Republicans Too Divided To Challenge For The White House?

[zoogs]

I see we need some defining of the term "marginal tax rate."

[HuskerNation1]

 

For starters, he wants to take Obamacare and move it even further to the left and have a Medicare for all single-payer system. The American Public still despises Obamacare and the notion of the government taking such a key role in medical care. A single-payer system that Sanders advocates is the ultimate example of socialism and redistribution of wealth.

 

It's like you didn't read my second paragraph, man. I'm in favor of redistributing wealth in order to provide our country with a maximally beneficial system of healthcare. The left has been consistent about this point: many did not like Obamacare because it was frankly too conservative. It failed to even include a public option in the health insurance exchanges, much less get us on par with the vast majority of developed democracies where citizens pay nothing out of pocket for an ER visit. If we call our single-payer system Medicare, it's a good a word as any. You're presumably in favor of redistributing wealth to fund our military (and unless you want to go to the Roman rape and pillage model or something, you don't have many other options). I consider your health to be on par with our national defense in terms of our political priorities.

 

To help pay for this, he wants to raise marginal tax rates ABOVE 50%. No person, on matter how successful they are, should be forced to pay more than half of their income to any government, especially our federal government that is highly corrupt and does not spend our tax dollars well.

 

I agree that no person should have half their income taken to fund needless wars in the Middle East (or anywhere else). However let's pretend that everyone in the country was taxed at 50%, and out of that you were guaranteed healthcare, education from preschool through graduate school, top-rated infrastructure, social security, defense from all enemies foreign and domestic, accessible public transportation, a basic standard of living, etc. I fail to see the horror in there. It sounds like getting what you pay for.

 

Oh, and under the socialist president Dwight D. Eisenhower, the top marginal tax rates for people making over 150,000$ was 90%. Corporate taxes was around 50%.

 

He also want to have the government pay for everyone's tuition (offering free 4-year tuition to all).

 

Yeah, I know. I said that already. But what a terrific idea! We can join socialist Germany, who provides free tuition to all European and international students, or France, or the Netherlands, or Sweden. Etc, etc.

 

He's stated in the past that no person should ever be able to earn more than $1 million, so again the notion of leveling the playing field.

 

Link?

 

Members of his own party even find him as an extremists. I know he's popular right now with the leftist base because many believe in his socialistic views, but that sits far from mainstream America.

 

About 40% of "mainstream America" believes that the earth and all of its species of life was specially created ten thousand years ago. That argument doesn't pack much punch for me. But regardless, the truth is if you polled Americans issue by issue instead of on scary sounding words from a bygone Cold War era, Bernie Sanders is very much in step with the priorities of your average citizen.

 

 

Here is one of many links that references some of the points I made.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-socialist-surge-119785.html

 

And you and I just are not going to agree. If you truly believe it's the government's responsibility to provide free education, healthcare, and an array of services and benefits, then we have completely different ideological views of what this country was founded upon, and where it should go in the future. America became a great nation founded upon capitalism, striving to be the best at what you did, because you were not guaranteed a free handout from the government. The American people have always been hardworking to get ahead. Also, when you look at the Consitution, the only mandatory powers granted to the Federal Government per Article 4, Section 4 is that it must " guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” There is nothing in the Constitution that states that it's the Governments job to provide healthcare, free tuition, and many other services we currently provide.

 

I honestly hope that Sanders gets the Democratic nomination so we can have a true debate with a self-proclaimed Socialist as one of the party's nominees.

[Moiraine]

 

 

For starters, he wants to take Obamacare and move it even further to the left and have a Medicare for all single-payer system. The American Public still despises Obamacare and the notion of the government taking such a key role in medical care. A single-payer system that Sanders advocates is the ultimate example of socialism and redistribution of wealth.

 

It's like you didn't read my second paragraph, man. I'm in favor of redistributing wealth in order to provide our country with a maximally beneficial system of healthcare. The left has been consistent about this point: many did not like Obamacare because it was frankly too conservative. It failed to even include a public option in the health insurance exchanges, much less get us on par with the vast majority of developed democracies where citizens pay nothing out of pocket for an ER visit. If we call our single-payer system Medicare, it's a good a word as any. You're presumably in favor of redistributing wealth to fund our military (and unless you want to go to the Roman rape and pillage model or something, you don't have many other options). I consider your health to be on par with our national defense in terms of our political priorities.

