Who do you support for the Democratic nomination?

Post Reply New Topic

I just watched "Meet the Press", and here's the info, they had, regarding the Democrats:

Bernie Sanders, on the Issues

Voters, in Iowa, Don't Trust Hillary

Unfortunately, I didn't know Bernie was up next, and was in another room, when he came-on, and I STILL didn't get a good "measure" of how he feels about things.

Chuck Todd (MtP's host) did a "Man-on-the-Street"-type thing, and almost everybody he interviewed said they didn't trust Hillary----I realize it could've been edited, to show mostly negative responses, but.....

Anyway, there was one woman on there, that said she USED TO BE a huge fan of Hillary's. A man said, something like: "It's always something"----meaning, there's always something, more, that's negative, about her.

I said "evidence based" for a reason.

Government healthcare works. Government spending on infrastructure works (with qualifications). Government funded tuition fees work. Carbon taxes (or similar policies that one could reasonably call a tax) work. Government welfare works.

You've tried free-market universities - they've consigned millions to a lifetime of debt. You've tried free market healthcare - it's hugely inefficient and leaves many without the care they need (whilst this is the case everywhere, because funds will always be finite, it's particularly bad in America). The world has tried free market poverty alleviation, it works to an extent but not as well as a balanced approach. On that last point, it seems to me that Mr Sanders focuses more on the politics of envy than the politics of "helping poor people" (although of course many of his policies would do that), but that doesn't mean that public sector poverty relief is worthless or immoral. We've tried working without pollution regulation, but businesses polluted as much as possible.

Sources: Low tuition fees in much of Europe, and even the British system is much more subsidised than the American one
US spends more on public healthcare than most developed countries, but doesn't cover as many people and doesn't achieve good results for those who can afford it/are covered.
Welfare reduces poverty
Cap and trade works, carbon taxes work

You're allowed to think taxation is inherently immoral. Likewise, communists are allowed to think property is inherently immoral. Until either of you can prove that your alternatives work, I'll go with using taxation to solve problems that are worse than rich people being a little less rich.

Yet, it won't be long before a future politician says these programs are not working somehow, and we need more taxes to fix them. It's a repeated cycle.

Of course, greedy people will keep milking the cow until the milk is gone.

Locally, the union leaders *always* say the schools need more money. That's their job. The states pours more money into the schools, and sure enough, the union leader is saying how it's not enough. Problems exist still. See, it won't matter how much money you dump into the schools, greedy people will keep telling you how their program is not working (i.e., they will keep milking you until you run dry).

Historical behavior patterns is evidence.


Free market people can be nasty, greedy, scoundrels.

However, in this instance, in the US, it's the government (Sallie Mae) guarantees that has permitted this.

That sort of hypothetical slippery slope is an argument against ever doing anything ever.

Do you deny that the problems exist? If you do, then which ones?

If you don't, then don't worry that fixing them will cause people to complain about fake issues in the future. You can examine their evidence when that happens, and if you don't think there's a problem, then you can say so.

Seriously? Spend 15 friggin' seconds googling to check your facts. Social mobility is lower in the US than in almost all other developed countries - if your father was poor, you likely will be as well, even if you do work hard. If your father was rich, you have a good shot of being rich as well even if you're a lazy moron.


You think life is an episode of Breaking Bad or something?

Not all people receiving social assistance are lazy thieves.

There are the physically/mentally challenged, those who just aren't very smart, and, yes, there are those who exploit the system. But these people aren't going to go away. And it would be worse to leave them to their own devices. We'd have more homelessness and crime. It's better for society to have a system in place to prevent this, even if some people take advantage.

And also, not all assistance is cash, in Canada there are programs to help people contribute as they can. You'd be surprised how many want to.

John Bachtell.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bachtell

Why arse around with half-measures, when you can support a guy who openly wants to make the US more like Venezuela, right now?

Which facts, conservative or liberal?

Presumably Orwell means "the real ones", not "the ones Raptor made up".

Reality is not political.

What the walrus said. Measurable, quantifiable facts. Income and class mobility is lower in the US than in other developed countries. Check the academic literature on the topic. Real life in America is not a Horatio Alger fable.

Hillary is starting to have a real electability problem and it only seems like it will get worse, she will have to testify in front of congress in October relating to Benghazi and her emails and that will not endear her to voters. Bernie Sanders already leads Hillary in New Hampshire and several other states as well, her favorables in the tank, her head to head strength is weakening by the day. Dems better get an insurance plan fast,the Democratic field probably should be twice as big as it is now but they're all afraid of the Clinton machine.

Here we rank 3rd which is still far better than your gloomy “facts” on the matter.
http://orcap.co.uk/new-report-ranks-worlds-most-entrepreneurial-countries/
The Entrepreneurialism Measure
Top
Rank Country
1 India
2 Turkey
3 United States
4 Brazil
5 China
6 Iceland
7 Ireland
8 Russian Federation
9 Estonia
10 Austria
Bottom
Rank Country
24 Spain
25 Portugal
26 Denmark
27 France
28 United Kingdom
29 Hungary
30 Italy
31 Germany
32 Belgium
33 Japan


This one ranks the US 1st followed by Canada

http://thegedi.org/research/gedi-index/


Numero uno here again:
http://thegedi.org/countries

And I was talking about entrepreneurialism, not which country hands out the most welfare. In that case we would be lacking but so what?

I think it's important to add, in regard to the "Horatio Alger fable," that social mobility is not just to be measured in how many businesses can spring up, which never really encompasses the whole population anyway, but in how the everyday working Joe and Joan can make a good enough wage to be part of the middle class, have disposable income, and money in savings. I might add, they can dream of their children going on to college, as they have the money saved up to make it happen.

I look forward to her testifying before congress over Benghazi but I won't assume that it'll do much to sway those (democrats) who already support her.
Hey, at least she's not a republican.

Wasn't talking about the rate of entrepreneurship. Was talking about economic mobility. People who are already rich starting businesses isn't that impressive. People who start life poor and then become rich is the measure.

But I was and you replied to me. I sure as hell wouldn't claim that people on the dole are getting rich. You have to really know how to game the system to even make out well while on relief. Eco-nomic-mo-bil-it-tee; boy that's really a mouthful for an unlettered churl like me to grasp.[/quote]
Entrepreneurialism isn't necessarily about the rich getting richer and I think you know that.

Whatever, I'm done with this little sidebar with you.