would be.

Since I haven't heard him lay out a tax plan then I can't say. 

http://www.bernietax.com/ (found it)

My only thoughts on this is, and it's one of the reasons I don't stand liberal on many economic issues, define to me what "fair share" means? If a liberal can do that then I might be  more willing to side left on the economy. 

Why should a person who makes over 10 million be required to give up 52% of his income to the government (under Bernie's plan)? Basically we are saying, for all you have done you only deserve 48% of what you made. Who am I to say that? 

Why should they pay a higher percentage than someone making $250K or $50K a year? 

Oh, I plugged in my numbers. Unless I have more medical expenses, which I don't want. I rather stay healthy thank you. I will pay upwards of $650 more a  year to the government. 

 

[Chilli Dipper]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

Really, fat jokes, that's the level HRC supporters are reduced to at this point?  

How is it that all of you Hillary supporters are willing to look the other way regarding all her FBI investigations and the general fact that if she weren't HRC, she'd likely be in jail already?  I'm not just talking about Benghazi or her e-mail server but her and Bill's foundation as well or the allegations she threatened women if they reported Bill's sexual assaults while he was POTUS.  You realize that it's Obama's people that initiated the investigation on her foundation, not the GOP.  

Have you all buried your head in the sand or do you just take her claims at face value that all these investigations are just dirty tactics by the GOP to discredit her?  

 

[newtogolf]

13 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Since I haven't heard him lay out a tax plan then I can't say. 

http://www.bernietax.com/ (found it)

My only thoughts on this is, and it's one of the reasons I don't stand liberal on many economic issues, define to me what "fair share" means? If a liberal can do that then I might be  more willing to side left on the economy. 

Why should a person who makes over 10 million be required to give up 52% of his income to the government (under Bernie's plan)? Basically we are saying, for all you have done you only deserve 48% of what you made. Who am I to say that? 

Why should they pay a higher percentage than someone making $250K or $50K a year? 

Oh, I plugged in my numbers. Unless I have more medical expenses, which I don't want. I rather stay healthy thank you. I will pay upwards of $650 more a  year to the government. 

 

My concern is that Bernie's tax plan doesn't work as promised (just as ObamaCare hasn't worked as promised) and the result is a higher deficit or higher taxes for you and me to make it work.  

The government on both sides is great at making promises that they can't keep and ultimately, we (the taxpayers) will be asked (forced) to pay for their mistakes.  

4 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

 

Seems you're the one that needs to lighten up.  

Nice deflection by posting a dumb movie clip rather than address the points I raised. I realize you can'd defend HRC so you just have to keep on attacking Trump and hope something sticks.  

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, newtogolf said:

My concern is that Bernie's tax plan doesn't work as promised (just as ObamaCare hasn't worked as promised) and the result is a higher deficit or higher taxes for you and me to make it work.  

The government on both sides is great at making promises that they can't keep and ultimately, we (the taxpayers) will be asked (forced) to pay for their mistakes.  

The good thing is through gerrymandering the GOP has solidified a big lead in the House. It is predicted that the Democrats will cut into the slight lead the GOP has in the Senate.

Even if Bernie gets elected. It's still congress that changes the tax plan. He could try to push for a different tax bracket, but I doubt he'll get anything close to his plan passed.

[Chilli Dipper]

13 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Seems you're the one that needs to lighten up.  

Nice deflection by posting a dumb movie clip rather than address the points I raised. I realize you can'd defend HRC so you just have to keep on attacking Trump and hope something sticks.  

It's a freaking joke, man. I'm not making any kind of attack on the man's policies there, I'm making fun of the fact that he tweets pictures of himself eating junk food from inside his private jet and penthouse office to flaunt how much of a normal guy he is.

In the name of fairness, here's a link to a famous SNL sketch about Bill Clinton visiting a McDonald's. Bill Clinton had so many McDonald's jokes made at his expense during the early days of his presidency, it became part of his public persona.

[StevenR84]

5 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

The good thing is through gerrymandering the GOP has solidified a big lead in the House. It is predicted that the Democrats will cut into the slight lead the GOP has in the Senate.

Even if Bernie gets elected. It's still congress that changes the tax plan. He could try to push for a different tax bracket, but I doubt he'll get anything close to his plan passed.

And that's what it is. His plan as it stands won't pass, but some version of it could.