 

To help pay for this, he wants to raise marginal tax rates ABOVE 50%. No person, on matter how successful they are, should be forced to pay more than half of their income to any government, especially our federal government that is highly corrupt and does not spend our tax dollars well.

 

I agree that no person should have half their income taken to fund needless wars in the Middle East (or anywhere else). However let's pretend that everyone in the country was taxed at 50%, and out of that you were guaranteed healthcare, education from preschool through graduate school, top-rated infrastructure, social security, defense from all enemies foreign and domestic, accessible public transportation, a basic standard of living, etc. I fail to see the horror in there. It sounds like getting what you pay for.

 

Oh, and under the socialist president Dwight D. Eisenhower, the top marginal tax rates for people making over 150,000$ was 90%. Corporate taxes was around 50%.

 

He also want to have the government pay for everyone's tuition (offering free 4-year tuition to all).

 

Yeah, I know. I said that already. But what a terrific idea! We can join socialist Germany, who provides free tuition to all European and international students, or France, or the Netherlands, or Sweden. Etc, etc.

 

He's stated in the past that no person should ever be able to earn more than $1 million, so again the notion of leveling the playing field.

 

Link?

 

Members of his own party even find him as an extremists. I know he's popular right now with the leftist base because many believe in his socialistic views, but that sits far from mainstream America.

 

About 40% of "mainstream America" believes that the earth and all of its species of life was specially created ten thousand years ago. That argument doesn't pack much punch for me. But regardless, the truth is if you polled Americans issue by issue instead of on scary sounding words from a bygone Cold War era, Bernie Sanders is very much in step with the priorities of your average citizen.

 

 

Here is one of many links that references some of the points I made.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-socialist-surge-119785.html

 

And you and I just are not going to agree. If you truly believe it's the government's responsibility to provide free education, healthcare, and an array of services and benefits, then we have completely different ideological views of what this country was founded upon, and where it should go in the future. America became a great nation founded upon capitalism, striving to be the best at what you did, because you were not guaranteed a free handout from the government. The American people have always been hardworking to get ahead. Also, when you look at the Consitution, the only mandatory powers granted to the Federal Government per Article 4, Section 4 is that it must " guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” There is nothing in the Constitution that states that it's the Governments job to provide healthcare, free tuition, and many other services we currently provide.

 

I honestly hope that Sanders gets the Democratic nomination so we can have a true debate with a self-proclaimed Socialist as one of the party's nominees.

 

 

Meritocracy is a myth, yet something like 60% of Americans believe in it.

 

Anyhow, what does he mean by no one should earn more than $1 million? If he means in 1 year, I agree. And this was back in 1974. $1 million in 1974 is nearly $5 million now. I can't say that I believe any one person is 250 times more valuable than another, or works 250 times harder/longer than any other, and that's what we're saying by having people who make $5 million/year. There are loads of CEOs who make a lot more than that.

[True2tRA]

Why do you have to explain to people that this country has changed quite a bit compared to when the constitution was written? It seems like kind of a no brainer, but yet I see that "this country was founded on ........" All the time.

 

We've gone too far down the road to be going back to the consitituion. We need to be talking about what we're going to do moving forward, not trying to take steps back in time.

 

The constitution wasn't written for today's world. Those changes are called amendments. That's just the tip of the iceberg. If we wanted to live by a Constitution written amcouple hundred years ago then military, society, human reproduction, economy, and human rights should've been frozen in time. All of those things have changed vastly.

[zoogs]

Education is at the core of investing in a country's future. If quality education is reserved for the fortunate wealthy -- especially as driven by a widening disparity --then the result is a vastly, by percentage, under-educated populace for which all of society pays the price.

 

I don't care about what his personal views on income are if his policy isn't going to be trying to institute some sort of income or earnings cap. I haven't paid particular attention to his campaign, so I don't know. Is that what he wants? I wouldn't support it, and it probably wouldn't fly in legislature anyway. But I somewhat doubt that is what his campaign is about. Nor is it a threat to capitalism. It might be a threat to early 19th century American economic policy, but we're pretty far gone from that -- as a matter of global reality.

