Trump - Clown Genius

[Ego]

@Chad/Ego: I asked you both earlier which of Sanders's policies you disagree with or feel are "too extreme". I don't think either of you responded. (If you did, I apologize, I may have missed it.)

I can't speak for Chad, but for me.... I am someone who likes to talk politics (and religion and philosophy) with friends but I avoid engaging in this conversation with the Sanders supporters I know in real life for a simple reason. They are too sure. There are zero shades of gray. It has the same feel as engaging a Jehovah's Witness when he knocks on my door.

That said, I agree that Bernie has some likeable characteristics.

[Spartan_Warrior]

As far as dodges go, that one was a little insulting, but okay. Obviously I am firm in my belief that Sanders is the best candidate. I don't appreciate the insinuation that this belief is faith-based or irrational, particularly when I'm presenting (IMO) reasonable arguments and evidence to support my position, and you are not.

There may be a reason so many people are feeling so passionate about this.

ETA: BTW, I could put it the opposite way. The few Clinton supporters I encounter seem fairly ill-equipped to defend why they even support her.

http://www.ifyoulikehillary.com/

[Spartan_Warrior]

@FFJ: Yeah, agreed on Clinton/Bush dynasties, Obama, and establishment corruption. The video makes valid points; I've been following the polls as well, and while Bernie continues to close the gap, I am definitely worried it's not happening fast enough. (Maybe that adds to my religious fervor. ) That said, polls are polls, and may not represent the final outcome. (See: Michigan.) Things like the record-breaking size of his NY rally (bigger than Obama's in 2008) give me hope that the polling may not represent the true outcome on voting day.

Also: "Never tell me the odds!"

[Ego]

As far as dodges go, that one was a little insulting, but okay. Obviously I am firm in my belief that Sanders is the best candidate. I don't appreciate the insinuation that this belief is faith-based or irrational, particularly when I'm presenting (IMO) reasonable arguments and evidence to support my position, and you are not.

Apologies. Very true. I don't think your belief is faith-based or irrational. There are times when I think things are pretty bad and others where our country looks pretty darn good. I'm not sure how much I am willing to damage the good to fix the bad. I'm dodging because I'm not sure of the extent that the cure will be worse than the illness.

ETA: BTW, I could put it the opposite way. The few Clinton supporters I encounter seem fairly ill-equipped to defend why they even support her.

http://www.ifyoulikehillary.com/

I am FAR from a supporter and yes, you're right, I'm ill equipped to defend why I might vote for her.

[Chad]

@Chad/Ego: I asked you both earlier which of Sanders's policies you disagree with or feel are "too extreme". I don't think either of you responded. (If you did, I apologize, I may have missed it.)

No need to apologize, as I'm fairly certain I didn't respond. Your request isn't unreasonable at all, so here it is (all of Sanders' policy statements are pulled from his website):

Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes. As president, Sen. Sanders will stop corporations from shifting their profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes.

If I remember correctly, I think his idea of fair share is too high. I do think the corporate tax rate/laws need reformed, but I would lower the overall rate and remove a lot of the loopholes with the idea of making it simpler and still pulling in roughly the same revenue. There also needs to be some incentives to bring back foreign earnings for investment in the business.

I'm not for raising the taxes on wealthy incomes significantly. Though, I'm definitely not for cutting their taxes.

He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million. He will also enact a tax on Wall Street speculators who caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, and life savings.

I do like higher estate taxes over a certain amount. Dynasties should be forced to end sooner rather than later.

Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020. In the year 2015, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.

I'm ok with this.

Putting at least 13 million Americans to work by investing $1 trillion over five years towards rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, railways, airports, public transit systems, ports, dams, wastewater plants, and other infrastructure needs.

I'm ok with this. The amount seems arbitrary. It should have been done 5-6 years ago and needs to be done before rates rise.

Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries.

I'm not for this. It removes competition, which hurts us in the long run. Plus, most of the jobs that fall under this are toast anyway over the next 20 years due to much smarter automation.

Also, these jobs are usually massive polluters.

Creating 1 million jobs for disadvantaged young Americans by investing $5.5 billion in a youth jobs program. Today, the youth unemployment rate is off the charts. We have got to end this tragedy by making sure teenagers and young adults have the jobs they need to move up the economic ladder.

I agree, we need to do something. I would just need more details. Just throwing money at something isn't enough.

Fighting for pay equity by signing the Paycheck Fairness Act into law. It is an outrage that women earn just 78 cents for every dollar a man earns.

Some of the stats behind the 78 cents number are BS. Not that I don't think the gap is real, I just don't think it's that big based on what I have read.

