Bernie's free college idea

[nate]

Interesting that people think that 2k is no big deal to someone making 100k a year.

That's ok we won't take a vacation so you and your worthless baby daddy can afford cigarettes, beer, and the inevitable ER visit for drinking too much purple drank

[nate]

Let me ask another way.

When my wife and I got married we decided we would only have one kid because we felt that the only way we could raise a kid the way we wanted would be too expensive with two.

We have worked very hard to make a good living to give our daughter opportunities we never had, to have a big college fund so she can go anywhere she gets accepted. So we can afford healthy food, take vacations, buy her nice things, etc.

Why in the **** should I have to pay for someone that shot out four kids on a retail salary to have the same benefits?

Not to mention, not everyone needs a college education. Retail workers, farmers, butchers, service reps, fishermen, sales reps, etc. You might say "but Nate, some more education can't hurt" but it does. The middle and upper class is funding these people to delay their entry into the work force for four years only for them to get out and go into a job that has no need for a college education.

Not even getting into the fact that you are just diluting the value of a degree. Most of these universities struggle to keep enough quality professors on their staff in order to uphold the value of the degree.

[Angelsjunky]

It's easy to see why some people get more liberal with age. Republicans are getting progressively more awful.

 

Yup.

 

I understand AJ's position.

But until you've earned a decent amount of money and seen a ridiculous amount taken away, you honesty aren't qualified to even be in this discussion.

And I'm not an employee of anyone, so I'm keenly aware of how much the government gets when I write them a check for (i.e.) $50,000+ every year. I've become more socially liberal over the years and I generally vote democrat because of it, but I f'ing hate little know-it-alls like AJ that want the world given to them before they've had the real world experience of seeing the money taken from them.

So dude, you need to STFU. Let the grown ups talk about grown up stuff.

 

This is ridiculous. My opinion is not valid because you think you know how much I make? You know jack about me, calscuf.

 

And the fact that you don't think people of a certain income should be part of the conversation is beyond absurd and borderline fascist. Look up the word "democracy" and compare it to "plutocracy."

 

You do realize that there are very wealthy people--much wealthier than you or I--who think taxes on the wealthy should be raised.

[Spirit]

It's easy to see why some people get more liberal with age. Republicans are getting progressively more awful.

 

 

well done

[Crampknees]

It's easy to see why some people get more liberal with age. Republicans are getting progressively more awful.

You just described me.  

[Angelsjunky]

You're like wine, Kurt.

[nate]

Yup.

 

 

This is ridiculous. My opinion is not valid because you think you know how much I make? You know jack about me, calscuf.

 

And the fact that you don't think people of a certain income should be part of the conversation is beyond absurd and borderline fascist. Look up the word "democracy" and compare it to "plutocracy."

 

You do realize that there are very wealthy people--much wealthier than you or I--who think taxes on the wealthy should be raised.

 

You do realize the tax increases will not just be limited to people with a net worth of 1 billion dollars right?  They will hit the middle class, which already should be getting more tax cuts than they currently have.

[Angelsjunky]

You do realize the tax increases will not just be limited to people with a net worth of 1 billion dollars right?  They will hit the middle class, which already should be getting more tax cuts than they currently have.

 

You speak of tax increases like they are in a vacuum, as if Bernie wants to take your money just because. Yes, they will hit the middle class (including myself) but hopefully for a good cause: rebuilding infrastructure, improving health care and education, creating jobs, etc - a lot of which will actually improve the lives of middle class people. Its call redistribution of wealth, not eradication of it. 

[nate]

Tax increases hit the middle class hard.  They are the heart of this country.  There are too many welfare programs already and too much waste.  Those improvements you speak of should come from the existing budget.  Democrats never do that though, their solution is always to raise taxes even higher to pay for what they want.

 

By the way, how does a single payer system create jobs?  A single payer system in fact lays off one million hard working middle class Americans.

 

Your income redistribution is such bullshit.  What it is, is stealing from hard working people.

Edited February 10, 2016 by nate

[Stradling]

You say redistribution of wealth like its a positive thing.

[wopphil]

What most liberals don't seem to grasp is that these supposed "modest" tax increases, or increases on just the wealthiest 1-2 percent, won't bring in a fraction of the revenue necessary to fund all these programs. Do people really think that just raising taxes 2-percent will suddenly allow for subsidized college, universal healthcare, etc? At best, it might allow us to stop running such huge budget deficits each year.