 

I haven't followed any Republican candidacies closely, either. Show me one that isn't built on the ideas of tearing down the ACA and introducing austerity in America, and I might be interested in listening.

 

I go back to this apparent confusion over the term "marginal tax rate", so it sort of feels like we're stuck at merely bandying about talking points.

[Husker_x]

 

 

For starters, he wants to take Obamacare and move it even further to the left and have a Medicare for all single-payer system. The American Public still despises Obamacare and the notion of the government taking such a key role in medical care. A single-payer system that Sanders advocates is the ultimate example of socialism and redistribution of wealth.

 

It's like you didn't read my second paragraph, man. I'm in favor of redistributing wealth in order to provide our country with a maximally beneficial system of healthcare. The left has been consistent about this point: many did not like Obamacare because it was frankly too conservative. It failed to even include a public option in the health insurance exchanges, much less get us on par with the vast majority of developed democracies where citizens pay nothing out of pocket for an ER visit. If we call our single-payer system Medicare, it's a good a word as any. You're presumably in favor of redistributing wealth to fund our military (and unless you want to go to the Roman rape and pillage model or something, you don't have many other options). I consider your health to be on par with our national defense in terms of our political priorities.

 

To help pay for this, he wants to raise marginal tax rates ABOVE 50%. No person, on matter how successful they are, should be forced to pay more than half of their income to any government, especially our federal government that is highly corrupt and does not spend our tax dollars well.

 

I agree that no person should have half their income taken to fund needless wars in the Middle East (or anywhere else). However let's pretend that everyone in the country was taxed at 50%, and out of that you were guaranteed healthcare, education from preschool through graduate school, top-rated infrastructure, social security, defense from all enemies foreign and domestic, accessible public transportation, a basic standard of living, etc. I fail to see the horror in there. It sounds like getting what you pay for.

 

Oh, and under the socialist president Dwight D. Eisenhower, the top marginal tax rates for people making over 150,000$ was 90%. Corporate taxes was around 50%.

 

He also want to have the government pay for everyone's tuition (offering free 4-year tuition to all).

 

Yeah, I know. I said that already. But what a terrific idea! We can join socialist Germany, who provides free tuition to all European and international students, or France, or the Netherlands, or Sweden. Etc, etc.

 

He's stated in the past that no person should ever be able to earn more than $1 million, so again the notion of leveling the playing field.

 

Link?

 

Members of his own party even find him as an extremists. I know he's popular right now with the leftist base because many believe in his socialistic views, but that sits far from mainstream America.

 

About 40% of "mainstream America" believes that the earth and all of its species of life was specially created ten thousand years ago. That argument doesn't pack much punch for me. But regardless, the truth is if you polled Americans issue by issue instead of on scary sounding words from a bygone Cold War era, Bernie Sanders is very much in step with the priorities of your average citizen.

 

 

Here is one of many links that references some of the points I made.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-socialist-surge-119785.html

 

And you and I just are not going to agree. If you truly believe it's the government's responsibility to provide free education, healthcare, and an array of services and benefits, then we have completely different ideological views of what this country was founded upon, and where it should go in the future. America became a great nation founded upon capitalism, striving to be the best at what you did, because you were not guaranteed a free handout from the government. The American people have always been hardworking to get ahead. Also, when you look at the Consitution, the only mandatory powers granted to the Federal Government per Article 4, Section 4 is that it must " guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” There is nothing in the Constitution that states that it's the Governments job to provide healthcare, free tuition, and many other services we currently provide.

 

I honestly hope that Sanders gets the Democratic nomination so we can have a true debate with a self-proclaimed Socialist as one of the party's nominees.

 

 

Man, you keep tossing the word socialist out there like a grenade that plunked in your foxhole. I know he's a socialist; a self-proclaimed democratic socialist. I don't even know where to begin with that Politico article, but the authors apparently believe as you do that simply repeating the fact over and over will somehow make me head for the fire escape. Relax. I'm guessing by the avatar and the general feeling of your writing that you would identify as some kind of political conservative. Well let me tell you, linking to an article about European politics and "mainstream America" is a bad idea. Most western European countries don't even have a word for what the right wing is in the States, much less a serious party that embodies our national brand of fear and loathing.