Also, I don't like the government getting involved with pay, other than at the bottom. I don't want them capping CEO pay either, even though I do think they are way way way over paid (Maybe some new laws impacting board makeup though.)

Making tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout America. Everyone in this country who studies hard should be able to go to college regardless of income.

Absolutely not. The better solution is to allow the students to go bankrupt. This is a good instance where the market needs to be allowed to work...Hear that Riggerjack!

Expanding Social Security by lifting the cap on taxable income above $250,000. At a time when the senior poverty rate is going up, we have got to make sure that every American can retire with dignity and respect.

Disagree. I'm for making certain adjustments to make sure the current system, or probably something slightly different is still around, but this isn't the answer. There are other ways to fix the retirement issue that puts the burden of the workers retirement on the actual worker.

Guaranteeing healthcare as a right of citizenship by enacting a Medicare for all single-payer healthcare system. It’s time for the U.S. to join every major industrialized country on earth and provide universal healthcare to all.

Yes, but it probably shouldn't be Medicare (not the greatest system) and I would like significant changes. Such as, smokers, obese, etc., people who make bad choices would actually have to pay premiums to get the free part.

Requiring employers to provide at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave; two weeks of paid vacation; and 7 days of paid sick days. Real family values are about making sure that parents have the time they need to bond with their babies and take care of their children and relatives when they get ill.

I'm unsure on this. Sounds good, but it would be costly and not feasible for most small business. He might have exceptions in the details, but I haven't seen it yet. Also, it's not like 12 week is going to meet this goal,

about making sure that parents have the time they need to bond with their babies and take care of their children

. That takes years.

Enacting a universal childcare and prekindergarten program. Every psychologist understands that the most formative years for a human being is from the ages 0-3. We have got to make sure every family in America has the opportunity to send their kids to a high quality childcare and pre-K program.

I don't support this. It's one of those things that sounds good, but will be very difficult to make high quality. Also, how is he going to pay for this, and some of this other stuff? I'm not even sure his tax raises will come close to covering all this.

Making it easier for workers to join unions by fighting for the Employee Free Choice Act. One of the most significant reasons for the 40-year decline in the middle class is that the rights of workers to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits have been severely undermined.

Kind of agree, but there needs to be laws to prevent the unions from becoming what the auto unions became and are now back to their old ways.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ford-will-m ... to-mexico/
This is the union's fault, not Ford's.

Breaking up huge financial institutions so that they are no longer too big to fail. Seven years ago, the taxpayers of this country bailed out Wall Street because they were too big to fail. Yet, 3 out of the 4 largest financial institutions are 80 percent bigger today than before we bailed them out. Sen. Sanders has introduced legislation to break these banks up. As president, he will fight to sign this legislation into law.

Agreed, but would love to see the detail behind it. I worry he goes too far with it.

So, that's as good as I can do right now. My worry, even on some of the stuff I support, is that it can't be paid for, and if it can't be paid for, it shouldn't be enacted even if I noted I support it.

[George the original one]

Some pertinent quotes about voters switching parties for the upcoming Oregon primary election from http://www.pamplinmedia.com/lor/48-news ... y-changes-

***
The majority of voters — about 65 percent statewide — are switching to the Democratic Party, a trend that suggests momentum in the state for social Democrat Bernie Sanders, according to some political analysts.

***
Sauvie Island resident Monica Fetzer, 54, recently ended her lifelong affiliation with the Republican Party and registered as a Democrat. Fetzer dislikes the name-calling and insults she has seen during Republican presidential primary debates. She also disagrees with some Repubicans’ denials about global warming and the party’s refusal to consider President Obama’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.

“It’s not that I identify as a liberal,” Fetzer said. “It’s that the behavior of the Republican Party has been so despicable that I can’t be affiliated with it.”

She chose to register as a Democrat, rather than nonaffiliated, because she wanted to have a voice in the primary, and plans to vote for Sanders.

[Spartan_Warrior]

@Chad, thanks! Those are substantive reasons. I even agree with some of your points. I should've known I'd bite off more than I can chew, and I'm not going to go point by point through your response (thank God, says everyone), but I have some thoughts/questions:

Why are you "absolutely" against free public college tuition? Especially since all the evidence I can find suggests the federal government already spends enough on student aid to cover tuition for every public college student. What makes allowing bankruptcy on student debt the better solution than simply cutting out the bankers and loans in the first place?