27 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Oh, I plugged in my numbers. Unless I have more medical expenses, which I don't want. I rather stay healthy thank you. I will pay upwards of $650 more a  year to the government. 

Plugged mine in as well. Currently I'd pay $2700 more. We don't pay much for health care, with a child on the way that will change i'm sure. The odd thing is though, I don't mind paying the extra money. I do believe everyone should have healthcare coverage and that people shouldn't be buried with hospital bills, or not get needed treatments because they can't afford it.  In 2014 the US spent 3 trillion or $9,523 per person in healthcare costs. Absolutely awful.

[RandallT]

21 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

I do believe everyone should have healthcare coverage and that people shouldn't be buried with hospital bills, or not get needed treatments because they can't afford it. 

Funny because everyone opposed to federal government intrusion into our lives also believes the very same thing! You just happen to believe that a massive bureaucracy in Washington DC has thus far been and will continue to be a good thing. Time will tell, but I wouldn't bet on Washington DC as being either efficient or worthy of our trust in this matter (and other matters of individual freedoms).

Bernie sees Obamacare as a step in the right direction, but more bureaucracy and federal control would be better. And also more control over the education system, because "free" college also means total control over the costs of college- not just the payments. Not sure why so many think that a federal government bureaucracy is such a good thing that will result in such wonderful fairness. That's a pipe dream- and we'd have more success building a wall (which is doubtful too). To me, a massive federal program is far more oppressive than the unfairness that results from individual freedoms. Take the jokes about DMV and take them to the nth exponent.

Has anyone ever dealt with DFAS, for example? Holy crap. Total inefficiency. Total incompetence. Total non-transparency. No accountability. Yet their slow machinery has total control over my step-daughter's financial future. They don't care, and there's virtually nothing that someone caught up in their web of confusion can do and the financial impact on a person can be hugely significant. Appeals go nowhere. Contact with congressmen is a dead end. They have you by the balls. The same will occur with these new systems, and deep down, I think we all know it.

To support this kind of systems of one-size-fits-all federal systems is not altruistic and virtuous- it is cruel, yet those who support it can simultaneously hide behind virtue and say that the other guy is cruel for not caring. Frankly, I look at those supporting these massive bureaucracies as being somewhat stubbornly oblivious to the truth staring you in the face- much like you look at Trump supporters not seeing the obvious. 

John Oliver should demolish these government programs for their inefficiency, incompetence, non-transparency, and tyrannical tendencies, and maybe then people would see a glimmer of how utterly unfair and demoralizing it can all be. By their nature, they will always be that way. Oh, how I'd love to have him set his sights on things like John Stossel does sometimes. 

[jamo]

26 minutes ago, RandallT said:

John Oliver should demolish these government programs for their inefficiency, incompetence, non-transparency, and tyrannical tendencies, and maybe then people would see a glimmer of how utterly unfair and demoralizing it can all be. By their nature, they will always be that way. 

He does. You should watch the segment he did on 9-1-1 call centers a few weeks ago.

[drmevo]

2 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Since I haven't heard him lay out a tax plan then I can't say. 

http://www.bernietax.com/ (found it)

My only thoughts on this is, and it's one of the reasons I don't stand liberal on many economic issues, define to me what "fair share" means? If a liberal can do that then I might be  more willing to side left on the economy. 

Why should a person who makes over 10 million be required to give up 52% of his income to the government (under Bernie's plan)? Basically we are saying, for all you have done you only deserve 48% of what you made. Who am I to say that? 

Why should they pay a higher percentage than someone making $250K or $50K a year? 

Oh, I plugged in my numbers. Unless I have more medical expenses, which I don't want. I rather stay healthy thank you. I will pay upwards of $650 more a  year to the government. 

 

You might know this, but I think it's worth pointing out how marginal tax rates work since it seems to be commonly misunderstood.  Someone making $10 million will pay the same tax on the first $50k they make as someone making $50k, the same on the first $250k as someone making that, etc. (assuming those are defined tax brackets).   

So really, they're only paying a higher percentage on any income over $250k than someone making $250k.  Their effective tax rate will not equal the top marginal tax rate.

That might be an oversimplification, and I'm certainly no expert, so someone correct me if I got any of that wrong  

[jsgolfer]

Hillary having Boxer and Pelosi over for tea to discuss her presidential campaign?

[RandallT]

1 hour ago, jamo said:

He does. You should watch the segment he did on 9-1-1 call centers a few weeks ago.