 

So you mean to tell me that you envision an America with no public education system, no roads, bridges, tunnels, trains, or airports––no welfare or public good of any kind––no space or scientific research programs, no effort to protect climate or human health, no police force (Article 4 Section 4 seems to indicate nothing about domestic violence), and no public services? Just a military big enough to bat away the Hun bastards whichever way they come? Can you point me to which founding father had that in mind? And if you can, could you then explain why I should care? It ain't 1776 anymore. I think at best you're presenting a knockdown case for another amendment.

[Hedley Lamarr]

Rand Paul....end thread

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

For starters, he wants to take Obamacare and move it even further to the left and have a Medicare for all single-payer system. The American Public still despises Obamacare and the notion of the government taking such a key role in medical care. A single-payer system that Sanders advocates is the ultimate example of socialism and redistribution of wealth.

 

It's like you didn't read my second paragraph, man. I'm in favor of redistributing wealth in order to provide our country with a maximally beneficial system of healthcare. The left has been consistent about this point: many did not like Obamacare because it was frankly too conservative. It failed to even include a public option in the health insurance exchanges, much less get us on par with the vast majority of developed democracies where citizens pay nothing out of pocket for an ER visit. If we call our single-payer system Medicare, it's a good a word as any. You're presumably in favor of redistributing wealth to fund our military (and unless you want to go to the Roman rape and pillage model or something, you don't have many other options). I consider your health to be on par with our national defense in terms of our political priorities.

 

To help pay for this, he wants to raise marginal tax rates ABOVE 50%. No person, on matter how successful they are, should be forced to pay more than half of their income to any government, especially our federal government that is highly corrupt and does not spend our tax dollars well.

 

I agree that no person should have half their income taken to fund needless wars in the Middle East (or anywhere else). However let's pretend that everyone in the country was taxed at 50%, and out of that you were guaranteed healthcare, education from preschool through graduate school, top-rated infrastructure, social security, defense from all enemies foreign and domestic, accessible public transportation, a basic standard of living, etc. I fail to see the horror in there. It sounds like getting what you pay for.

 

Oh, and under the socialist president Dwight D. Eisenhower, the top marginal tax rates for people making over 150,000$ was 90%. Corporate taxes was around 50%.

 

He also want to have the government pay for everyone's tuition (offering free 4-year tuition to all).

 

Yeah, I know. I said that already. But what a terrific idea! We can join socialist Germany, who provides free tuition to all European and international students, or France, or the Netherlands, or Sweden. Etc, etc.

 

He's stated in the past that no person should ever be able to earn more than $1 million, so again the notion of leveling the playing field.

 

Link?

 

Members of his own party even find him as an extremists. I know he's popular right now with the leftist base because many believe in his socialistic views, but that sits far from mainstream America.

 

About 40% of "mainstream America" believes that the earth and all of its species of life was specially created ten thousand years ago. That argument doesn't pack much punch for me. But regardless, the truth is if you polled Americans issue by issue instead of on scary sounding words from a bygone Cold War era, Bernie Sanders is very much in step with the priorities of your average citizen.

 

 

Here is one of many links that references some of the points I made.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-socialist-surge-119785.html

 

And you and I just are not going to agree. If you truly believe it's the government's responsibility to provide free education, healthcare, and an array of services and benefits, then we have completely different ideological views of what this country was founded upon, and where it should go in the future. America became a great nation founded upon capitalism, striving to be the best at what you did, because you were not guaranteed a free handout from the government. The American people have always been hardworking to get ahead. Also, when you look at the Consitution, the only mandatory powers granted to the Federal Government per Article 4, Section 4 is that it must " guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” There is nothing in the Constitution that states that it's the Governments job to provide healthcare, free tuition, and many other services we currently provide.

 

I honestly hope that Sanders gets the Democratic nomination so we can have a true debate with a self-proclaimed Socialist as one of the party's nominees.