I feel I'm not well-versed enough to discuss the trade agreement stuff, but I do feel that implicit in the idea that "America would not be competitive anymore" is the idea that American workers should be competitive with foreign workers, many of whom work in terrible conditions earning pennies to the dollar. (Only Trump dared to openly claim that "American wages are too high to compete" and later walked it back.) I think there should be protections for American workers against that kind of unfair competition, rather than agreements that encourage or promote it. I also believe there are some sovereignty issues involved in handing multinational corporations more power than local governments, but again, I'm not informed on this issue.

Also, and this one may really be out of scope as I imagine this is a much deeper ideological divide, but why are you apparently opposed to asking the wealthy to contribute more through higher taxes, higher SS taxable income, etc?

Generally speaking, that ^^^ is the answer to the question of how he pays for his proposals--through higher, progressive taxes mostly targeted at high incomes, corporate loopholes, Wall Street speculation. Taxes will rise across the board, but the cost would be offset for most middle class families by the savings on public health insurance. (Politifact estimates the average family would save $500-1800)

I am not an economist, but hundreds of economists, including Robert Reich and Gerald Friedman, have lined up in support of Sanders's economic plans, claiming they will not only be paid for, but result in an improved economy and generate a budget surplus.

Citizen's for Tax Justice Analysis

Robert Reich: Why Bernie's Proposals Would Spur Economic Growth

ETA: I noticed you didn't mention Bernie's stances on overturning Citizen's United, increasing public funding for elections, and getting money out of politics, which IMHO is the best and most important part of his platform. One of the biggest distinctions between him and Clinton is how beholden the latter is to the bought-and-sold politics of the establishment. This is a significant enough issue for me that I--a hardcore liberal, obviously--supported Ron Paul in 2012 over it.

Also, his goals on green energy are another favorite of mine. I have trouble believing Hillary will take climate change seriously given her connections to fossil fuels.

@Ego: That's fair. Honestly, one of the few arguments for Hillary that I find hard to argue with is from those who just don't want any change.

Again, Robert Reich put it best: "I’ve known Hillary Clinton since she was 19 years old, and have nothing but respect for her. In my view, she’s the most qualified candidate for president of the political system we now have. But Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have, because he’s leading a political movement for change."

I also saw a clip of a Hillary supporter saying, "I don't want a revolution, I want a president."

I guess Hillary probably is your gal for that. From where I'm standing, I look around and see a democracy in tatters, a rigged economy, and a planet in ruin, and I don't think we have time for the status quo anymore.

[IlliniDave]

I said this before but must have forgot to hit submit. I went back to edit in the comment about Kasich but couldn't find it.

I think the four top candidates would all be bad presidents. So I revert judging which I'd like best as a neighbor. Bernie probably wins that one, the two republicans in a tossup for second. No comment on Secretary C.

Of the people still in it, Kasich would probably make the best president IMO

[Chad]

Why are you "absolutely" against free public college tuition? Especially since all the evidence I can find suggests the federal government already spends enough on student aid to cover tuition for every public college student. What makes allowing bankruptcy on student debt the better solution than simply cutting out the bankers and loans in the first place?

It would be kind of like lottery winners who lose it all. They haven't worked for it or earned, which seems to translate into not understanding, appreciating, or know how in managing it. Allowing bankruptcy of students would hopefully put pressure on the lenders, which in turn would put pressure on the universities to manage costs better. There probably need to be other ideas added to the bankruptcy one to really make it work.

Concerning free trade, I do think it's valuable on multiple levels mostly dealing with competition. The US automakers and their unions from the 70's are prime examples of protected industries that got paid a ton and produced garbage (They weren't necessarily only protected by legislation then. There was a lot less globalization, less infrastructure, etc.)

But, overall, I just don't think we should waste resources, time, and money on trying to protect jobs that will be basically gone in 20 years. The industrial revolution did the same thing to farmers. The US went from roughly 98% of the population involved in agriculture in some way to only 2%. Now another round of tech is doing the same thing to a good portion of unskilled industrial jobs. It just seems to be a poor investment for the country's long-term economic health to worry about these specific jobs.

Also, and this one may really be out of scope as I imagine this is a much deeper ideological divide, but why are you apparently opposed to asking the wealthy to contribute more through higher taxes, higher SS taxable income, etc?

I'm ok with raising the rates a little. I'm not ok with super high rates for the wealthy. For instance, Buffett always mentions that his tax rate is lower than his secretary's and this should change. I agree with changing rules, regulations, etc. like this and even a slight bump in the high end tax rates.

I don't like expanding Social Security, as it places the burden on the government/tax payers. Historically, the government/taxpayers have not shown the ability to properly manage this type of program and continue to kick the can down the road on making appropriate adjustments.

