Bernie's free college idea

[nate]

How many drug tunnels do you think there are under the 710?  I only ask because I used to buy my pot there...

 

Yeah, the deficit spending drives me nuts.

[Adam]

So you might as well include everything that taxes pay for - infrastructure, for instance. Damn those highways - violating my rights!

Lol

[Angelsjunky]

Easy.  Cut heavily in other areas.

 

I also don't understand how you are willing to pay for all of this stuff without first balancing the budget.  We are running at a huge deficit yet Bernie and all his followers are happy to add another trillion dollars in debt.

 

Why do you think I'm not wanting to balance the budget? I just don't think it has to be one and then the other, but both at the same time. Reduce spending--especially through the military (which all of the Republicans want to increase, btw)--AND build better, more efficient social programs and infrastructure.

 

nate, have you actually looked into what Bernie is suggesting? I know he hasn't put out a clear tax and spending package, but there's a lot of info out there. It isn't so simple as "just add lots of stuff and spend more."

[nate]

He has said that he would increase taxes.  That is enough for me not to agree.

 

Anyway Democrats always want to spend more without caring about balancing the budget.  I am not a Republican.  If Bernie wins the nomination I will be voting republican though, even if it means voting for Trump.

[wopphil]

Keep this most basic economic fact in mind: every additional dollar the government takes from someone is one less dollar that person can contribute to the economy. Less money to spend at your local restaurant, less money to tip your barber, less money to spend at home depot, etc. Those businesses, in turn, need fewer employees and/or those employees make less money.

Higher taxes directly correlates to fewer jobs.

Edited February 11, 2016 by wopphil

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

That's not necessarily true because tax revenue the government collects is being spent on agencies/projects/etc. that create jobs or ends up in the hands of people who spend it.  That said obviously there's a point where over taxation can negatively impact the economy and consumers.

 

Regardless as myself and multiple other people pointed out giving more money to a government running massive deficits that can't live within it's means is asinine.      

Edited February 11, 2016 by Catwhoshatinthehat

[Glen]

Keep in mind that most welfare money gets spent directly in the local economies. In a perfect world, anyway; most of it goes to Wal Mart. If you give poor people more money they're gonna spend it on shit that poor people need: food, clothes, basic services. In theory that should benefit communities.

[mtangelsfan]

Keep in mind that most welfare money gets spent directly in the local economies. In a perfect world, anyway; most of it goes to Wal Mart. If you give poor people more money they're gonna spend it on shit that poor people need: food, clothes, basic services. In theory that should benefit communities.

 

At ten cents on the dollar.

 

a previous post said it was good to know that 2k per family was going directly to college tuition and health care.  Ha!  make that 20 dollars per 2k taken out of the middle class family's pocket.

[Adam]

In theory...a lot of stuff makes sense

[Angelsjunky]

He has said that he would increase taxes.  That is enough for me not to agree.

 

Anyway Democrats always want to spend more without caring about balancing the budget.  I am not a Republican.  If Bernie wins the nomination I will be voting republican though, even if it means voting for Trump.

 

So if a presidential candidate said "Poverty will be utterly eradicated, but people will still be able to make a lot of money, oh yeah and you also get free blowjobs whenever you want them, but....we're going to raise taxes." You'd disagree just on principle?

 

As for your second sentence, I don't know what to say. The first part is just wrong and a conservative caricature of Democrats. The second part is...well, no comment.

[nate]

I would disagree because that is impossible unless you turn to a completely socialist economy which has been shown over and over to fail.

 

Just like your caricature about Republicans my man.

[Angelsjunky]

I would disagree because that is impossible unless you turn to a completely socialist economy which has been shown over and over to fail.

 

Just like your caricature about Republicans my man.

 

Guilty as charged.

 

Anyhow, as I said before I see two extreme views, of which "capitalism" and "socialism" are the socioeconomic expressions. Very few people, at least in this country, are fully one or the other (although some think they are, without realizing they support at least some of what the other view has to say). My view is that "the great American experiment" has to do with how to integrate the best of both worlds in a dialectical manner. Clearly we're not there yet, but as I see it we've veered so far towards the capitalist extreme that we need to incorporate more of the socialist.

 

I'm reminded of that old question: Do you think it is more important that everyone can go as far as possible in life, or that everyone has equal opportunity? I can't choose one over the other - they're both true.

[Hollyw00d]

I bet tank would like to husband many amimals

[Stradling]

As long as they're poor

[Tank]

Why do you think I'm not wanting to balance the budget? I just don't think it has to be one and then the other, but both at the same time. Reduce spending--especially through the military (which all of the Republicans want to increase, btw)--AND build better, more efficient social programs and infrastructure.

 

take the money you would have spent on the military (in nate's suggestion) and use it to fund needed programs here at home. 

 

if he doesn't cut spending, this is just going to cost each of us more money out of our pockets, in spite of what you may think.

[Jay]

No politician is going to come along and change your life.  You're the only one who can do that.

[Hollyw00d]

You're dumb.

[Adam]

Maybe just happy

[Crampknees]

No politician is going to come along and change your life.  You're the only one who can do that.

What is interesting about that statement is you will not hesitate to say the politician in there the last 8 years has ruined your life.  So are you the only one who can ruin your life also?  

 

I like this concept, sorry crying cons you ruined everything, not Obama. 

[mtangelsfan]

I don't think almost anyone on AW has argued that Obama ruined their life.

 

I guess if you keep making stuff up, someone will believe it.

[Jay]

What is interesting about that statement is you will not hesitate to say the politician in there the last 8 years has ruined your life.  So are you the only one who can ruin your life also?  

 

I like this concept, sorry crying cons you ruined everything, not Obama. 

 

I never said Obama ruined my life

 

It's the libs here who claim their life has been ruined.

 

After 7 years of Obama.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Jay

[Crampknees]

Negatory there good buddy, I don't roger that, my life is great, echo zulu Obama out. 

[Crampknees]

I don't think almost anyone on AW has argued that Obama ruined their life.

 

I guess if you keep making stuff up, someone will believe it.

Holmes, if anyone here can handle themselves with me it is Jay.  You don't always have to be on a rescue mission.  They have pound puppies and kittens for that stuff. 

[nate]

I can tell you, 10000000% Bernie would ruin my life if he got his way.

[Adam]

Free love on the free love freeway

the love is free and the freeway's long