 

 

Man, you keep tossing the word socialist out there like a grenade that plunked in your foxhole. I know he's a socialist; a self-proclaimed democratic socialist. I don't even know where to begin with that Politico article, but the authors apparently believe as you do that simply repeating the fact over and over will somehow make me head for the fire escape. Relax. I'm guessing by the avatar and the general feeling of your writing that you would identify as some kind of political conservative. Well let me tell you, linking to an article about European politics and "mainstream America" is a bad idea. Most western European countries don't even have a word for what the right wing is in the States, much less a serious party that embodies our national brand of fear and loathing.

 

So you mean to tell me that you envision an America with no public education system, no roads, bridges, tunnels, trains, or airports––no welfare or public good of any kind––no space or scientific research programs, no effort to protect climate or human health, no police force (Article 4 Section 4 seems to indicate nothing about domestic violence), and no public services? Just a military big enough to bat away the Hun bastards whichever way they come? Can you point me to which founding father had that in mind? And if you can, could you then explain why I should care? It ain't 1776 anymore. I think at best you're presenting a knockdown case for another amendment.

 

 

Hey, if you are a Socialist, more power to you. I don't think that is the mainstream of America, but I can tell you are proud of falling on that side of the political spectrum. There is a reason that America had a tea party and declared its Independence from Britain 200 years ago, and it was not to become another European political state. And you should reread Article 4 Section 4...it states exactly what I said.

 

As for your 2nd paragraph, it makes no sense. I never said there is no purpose for government, but I do advocate limited government. I think education is a great example of something that can best be handled at the local level, not the federal level. That's the tendency of leftists to make the assumption that those believing in limited government want no government. There is a huge difference.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

For starters, he wants to take Obamacare and move it even further to the left and have a Medicare for all single-payer system. The American Public still despises Obamacare and the notion of the government taking such a key role in medical care. A single-payer system that Sanders advocates is the ultimate example of socialism and redistribution of wealth.

 

It's like you didn't read my second paragraph, man. I'm in favor of redistributing wealth in order to provide our country with a maximally beneficial system of healthcare. The left has been consistent about this point: many did not like Obamacare because it was frankly too conservative. It failed to even include a public option in the health insurance exchanges, much less get us on par with the vast majority of developed democracies where citizens pay nothing out of pocket for an ER visit. If we call our single-payer system Medicare, it's a good a word as any. You're presumably in favor of redistributing wealth to fund our military (and unless you want to go to the Roman rape and pillage model or something, you don't have many other options). I consider your health to be on par with our national defense in terms of our political priorities.

 

To help pay for this, he wants to raise marginal tax rates ABOVE 50%. No person, on matter how successful they are, should be forced to pay more than half of their income to any government, especially our federal government that is highly corrupt and does not spend our tax dollars well.

 

I agree that no person should have half their income taken to fund needless wars in the Middle East (or anywhere else). However let's pretend that everyone in the country was taxed at 50%, and out of that you were guaranteed healthcare, education from preschool through graduate school, top-rated infrastructure, social security, defense from all enemies foreign and domestic, accessible public transportation, a basic standard of living, etc. I fail to see the horror in there. It sounds like getting what you pay for.

 

Oh, and under the socialist president Dwight D. Eisenhower, the top marginal tax rates for people making over 150,000$ was 90%. Corporate taxes was around 50%.

 

He also want to have the government pay for everyone's tuition (offering free 4-year tuition to all).

 

Yeah, I know. I said that already. But what a terrific idea! We can join socialist Germany, who provides free tuition to all European and international students, or France, or the Netherlands, or Sweden. Etc, etc.

 

He's stated in the past that no person should ever be able to earn more than $1 million, so again the notion of leveling the playing field.

 

Link?

 

Members of his own party even find him as an extremists. I know he's popular right now with the leftist base because many believe in his socialistic views, but that sits far from mainstream America.

 

About 40% of "mainstream America" believes that the earth and all of its species of life was specially created ten thousand years ago. That argument doesn't pack much punch for me. But regardless, the truth is if you polled Americans issue by issue instead of on scary sounding words from a bygone Cold War era, Bernie Sanders is very much in step with the priorities of your average citizen.