[wopphil]

And here is my primary objection to paying higher taxes: the government has never shown an ability to use the money in anywhere close to a proper manner.

Seriously, WTF do we get for our taxes now? A military that is unnecessarily large, a social security system that gets horrendous returns, and a health care system that lines the pockets of drug companies. Won't increasing my taxes just further contribute to all that crap?

Once the government can prove it can do a good job spending my tax money, I'll be more open-minded to a tax increase.

[mtangelsfan]

You speak of tax increases like they are in a vacuum, as if Bernie wants to take your money just because. Yes, they will hit the middle class (including myself) but hopefully for a good cause: rebuilding infrastructure, improving health care and education, creating jobs, etc - a lot of which will actually improve the lives of middle class people. Its call redistribution of wealth, not eradication of it. 

 

So stealing from the folks who have worked hard and succeeded and give the spoils to most that haven't.  All at about 30% efficiency.  

[Stradling]

I'm pretty sure every other facet of life has to live within a budget. But not the government. Oh and if a business or family doesn't live within a budget there are reprocusions. But not the government.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

Hypothetically even if Bernie gets elected and his tax plan is put in motion he ultimately won't control how quite a bit of it is spent.  Yeah a budget will be set but other elected officials will use it to fund their pet projects when agreements are made and legislation is pushed through while we continue to run deficits.  It's amazing that people are willing to give a government that's been inefficient and wasteful more money expecting them to suddenly reverse course.  

[Angelsjunky]

OK, I get it - you guys don't want any of your hard-earned money going to improving the country. Well I do.

 

You can tease out specific parts of Bernie's plan and point out the problems, but you have to look at the whole picture - his vision for re-structuring our society, a "newer deal" - which includes single-payer, but also free education, more job creation, cleaner energy, less money towards the military and American imperialism, etc.

 

I don't disagree with "libertarian utopianism" - in an ideal world there would be no income tax. But we're not there. As Bernie has pointed out again and again, we live in a rigged economy. The American Dream of "work hard and your dreams will come true" doesn't always work. Not to mention that our economy privileges certain industries, careers and lifestyles, while being very difficult for others.I like the idea that a young artist can have free health care and education, even a basic living wage like Finland is considering. I like the idea that tax money doesn't go towards American imperialism and an unnecessarily powerful military, but on rebuilding the infrastructure and creating jobs. I like the idea of an administration that doesn't give massive corporate tax breaks, but puts money towards clean energy and innovation.

 

So yeah, I resonate with Democratic Socialism. It isn't perfect, and there are elements of Bernie's platform that I don't 100% agree with. But he sure looks the best of the available options, and for once I actually feel good about voting for a candidate. He isn't the lesser of evils - he is actually someone I'd like to see as the president (hopefully with Elizabeth Warren as VP).

[mtangelsfan]

Our money is already forcibly removed at an alarming rate (to make the country better)

 

However, it isn't working.  The government has been severely mismanaged for decades.  They money they get in from citizens has been misspent, misused and misappropriated.  It has been stolen, gambled, embezzled and wasted.  All in all, the government has sucked gigantic donkey balls at managing money.

 

How is it that anyone would believe they will all of the sudden do a 180 and make it work? 

[ten ocho recon scout]

Hypothetically even if Bernie gets elected and his tax plan is put in motion he ultimately won't control how quite a bit of it is spent. Yeah a budget will be set but other elected officials will use it to fund their pet projects when agreements are made and legislation is pushed through while we continue to run deficits. It's amazing that people are willing to give a government that's been inefficient and wasteful more money expecting them to suddenly reverse course.

this. The sad fact is, no matter who is elected, in any election, the power of the president is far less rhan people generally believe. On the plus side, the orher two branches can stop him (or her) from some crazy plan. On the minus side, thwy can stop him or her from a good one. Its why very little good ever gets accomplished.

Taxing the rich sounds like a good isea in theory. Forgetting for a minute how much better they will get at hising their money through loopholes, lets say it happens and the money goes towards good. Again, it sounds reasonable. But in all honesty, i cant say it would be "fair" unless we all got our taxes raised. Yes, they have more money, but where is the line drawn, for it to be "fair".

I respect your stance AJ, you say youre willing to pay more. I am too...so long as a lot of what im paying for now goes away.

[nate]

AJ, I have never met a hard working person that was out of the job for long.  A real hard working person with aspirations of making more.  It is not rigged, it is just another one of Bernie's sound bytes.