Yes, I realize my support for national healthcare seems to be at odds with this. There are a lot of reasons I differ here, such as it's impossible for healthcare to be a free market, it's burden on businesses and individuals that prevents risk taking, etc. (This is a massively complex topic that would require a huge amount of research and multiples of rules, regulations, incentives, etc. to get right. Too long for here.)

Generally speaking, that ^^^ is the answer to the question of how he pays for his proposals--through higher, progressive taxes mostly targeted at high incomes, corporate loopholes, Wall Street speculation. Taxes will rise across the board, but the cost would be offset for most middle class families by the savings on public health insurance. (Politifact estimates the average family would save $500-1800)

They also note that he still comes up hugely short on the tax revenue.

That’s still $599 billion short of what the country actually spent on health care in 2013 ($949 billion in premiums and $325 billion for out-of-pocket expenses, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services).

Even though I'm for some kind of national healthcare, I can't be for this. It has to be 100% paid for when it's started.

I am not an economist, but hundreds of economists, including Robert Reich and Gerald Friedman, have lined up in support of Sanders's economic plans, claiming they will not only be paid for, but result in an improved economy and generate a budget surplus.

I like Reich a lot and agree with him on many points. One would be that national healthcare would allow more risk taking in business. However, he has his blinders on about cost just like the right has its blinders on about cutting taxes to spur growth and collect more revenue. I do think Reich's blinders aren't nearly as thick or big, but they are still there.

ETA: I noticed you didn't mention Bernie's stances on overturning Citizen's United, increasing public funding for elections, and getting money out of politics, which IMHO is the best and most important part of his platform. One of the biggest distinctions between him and Clinton is how beholden the latter is to the bought-and-sold politics of the establishment. This is a significant enough issue for me that I--a hardcore liberal, obviously--supported Ron Paul in 2012 over it.

Also, his goals on green energy are another favorite of mine. I have trouble believing Hillary will take climate change seriously given her connections to fossil fuels.

I was very focused on Sanders' economic polices and just took these directly from one page of his policy listing. I focused on the economic, as this appears to be every candidates weak point on both sides.

Also, it just seemed like enough to discuss.

I agree with you on the bought-and-sold politics comment and on Citizens United. Huge problems that Sanders would do better at fixing than Clinton.

I'm less concerned about green energy, as it appears it's starting to win the markets. Would he help it more? Yes. Would it be significant help? I'm doubtful.

He would also be less likely than Clinton to get into a war, but the general mood of the country should prevent anyone but Dick Cheney from doing one along the Iraq War lines again...hopefully.

[Chad]

@SW
This is part of the reason I don't like some of Sanders' programs:

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... revolution

Nobody, not even a portion of his supporters, want to pay for it. At the very least, they are clueless about the cost.

By the way, I'm not suggesting you are.

[Spartan_Warrior]

It would be kind of like lottery winners who lose it all. They haven't worked for it or earned, which seems to translate into not understanding, appreciating, or know how in managing it.

This is speculative, and I disagree. Public education is free for grades K-12 and I don't see why students leave that any less prepared than if they had incurred debt for it. Public universities in Germany don't charge tuition, but their workforce seems both educated and competitive. Also, unfortunately, our current system doesn't exactly foster understanding or money management skills either; it merely puts debt upon those who are unprepared.

I don't think the bankruptcy idea does much to help bring the "lost generation" of Millennials back into the economy--possibly the opposite. Having bankruptcies on their records won't help them much in getting mortgages or building credit. It seems like one side is still very much screwed in this set-up. Sure, I can see it putting downward pressure on costs, slowly, over time--but it seems government-funded public options could do the same thing with much less pain for the young and the middle class.

RE: Taxes, I don't think Bernie's rates are super high. There is a LOT of misinformation surrounding his proposed rates, so just to be sure we're on the same page, here are the actual rates:

http://imgur.com/a/KhMIZ

(Along with an amusing cartoon for further historical context. )

Rates would increase by around 3-4% on income between 250k and 2 million, 8% between 2 million and 10 million, and 12% on income over $10 million. To me, a CEO paying 12% more on marginal income above ten meeeellion dollars isn't gonna have me playing any tiny violins anytime soon.

(Admittedly, this is just the federal income tax and does not include the new payroll taxes for health insurance and paid family leave, which IIRC are on the order of 6% and 2.2% respectively. So add 8% across the board for the "final" tax rates, but those increases should be offset by health care savings at most income levels.)

RE: Social Security; agreed that in our current political system our leaders have not shown the political will to manage social security correctly. But isn't Bernie's proposal to expand the taxable income exactly the kind of adjustment we need? The opposite of kicking the can?