 

 

Here is one of many links that references some of the points I made.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-socialist-surge-119785.html

 

And you and I just are not going to agree. If you truly believe it's the government's responsibility to provide free education, healthcare, and an array of services and benefits, then we have completely different ideological views of what this country was founded upon, and where it should go in the future. America became a great nation founded upon capitalism, striving to be the best at what you did, because you were not guaranteed a free handout from the government. The American people have always been hardworking to get ahead. Also, when you look at the Consitution, the only mandatory powers granted to the Federal Government per Article 4, Section 4 is that it must " guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” There is nothing in the Constitution that states that it's the Governments job to provide healthcare, free tuition, and many other services we currently provide.

 

I honestly hope that Sanders gets the Democratic nomination so we can have a true debate with a self-proclaimed Socialist as one of the party's nominees.

 

 

Man, you keep tossing the word socialist out there like a grenade that plunked in your foxhole. I know he's a socialist; a self-proclaimed democratic socialist. I don't even know where to begin with that Politico article, but the authors apparently believe as you do that simply repeating the fact over and over will somehow make me head for the fire escape. Relax. I'm guessing by the avatar and the general feeling of your writing that you would identify as some kind of political conservative. Well let me tell you, linking to an article about European politics and "mainstream America" is a bad idea. Most western European countries don't even have a word for what the right wing is in the States, much less a serious party that embodies our national brand of fear and loathing.

 

So you mean to tell me that you envision an America with no public education system, no roads, bridges, tunnels, trains, or airports––no welfare or public good of any kind––no space or scientific research programs, no effort to protect climate or human health, no police force (Article 4 Section 4 seems to indicate nothing about domestic violence), and no public services? Just a military big enough to bat away the Hun bastards whichever way they come? Can you point me to which founding father had that in mind? And if you can, could you then explain why I should care? It ain't 1776 anymore. I think at best you're presenting a knockdown case for another amendment.

 

 

Hey, if you are a Socialist, more power to you. I don't think that is the mainstream of America, but I can tell you are proud of falling on that side of the political spectrum. There is a reason that America had a tea party and declared its Independence from Britain 200 years ago, and it was not to become another European political state. And you should reread Article 4 Section 4...it states exactly what I said.

 

As for your 2nd paragraph, it makes no sense. I never said there is no purpose for government, but I do advocate limited government. I think education is a great example of something that can best be handled at the local level, not the federal level. That's the tendency of leftists to make the assumption that those believing in limited government want no government. There is a huge difference.

 

 

I'm confused as to how the bolded sentence relates to anything in this topic. You're looking back over 200 years ago. Democratic socialism wasn't a thing, then. The reasons America declared independence aren't relevant to this conversation.

[ZRod]

 

 

 

 

For starters, he wants to take Obamacare and move it even further to the left and have a Medicare for all single-payer system. The American Public still despises Obamacare and the notion of the government taking such a key role in medical care. A single-payer system that Sanders advocates is the ultimate example of socialism and redistribution of wealth.

 

It's like you didn't read my second paragraph, man. I'm in favor of redistributing wealth in order to provide our country with a maximally beneficial system of healthcare. The left has been consistent about this point: many did not like Obamacare because it was frankly too conservative. It failed to even include a public option in the health insurance exchanges, much less get us on par with the vast majority of developed democracies where citizens pay nothing out of pocket for an ER visit. If we call our single-payer system Medicare, it's a good a word as any. You're presumably in favor of redistributing wealth to fund our military (and unless you want to go to the Roman rape and pillage model or something, you don't have many other options). I consider your health to be on par with our national defense in terms of our political priorities.

 

To help pay for this, he wants to raise marginal tax rates ABOVE 50%. No person, on matter how successful they are, should be forced to pay more than half of their income to any government, especially our federal government that is highly corrupt and does not spend our tax dollars well.[/size]

 

I agree that no person should have half their income taken to fund needless wars in the Middle East (or anywhere else). However let's pretend that everyone in the country was taxed at 50%, and out of that you were guaranteed healthcare, education from preschool through graduate school, top-rated infrastructure, social security, defense from all enemies foreign and domestic, accessible public transportation, a basic standard of living, etc. I fail to see the horror in there. It sounds like getting what you pay for.

