Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Possibly but I am thinking they are going to have a hard time getting a lot of their proposals past the House and SenateNailed it. Sanders or Warren would do so much damage to our economy and I am amazed at the lack of knowledge about socialism in our youth.
There will be a lot of concern about the deficit regardless of what Dem wins the WH. Fiscal responsibility will suddenly become very important.
No it won't. None of these morons even knows what that means. By the time they realize that is important, the world reserve currency will be the Yuan and the USA will be completely ####ed.
Just like when Obama was Prez, if a Dem is in there it will become very troubling.
I stated this way before any of the laughable CBO projections came out years ago that we'd be running trillion dollar deficits until we collapse. They're all dolts, Trump leading the charge with his trillion dollar deficits with the greatest economy we've ever seen. I truly believe he thinks we can just file bankruptcy and it won't be a big deal, not even shtick when I say that, sadly.The General said:
You guys are talking past each other. The General isn't saying that Republicans have a sincere desire to shrink the deficit. He's saying the opposite.
Yes, I fully understand what he is saying. I agree with him. I think they're all irresponsible reckless idiots. Now we have a new breed of progressive dolts leading an even more reckless charge.
time to dust off those tricorn hats and teabagsThe General said:
I agree with most of this.
Bloomberg prostrated himself before Bush in support of the $5.6 trillion dollar war on terror
One of the ways Bloomberg was able to balance the budget was by cutting programs and then using his personal wealth to keep those programs operational. I'm not sure how sustainable that model would be as President.
If you really feel this way, you have zero credibility.
Believes in climate change, gun control, gives away billions to charities. Not a complete dotard.
Are you saying that anyone who isn’t concerned about deficits/debt right now doesn’t understand economics?
Other than Healthcare, climate change, raising minimum wages, stricter gun controls, increase taxes on wealthy, immigration and other policies you might be right
Day One of the Trump presidency yes, Democrats started talking impeachment. This is trueCaptain Cranks said:
This is the wrong thread for the discussion and you're conveniently avoiding the points I'm making, so it's best that we move on.
I'm sure some of them do, but I would equate those that do understand to smokers. They know there is the potential for severe damage, but since the real damage is hypothetically coming many years down the road, they ignore the consequences. It's reckless at best, and the longer they kick the can, the worse it will be. Within 20-30 years tops, the first real shoe in government insolvency is going to drop on Japan, that will give us a taste of what our future beholds.
WowSmack Tripper said:
Thank you! I said this time and time again around here, the amount of “damage” that will be done will be very limited. There’s too many safeguards in place, it’s not like the Republican Party dies the second Bernie is elected. Worst case scenario IF he were able to get a few programs through, which would no doubt be highly compromised like Obamacare, We’re stuck with a few expensive programs that don’t work. A road we’ve been down many many times before btw.Godsbrother said:Possibly but I am thinking they are going to have a hard time getting a lot of their proposals past the House and SenateSneegor said:
I think this may be true to some extent (the most recent tax bill seems like a good example), but I’m leery of deficit hawking as well, especially as many economists have softened their stances on deficits/debt. Deficit spending is something we should do more judiciously, not something we should eliminate. https://www.piie.com/system/files/documents/pb19-2.pdf
Talk is cheap. If the GOP finds the next Democrat president to be as corrupt as Trump then I'll join them in their pursuit.
Really? Amazed? I suspect that they are getting their info from their parents and based on what I read here and elsewhere it is NO surprise that they don't understand socialism. Their parents and grandparents don't either. It just makes me shake my head coming into threads here and elsewhere and people labeling the extension of public school by four years as "socialism"Sneegor said:
I'm fully aware of what he's after. But just as an exercise, can you articulate which of his proposals are "socialist" in your view?
Wasn't Sessions a Republican? I thought he was.Stealthycat said:
Imo, all he has to do is have an African American vp and he can kill most of that talk. Even better if it's a female.
They’re both too wealthy to be bought. No self-respecting minority would share the stage with this guy, and I don’t think even another billion dollars can keeps his history buried.
Can you show me a single one of those plans where any of them proposes that the "community" take over the creation, distribution, and regulation of them? The closest you can point to is the college debt. Am I to assume you think the current bailouts for farmers are "socialist" too and a bad thing? Or the auto bailout? Or SNAP? Or TARP?
Hey, you definitely aren’t convincing him when you have Tim and others running around talking about the scary socialist Bernie.
"For thee, but not for me" should be the official Republican motto.The General said:
Are black voters quietly turning to Mike Bloomberg?
Do you see any problems with capitalism and if so, how would you go about fixing them?
I noticed you didn't answer my questions. And it seems odd that you continue to call it something it's not even though you don't care what it's called. I assume you are latched onto the term because you believe the term carries a negative connotation. That's a popular approach and you certainly aren't alone. What you articulate here is also a popular view however inconsistent it may be. Because I hear it so frequently, I figured it might be wise to try and understand it even if I think it's a gross mischaracterization of what's going on.
Half my facebook feed: "I'll never vote for a socialist! Also keep your grubby hands off my social security! And stop calling it an 'entitlement'!"
You're probably right. I do admit, the most bizarre thing to me in this whole "socialist" debate is that the lack of understanding is rampant. It comes from all directions/sides.
I have this very conversation with my mother frequently. I think I made some headway on education though. She was a teacher and when asked why 13 years of education is not socialist but 17 years is, I get a
"Good point son"
First off no one is giving away free stuff. We all pay for it through taxes and the ever growing deficits. Giving away the enormous tax break to corporations while increasing spending was just reckless unless you feel deficits don't matter and if that is the case you might as well give free stuff to everyone right?
I don’t see how it can be tidied up. Apologizing and “taking responsibility” literally one week before announcing his candidacy is about as cynical as you can get.
A thread explaining in detail the creation of the policy and the destruction.
Beliefs are good if they are based on something concrete...what is your study basis on this?
I've heard this retort before and it's not all that bad, until we realize that people aren't cut out for high school either but we make them go. With college proposals I've seen, none of them are forcing people to go to college like we do high school. The proposals are for those who WANT to go. This kind of fizzles out on the merits if we understand what is actually being proposed.
If these aren't a redistribution of wealth can you explain to me why the wealth gap has grown as quickly as it has since the tax cuts took place? What would you call funneling billions of dollars that would be going to our social programs back to individuals and businesses if not a redistribution of wealth? People seem to struggle with the notion that wealth redistribution doesn't simply mean "take from the rich and give to the poor". What do you call it when Jenny at age 40 with three kids has to rely on SNAP to feed her children because her husband died serving his country has to now feed herself and three kids on $50 less a month because that $50 is now being given to a billionaire or business instead?
2/17 3/17 5/17 7/17 never happens again 11/17 12/17
