Posted by Guest (Post 1198027)

I’d reduce the size of government, balance the budget, eliminate some of the departments that Cruz is proposing, get rid of the new policies, like Dodd-Frank, that are costing the consumers millions upon millions of dollars each year instead of helping. Make the needed changes to Social Security and Medicare in order to make them viable once again.
Government’s primary function is to protect its people not to pick winners and losers in the business world, of which they are a consummate failure. Government has gotten so bloated that it is no longer capable of being run efficiently. Efficacy is needed and there is none. Government needs to get back to what it was originally intended to do.

Power needs to be returned to the people. 535 people in Washington cannot compete with the genius of 315 million people.

I didn’t say it would be easy, I said it wasn’t complicated.

tq

Posted by Guest (Post 1198036)

And wages will go up and jobs will be created so there will be a middle class again. People will figure out for themselves how to educate themselves for the higher paying jobs that are created. Will the 1% will need give to up anything?

Posted by Guest (Post 1198057)

TOTAL BS.

You know nothing about economics, :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

In fact, you know absolutely nothing about anything!

Posted by Guest (Post 1198056)

The only thing that will fix this country is a real balanced budget. There has to be a direct correlation between what you spend and promise to what you have for revenue. Romney was correct but said it poorly. When 48% pay no federal income tax and a large percentage of 52% remaining get more from government than they pay in the system collapses, as is happening now. It doesn't matter if Bernie, Hillary, Cruz, or Trump is president outcome is going to be the same. We are bankrupt, have lost a great deal of our manufacturing, have spent our children's futures, and are now spending our grandchildren's futures. Arguing about Dems or Reps gives us the cover we need to not face our true selves. IMO

Posted by Guest (Post 1197963)

This year’s election is shaping up to be a contest between free stuff and anger. The over reaction to neither one will solve our nation’s problems.

A 3rd grade teacher relates a telling story: a boy and a girl are finalists to be their class president. The boy gives an excellent speech and receives a raucous ovation when he finishes. The girl stands up and says, simply “If you will vote for me I’ll give you ice cream” and sits down. When asked how she will pay for the ice cream she says she doesn’t know. But the class doesn’t care; they just want their ice cream. She wins in a landslide. Well that’s how Obama won in 2012 and that’s how Clinton, and Sanders, are running today but their supporters don’t care. They just want their ice cream.

Trump’s promises (when you look under the hood) appear to be inconsistent with reality but his supporters don’t care because they are (justifiably) angry and they too want their ice cream. And their ice cream is to dump the current establishment. While the GOP seems to be impotent against the Dem’s relentless pull to the left, upon closer inspection, it’s clear that they are simply part of the establishment and therefore they must also go. Trump promises that he is the antidote. On the surface his promise to “make us great again” has a nice sound to it, but as you dig down it simply rings hollow.

Neither our desire for ice cream nor our over reaction to anger will right our sinking ship. That sucking sound you hear is the inevitability of an implosion nearing critical mass. Do your research and then go vote.

tq

Posted by Guest (Post 1198072)

I can see where a simple person could think this. However, if a person wanted to think a little deeper they might learn that the word free is not used appropriately. Unfortunately, Sanders has done a miserable job explaining himself; Consequently, he'll never be elected.

Example; Medicare for all. It's not free health care it's simply paying for it a different way. Instead of my employer paying my health insurance company for my health care insurance (say $800) instead, my employer will pay me the money ($800) in my monthly check. I would then receive medicare and my taxes would go up to pay for it. (hopefully less than $800).

Now I'm not going to argue if any of this is real workable or not. I know I'll never change the minds of the Fox indoctrinated but at least I attempted to educate you with facts. Something I'm sure doesn't interest the majority of you. After all, who needs facts right? Especially when you have hate and greed on your side.

Posted by Guest (Post 1198072)

I can see where a simple person could think this. However, if a person wanted to think a little deeper they might learn that the word free is not used appropriately. Unfortunately, Sanders has done a miserable job explaining himself; Consequently, he'll never be elected.

Example; Medicare for all. It's not free health care it's simply paying for it a different way. Instead of my employer paying my health insurance company for my health care insurance (say $800) instead, my employer will pay me the money ($800) in my monthly check. I would then receive medicare and my taxes would go up to pay for it. (hopefully less than $800).

Now I'm not going to argue if any of this is real workable or not. I know I'll never change the minds of the Fox indoctrinated but at least I attempted to educate you with facts. Something I'm sure doesn't interest the majority of you. After all, who needs facts right? Especially when you have hate and greed on your side.

Posted by Guest (Post 1198109)

Your taxes might go up under the plan you proposed, but who pays for the health care in the case of those 47% who pay no federal income tax? And, what do you propose employers do regarding the health care funding for part-time workers?

Posted by Guest (Post 1198116)

As I said in my post I wasn't attempting to change anyone's mind, simply correct the notion that Bernie sold his idea of medicare for all was free. However, here is one question for you? What did we do for those who didn't have insurance before the affordable care act? Did they simply not get health care? Did they conveniently die in the street? You and I know the tax payers paid for it. As republicans like to say: We are a Christian nation. Well, isn't that the Christian thing to do. Please not the sarcasm in my last sentence.

Posted by Guest (Post 1198072)

I can see where a simple person could think this. However, if a person wanted to think a little deeper they might learn that the word free is not used appropriately. Unfortunately, Sanders has done a miserable job explaining himself; Consequently, he'll never be elected.

Example; Medicare for all. It's not free health care it's simply paying for it a different way. Instead of my employer paying my health insurance company for my health care insurance (say $800) instead, my employer will pay me the money ($800) in my monthly check. I would then receive medicare and my taxes would go up to pay for it. (hopefully less than $800).

Now I'm not going to argue if any of this is real workable or not. I know I'll never change the minds of the Fox indoctrinated but at least I attempted to educate you with facts. Something I'm sure doesn't interest the majority of you. After all, who needs facts right? Especially when you have hate and greed on your side.

Posted by Guest (Post 1198129)

The post immediately below your post asked two critical questions. I'm looking forward to your answers.

You then stated that "you weren't going to argue if any of this is real workable or not". I'm suggesting that it is not: how can adding another income-eating layer to an already unmanageable bureaucracy help anybody?

You then commented: "After all, who needs facts right?" -- What you suggested was not facts. It is merely a supposition. Show me facts that make sense and you might find an ally in me.

Sorry, I assumed you would understand that the fact I was referring to was the fact that the Bernie Sanders proposal was not free and he tried, horribly, to explain how it was going to be paid for.

BTW, the hate I have, and there is a modicum of that, is the hate that I have for the destruction of our country. As for greed -- without a company that makes a profit or a salaried person who desires to accumulate some wealth as a measure of his efforts, both of whom pay taxes, where would the rest of the country be? The government makes nothing. Instead it takes from the producers in the form of taxes. Without us where would the funds come from that run ALL of government?

Looking forward to hearing back from you.

Respectfully,

tq

Posted by Guest (Post 1198109)

Your taxes might go up under the plan you proposed, but who pays for the health care in the case of those 47% who pay no federal income tax? And, what do you propose employers do regarding the health care funding for part-time workers?