 

Oh, and under the socialist president Dwight D. Eisenhower, the top marginal tax rates for people making over 150,000$ was 90%. Corporate taxes was around 50%.

 

He also want to have the government pay for everyone's tuition (offering free 4-year tuition to all).

Yeah, I know. I said that already. But what a terrific idea! We can join socialist Germany, who provides free tuition to all European and international students, or France, or the Netherlands, or Sweden. Etc, etc.

 

He's stated in the past that no person should ever be able to earn more than $1 million, so again the notion of leveling the playing field.[/size]

 

Link?

 

Members of his own party even find him as an extremists. I know he's popular right now with the leftist base because many believe in his socialistic views, but that sits far from mainstream America.[/size]

 

About 40% of "mainstream America" believes that the earth and all of its species of life was specially created ten thousand years ago. That argument doesn't pack much punch for me. But regardless, the truth is if you polled Americans issue by issue instead of on scary sounding words from a bygone Cold War era, Bernie Sanders is very much in step with the priorities of your average citizen.

Here is one of many links that references some of the points I made.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-socialist-surge-119785.html

 

And you and I just are not going to agree. If you truly believe it's the government's responsibility to provide free education, healthcare, and an array of services and benefits, then we have completely different ideological views of what this country was founded upon, and where it should go in the future. America became a great nation founded upon capitalism, striving to be the best at what you did, because you were not guaranteed a free handout from the government. The American people have always been hardworking to get ahead. Also, when you look at the Consitution, the only mandatory powers granted to the Federal Government per Article 4, Section 4 is that it must " guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion. There is nothing in the Constitution that states that it's the Governments job to provide healthcare, free tuition, and many other services we currently provide. [/size]

 

I honestly hope that Sanders gets the Democratic nomination so we can have a true debate with a self-proclaimed Socialist as one of the party's nominees.

Man, you keep tossing the word socialist out there like a grenade that plunked in your foxhole. I know he's a socialist; a self-proclaimed democratic socialist. I don't even know where to begin with that Politico article, but the authors apparently believe as you do that simply repeating the fact over and over will somehow make me head for the fire escape. Relax. I'm guessing by the avatar and the general feeling of your writing that you would identify as some kind of political conservative. Well let me tell you, linking to an article about European politics and "mainstream America" is a bad idea. Most western European countries don't even have a word for what the right wing is in the States, much less a serious party that embodies our national brand of fear and loathing.

 

So you mean to tell me that you envision an America with no public education system, no roads, bridges, tunnels, trains, or airportsno welfare or public good of any kindno space or scientific research programs, no effort to protect climate or human health, no police force (Article 4 Section 4 seems to indicate nothing about domestic violence), and no public services? Just a military big enough to bat away the Hun bastards whichever way they come? Can you point me to which founding father had that in mind? And if you can, could you then explain why I should care? It ain't 1776 anymore. I think at best you're presenting a knockdown case for another amendment.

Hey, if you are a Socialist, more power to you. I don't think that is the mainstream of America, but I can tell you are proud of falling on that side of the political spectrum. There is a reason that America had a tea party and declared its Independence from Britain 200 years ago, and it was not to become another European political state. And you should reread Article 4 Section 4...it states exactly what I said.

 

As for your 2nd paragraph, it makes no sense. I never said there is no purpose for government, but I do advocate limited government. I think education is a great example of something that can best be handled at the local level, not the federal level. That's the tendency of leftists to make the assumption that those believing in limited government want no government. There is a huge difference.

Education works great at the local level! We're falling behind internationally, Texas is basically rewriting the history it teaches young kids every day, and we have young adults saddled with educational related debt into their 30s and sometimes beyound.

 

Oh, and did I mention Kansas's educational funding is basically f'd now because of their genius governor and his trickle down plan?

[True2tRA]

Hey, somebody is making a lot of money though! So it's all okay.

 

As long as someone is getting rich.

[Landlord]

 

And you and I just are not going to agree. If you truly believe it's the government's responsibility to provide free education, healthcare, and an array of services and benefits, then we have completely different ideological views of what this country was founded upon, and where it should go in the future.