RE: Shortfall on tax revenue; yes, that's Politifact's estimate. There are other estimates, as they note, including Gerald Friedman's which estimates a $15 trillion surplus over 10 years.

I will admit to being far less concerned about deficit spending, as a rule, than you appear to be.

RE: "general mood of the country should prevent anyone but Dick Cheney from doing one along the Iraq War lines again"... Yes, hopefully. For now, and barring any other serious attacks on American soil. Sadly, that still leaves room for plenty of Syrias and Libyas.

[jacob]

@Spartan_Warrior - WRT free university education in Europe compared to how it works in the US: You'd have to relax the condition that "everybody [who wants it] gets a free college education" or pay up. In Europe there's only a limited number of seats in the system for e.g. physics, another limited number for literature, etc. These are awarded strictly based on ranking (mostly GPA). This means that many people don't "get in" if they're not in the top N, where N is the number of positions available. Effectively, if you're in the top of your class, you have your pick of what you want to study, philosophy, anthropology, ... If you're in the bottom you will only be able to study something unpopular like education, theology, or physics. Grades 10-12 works in similar ways. Not everybody gets to go.

In the US you're free to waste money on a degree in Applied String Theory from Podunk College.

[Chad]

@SW
Education:
I agree that allowing bankruptcies may only be helpful for future students.

Your German example is valid. The only thing I can say is I like the chaos/destruction of an improved US system over the rigid rails of the system Jacob describes.

I completely agree with your criticism of our current system on money/finance education, but I don't see why the type of system has to change for people to receive this education. In fact, if they would get quality money/finance education, it would probably really help getting the current system's extremes under control.

We will probably have to disagree on this. While, I agree it's speculative, a lot of policy discussion is. As I mentioned above, I prefer the chaos of our current system that has been brought fiscally under control, as opposed to the system Jacob outlines in the above post.

Tax Rates:
I was assuming they were higher based on what I had previously read and a very rough idea of what might be needed to cover his programs (very rough). Though, I must admit I'm even more concerned they won't cover his programs at these levels.

If we look at the current tax rates in the US and from countries with a lot of these programs (see below), it appears his tax hikes would place us roughly around the European countries with these programs. These countries almost all run fairly substantial deficits with these programs, which means I don't like this idea.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... es/267148/

Also, this doesn't even factor in our military spending, which is much higher percent of tax revenue than in Europe. Yes, I think it can be trimmed up (For instance, that new super carrier that is almost ready to go to see is already almost obsolete.). Though, I don't think it can be trimmed enough, without sacrificing stability in the world. This is coming from the guy who was against Iraq from before it started.

RE: "general mood of the country should prevent anyone but Dick Cheney from doing one along the Iraq War lines again"... Yes, hopefully. For now, and barring any other serious attacks on American soil. Sadly, that still leaves room for plenty of Syrias and Libyas.

Unfortunately, yes it does.

[Chad]

The funny thing about all the "it's fixed" talk about the conventions is that it is true, but the people don't have to vote for either party's candidate in the general election. The could even write in one. Of course, they won't, as they get exactly what they ask for.

[jennypenny]

Funny that a lot of the voting issues today are in Brooklyn. De Blasio endorsed Clinton, right?

[Spartan_Warrior]

Looks like it'll end like Rocky 1 instead of Rocky 2 after all. Even I can't keep my hopes up for a win anymore. On the bright side, I was never all that sure whether I wanted kids anyway, and I really don't care about the future of anyone else's kids at the moment. Time to watch the empire burn. At least "the system is working fine for ERErs". Anyone got some good stock tips for the next phase of the empire's decay? I guess I could just look at Clinton's donor list...

I guess... Trump 2016! Why not? Make America Die Faster!

[enigmaT120]

From FFJ's link:

"INSKEEP: What about just the most votes of people in primaries?

HAUGLAND: Absolutely irrelevant."

Was that after Colorado demonstrated it?

[Dragline]

So how long do you figure it will take "who is going to be depicted on the currency" becomes the latest inane campaign issue?

I think the over/under is about 60 hours.

[DSKla]

The Trump hatred is in full swing here in rich, liberal SoCal, but absent is the Hillary hatred. It's as if they think "because I do not like Trump, I must like Hillary." If Jim Jones gave them a choice between red kool-aid and purple kool-aid, I'm positive they's enthusiastically snatch the grape flavor. It's hard to imagine this working out well for me either way. Gonna sit this one out.

[jacob]

@ffj - Some pretty expensive fallout...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/24/politics/ ... nton-2016/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/g00//new ... p-or-cruz/