 

By taxing the middle class you are not improving America, you are hurting it.  You keep ignoring that fact.

 

All you are doing is taking the core of this country, the hard working people and telling them, **** their effort, they are paying for the parasites.

[Adam]

Our money is already forcibly removed at an alarming rate (to make the country better)

 

However, it isn't working.  The government has been severely mismanaged for decades.  They money they get in from citizens has been misspent, misused and misappropriated.  It has been stolen, gambled, embezzled and wasted.  All in all, the government has sucked gigantic donkey balls at managing money.

 

How is it that anyone would believe they will all of the sudden do a 180 and make it work? 

 

 

This is really the only conclusion one could come to in a pragmatic sense, 

[Angelsjunky]

Here's another way of looking at the rationale behind higher tax rates for higher incomes. People with higher incomes benefit more from the system we live in, the way our economy is set up, so should give back more to supporting society and helping those who don't benefit as much.

 

It isn't so black-and-white as the standard libertarian rhetoric of "income tax is stealing from those who work hard." This is hopefully simplistic, imo. Plenty of people work hard but don't make a lot of money. Plenty of people who make a lot of money do so at the expense of others, even those that work for them and help them make money (e.g. the Walton family). In this case, the Walton's "invisible hand" is a slap in the face of millions of people. I don't have a problem with the government "forcing" the Walton family to pay more taxes to held redress the fact that they exploit their employees, because--as has been proven again and again--the market doesn't always correct itself and there are very clever people who find ways around it. Laissez-faire capitalism works for an every decreasing few, at the expense of an increasing many - in other words, it doesn't work.

 

Bernie's approach isn't perfect, but it is meant to address a moral wrong with a moral less-wrong. I see it as a kind of soft warfare - akin to fighting back aggressors with force. It isn't attacking or invading, it is fighting back the already hostile takeover. To quote Ice Cube in Higher Learning, "We're behind enemy lines, dog."

 

Anyhow, if nothing else--and whether or not he becomes president (which is unlikely)--I hope that Bernie succeeds in least one thing: getting the big money out of politics and returning the government to being by the people and for the people, rather than what it is now: a plutocracy in democratic drag.

[Adam]

OK, I get it - you guys don't want any of your hard-earned money going to improving the country. Well I do.

 

You can tease out specific parts of Bernie's plan and point out the problems, but you have to look at the whole picture - his vision for re-structuring our society, a "newer deal" - which includes single-payer, but also free education, more job creation, cleaner energy, less money towards the military and American imperialism, etc.

 

I don't disagree with "libertarian utopianism" - in an ideal world there would be no income tax. But we're not there. As Bernie has pointed out again and again, we live in a rigged economy. The American Dream of "work hard and your dreams will come true" doesn't always work. Not to mention that our economy privileges certain industries, careers and lifestyles, while being very difficult for others.I like the idea that a young artist can have free health care and education, even a basic living wage like Finland is considering. I like the idea that tax money doesn't go towards American imperialism and an unnecessarily powerful military, but on rebuilding the infrastructure and creating jobs. I like the idea of an administration that doesn't give massive corporate tax breaks, but puts money towards clean energy and innovation.

 

So yeah, I resonate with Democratic Socialism. It isn't perfect, and there are elements of Bernie's platform that I don't 100% agree with. But he sure looks the best of the available options, and for once I actually feel good about voting for a candidate. He isn't the lesser of evils - he is actually someone I'd like to see as the president (hopefully with Elizabeth Warren as VP).

 

Individuals are far more effective at improving this country than the government is. I've never heard one rags to riches guy or gal thank his local welfare office or the president for his/her successes. Its usually an individual or a small group of individuals who personally impact folks for the better. 

[Adam]

Here's another way of looking at the rationale behind higher tax rates for higher incomes. People with higher incomes benefit more from the system we live in, the way our economy is set up.

 

 

I agree with this. Keynesianism breeds cronyism. 

[nate]

Here's another way of looking at the rationale behind higher tax rates for higher incomes. People with higher incomes benefit more from the system we live in, the way our economy is set up, so should give back more to supporting society and helping those who don't benefit as much.

 

It isn't so black-and-white as the standard libertarian rhetoric of "income tax is stealing from those who work hard." This is hopefully simplistic, imo. Plenty of people work hard but don't make a lot of money. Plenty of people who make a lot of money do so at the expense of others, even those that work for them and help them make money (e.g. the Walton family). In this case, the Walton's "invisible hand" is a slap in the face of millions of people. I don't have a problem with the government "forcing" the Walton family to pay more taxes to held redress the fact that they exploit their employees, because--as has been proven again and again--the market doesn't always correct itself and there are very clever people who find ways around it. Laissez-faire capitalism works for an every decreasing few, at the expense of an increasing many - in other words, it doesn't work.