Yah that was a good one. I like all of his segments, actually, and I think the wife and I have pretty much seen them all. 

I hope he does a segment on the Washington DC Metro failures. The culture in that organization seems to be one of entitlement, lack of concern for safety, too much job security, etc... Multiple fires per week now, and the system is in chaos, it's fair to say. I know people who won't even ride it for a while, until publicity gets a bit better. I bet it affects my area's home prices as the system expands out to my suburb. People are actually laughing (and crying) at the system now.

I mention that, because it's not just big federal systems that I think are horrible- it's any monopoly. Any organization where they are the only game in town to get that service done. Somehow we need to find ways to get things done in society that uses smaller, more nimble organizations that compete with each other to keep them responsive and effective. But the competition cannot sacrifice safety (where regulations come in, of course). 

I don't know the balance, but I do know that we are tilting toward more monopolies as we make systems larger and more all-encompassing. I think at a broad level, the answer somewhere in our ability to set up and monitor competitive scenarios that punish failures, but keep those failures as having a minimal amount of damage to an overall system. No "all eggs in a basket" scenarios, and no "anything goes" scenarios. Some mix that is healthy. Easier said than done.

The idea of centralized anything is naturally anathema to me. Stories like the DC Metro, DFAS (mentioned earlier) and personal experience inside large organizations. Private business is not exempt from this, of course- I've seen many scenarios inside a company where an organization became the only group offering a service, and they became arrogant and unresponsive. 

Like I said (and I'm rambling now), but centralized anything, including health care or education system, is something I doubt I'd ever go for, or want to even inch my way toward. So thanks, but no thanks, Bernie. 

[Chilli Dipper]

18 minutes ago, jsgolfer said:

Hillary having Boxer and Pelosi over for tea to discuss her presidential campaign?

Props to them for using zero-emissions vehicles to get there.

[Dave2512]

Bernie has serious traction, more than I believed he'd get. It's obvious millennials don't fear socialism so my guess is we are just an election cycle or two from having a viable socialist candidate walk through the door Bernie opened. It could have happened this year if Hillary wasn't in the picture. If it was just Bernie I doubt Trump could pull enough democrats over to beat him.

[StevenR84]

"They're moving to Mexico City, which, by the way, I hope they have kidnapping insurance," Trump said Tuesday night on Fox News.

 

Yet again, Trump just insinuating that the Mexican people are criminals. Something doesn't go his way and he just finds a way to belittle whoever he can. That should work great with international diplomacy.

 

as a side note, Rory killed it when he said "We'll just jump over the wall" in reference to getting to the new tournament site.

[Dave2512]

Trump has seriously thin skin. I understand his responding to criticism but the I know you are but what I am I stuff is petty.

 

[Elmer]

1 minute ago, Dave2512 said:

Trump has seriously thin skin. I understand his responding to criticism but the I know you are but what I am I stuff is petty.

 

I agree! And this is what scares me a a potential Trump presidency. How will he react when SCOTUS votes against his laws? How about foreign diplomats?
Thin skin does not go well with diplomacy and negotiations!

As seen in the link below, he is blasting Hillary for saying he said something, he claims he did not say, only he actually said it!

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/2/11841074/trump-cnn-chyron

Seriously can we amend the constitution and keep Obama on for a 3rd term????
What about Ross Perot can he run again?????

[iacas]

58 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

Yet again, Trump just insinuating that the Mexican people are criminals. Something doesn't go his way and he just finds a way to belittle whoever he can. That should work great with international diplomacy.

Google (or use a search engine that isn't evil) "Mexico City kidnapping" and you will likely find that it's a real problem. The state department even has pages on it.

[Dave2512]

32 minutes ago, Elmer said:

I agree! And this is what scares me a a potential Trump presidency. How will he react when SCOTUS votes against his laws? How about foreign diplomats?
Thin skin does not go well with diplomacy and negotiations!

As seen in the link below, he is blasting Hillary for saying he said something, he claims he did not say, only he actually said it!

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/2/11841074/trump-cnn-chyron

Seriously can we amend the constitution and keep Obama on for a 3rd term????
What about Ross Perot can he run again?????

Frankly I'm shocked he's made it as far as he has if this is how he reacts to opposition. Not just in the primaries but period. I've never met a great deal maker that resorted to elementary school level name calling when someone disagrees with them. But hey at least he's not Hillary.