 

 

 

Forget history and what we were founded upon for a second. Why, exactly, shouldn't the government provide these things if they are able? What is the logical and rational reason why this is a bad thing? I just don't get it, the only argument I here is that, "WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT OUR COUNTRY HAS DONE" or something.

 

 

Further, I've just never really understood why people place the Constitution in such high regard. It's a vaguely worded document written by imperfect men within the context of their specific culture and time. It's not some omniscient force of purity to base life on, imo.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

And you and I just are not going to agree. If you truly believe it's the government's responsibility to provide free education, healthcare, and an array of services and benefits, then we have completely different ideological views of what this country was founded upon, and where it should go in the future.

 

 

Forget history and what we were founded upon for a second. Why, exactly, shouldn't the government provide these things if they are able? What is the logical and rational reason why this is a bad thing? I just don't get it, the only argument I here is that, "WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT OUR COUNTRY HAS DONE" or something.

 

 

Further, I've just never really understood why people place the Constitution in such high regard. It's a vaguely worded document written by imperfect men within the context of their specific culture and time. It's not some omniscient force of purity to base life on, imo.

Well if the country were not $17 trillion in debt and if we were running huge surpluses, sure it would be great to provide everyone free health care, free tuition, and why don't we throw in a free house and car. But...that is not reality. Moreover, regarding the single payer system referenced above, it was tried in the most progressive state in the union, Vermont, Sanders home state, and the Progressive Governor that pushed to have a single payer system said he would stop pursuing it because the costs were too outrageous, and this is in a very small state with little population. Despite what most liberals think, there is not an appetite in this country to raise taxes to pay for more big government programs.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-single-payer-health-care-failed-in-progressive-paradise-1438382832

[Husker_x]

 

 

 

And you and I just are not going to agree. If you truly believe it's the government's responsibility to provide free education, healthcare, and an array of services and benefits, then we have completely different ideological views of what this country was founded upon, and where it should go in the future.

 

 

Forget history and what we were founded upon for a second. Why, exactly, shouldn't the government provide these things if they are able? What is the logical and rational reason why this is a bad thing? I just don't get it, the only argument I here is that, "WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT OUR COUNTRY HAS DONE" or something.

 

 

Further, I've just never really understood why people place the Constitution in such high regard. It's a vaguely worded document written by imperfect men within the context of their specific culture and time. It's not some omniscient force of purity to base life on, imo.

Well if the country were not $17 trillion in debt and if we were running huge surpluses, sure it would be great to provide everyone free health care, free tuition, and why don't we throw in a free house and car. But...that is not reality. Moreover, regarding the single payer system referenced above, it was tried in the most progressive state in the union, Vermont, Sanders home state, and the Progressive Governor that pushed to have a single payer system said he would stop pursuing it because the costs were too outrageous, and this is in a very small state with little population. Despite what most liberals think, there is not an appetite in this country to raise taxes to pay for more big government programs.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-single-payer-health-care-failed-in-progressive-paradise-1438382832

 

 

Vermont’s public failure is especially frustrating to single-payer advocates because, they note, the Shumlin framework, which had gotten approval of the state legislature minus that key financing element, wasn’t really a true single-payer plan. Notably, large businesses that operate in multiple states would have been exempt. And it was unclear whether or how enrollees in federal plans like Medicare and TRICARE could be integrated into the state’s plan.

 

Link

[TGHusker]

Boy this thread went down a million rabbit trails but good discussion.

I don't think the repbus are too divided at this point. Most of the 17 in the race are in it for attention only IMHO - they want a book deal, they want to be noticed for future political job, etc. Most have no chance and they hopefully know it. It will dwindle quickly once the real fun begins in Iowa and NH.
After S Carolina I expect it to be down to 5 candidates at the most - Rubio, Paul, Walker, Bush and Christie or Ohio Gov Kasich. Overall, the establishment will gang up on Trump - as candidates drop out - I see their support going to one of these 5. Maybe the Ohio governor will replace the NJ governor as Kasich's state is doing better than Christie's state. If one of these 6 puts Trump in his place during the debates (most likely Christie) you will see their stock rise in the polls.