 

Bernie's approach isn't perfect, but it is meant to address a moral wrong with a moral less-wrong. I see it as a kind of soft warfare - akin to fighting back aggressors with force. It isn't attacking or invading, it is fighting back the already hostile takeover. To quote Ice Cube in Higher Learning, "We're behind enemy lines, dog."

 

Anyhow, if nothing else--and whether or not he becomes president (which is unlikely)--I hope that Bernie succeeds in least one thing: getting the big money out of politics and returning the government to being by the people and for the people, rather than what it is now: a plutocracy in democratic drag.

 

Again with this crap man.  People with higher incomes benefit from their hard work.  It isn't a system.

 

Sure, someone who grew up with money is more likely to be able to continue to make money.  That still isn't a system.  Someone along the lines worked hard to earn that money so future generations could be taken care of.

 

And by the way, they did it with far fewer welfare comforts than people enjoy now.

Edited February 10, 2016 by nate

[Angelsjunky]

Our money is already forcibly removed at an alarming rate (to make the country better)

 

However, it isn't working.  The government has been severely mismanaged for decades.  They money they get in from citizens has been misspent, misused and misappropriated.  It has been stolen, gambled, embezzled and wasted.  All in all, the government has sucked gigantic donkey balls at managing money.

 

How is it that anyone would believe they will all of the sudden do a 180 and make it work? 

 

See my follow-up response. I agree that income tax isn't ideal, but it is the system we work under and, as you say, we aren't going to do a 180 (which also critiques libertarianism and you're desire to do away with the income tax, right?).

 

So yeah, I agree the government has been mismanaged, but what's your PRACTICAL solution? What is the way forward that could actually happen?

 

Looking at American history, one of the things that DID work was FDR's New Deal, which is about as socialist as you can get. This is what, I think, Bernie is proposing--although, of course, one that is applicable to the 21st century. The New Deal was part of the reason for American prosperity from the 1940s-70s.

 

 

this. The sad fact is, no matter who is elected, in any election, the power of the president is far less rhan people generally believe. On the plus side, the orher two branches can stop him (or her) from some crazy plan. On the minus side, thwy can stop him or her from a good one. Its why very little good ever gets accomplished.

Taxing the rich sounds like a good isea in theory. Forgetting for a minute how much better they will get at hising their money through loopholes, lets say it happens and the money goes towards good. Again, it sounds reasonable. But in all honesty, i cant say it would be "fair" unless we all got our taxes raised. Yes, they have more money, but where is the line drawn, for it to be "fair".

I respect your stance AJ, you say youre willing to pay more. I am too...so long as a lot of what im paying for now goes away.

 

Well it already isn't fair, which I think is what Bernie is trying to say with his use of the term "rigged economy." But yeah, I hear you. I don't know if Bernie will actually be able to do anything he wants to. In a way I think Hillary will be more efficient, following Obama's "baby-steps" approach. That's better than the alternative.

 

AJ, I have never met a hard working person that was out of the job for long.  A real hard working person with aspirations of making more.  It is not rigged, it is just another one of Bernie's sound bytes.

 

By taxing the middle class you are not improving America, you are hurting it.  You keep ignoring that fact.

 

All you are doing is taking the core of this country, the hard working people and telling them, **** their effort, they are paying for the parasites.

 

Yes, I agree. Hard work will get you part of the way. There are always jobs out there, and if not jobs there are vocational trainings that one can take to re-educate. There are also a ton of people--millions--who, for whatever reason, don't have that same understanding as you and I, or actually cannot do the hard-work - some lazy, but some simply unable (for whatever reason). You call these folks parasites, and I'm sure many of them fit the caricature you have of lazy and stupid. But not all. Not millions, actually. Also understand that by reducing poverty and increasing education and health care, the number of "parasites" will be reduced as people become better educated and less impoverished.

 

I'm not ignoring the fact that taxing the middle class is problematic, I'm just pointing to the larger context - which you seem to be ignoring. As Bernie said, a person might pay $5K more in taxes but wills ave $10K on insurance and medical bills. Obviously this changes the more you make, but sometimes you need a lesser evil ("stealing from the rich") to combat a greater one (poverty).