2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
- Status
I had to look up who Mossadegh was.Thanks.
It was often brought up on this board that the 'Muslamic' Middle East countries are not ready for democracy, but both the West and the USSR were the culprit in shaping the current political landscape there. If Mossadegh wasn't overthrown, alongside Nasser in Egypt, they could've shaped the region into something much better than the current sectarian and nationalistic atmosphere.
no arguments. you reap what you sow.
http://reverbpress.com/politics/eco...-sanders-policies-cost-america-nothing-video/
Popular Economist Robert Reich Explains That Bernie Sanders’ Programs Are A Good Deal For Americans
Recently, an article was published by the Wall Street Journal attempting to scare Americans into believing that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders would add $18 trillion to the United States debt over a period of 10 years. While that figure is mainly true, it didn’t take economists long to sort out that Sanders policies would actually cost virtually nothing in the long run and would even save Americans $42 trillion we’d normally spend on health care in a decade. In fact, we’d spend more without these government programs.
Here is the image the WSJ used to explain the breakdown for Bernie Sanders’ federal spending and policies:
A financial breakdown of what Senator Bernie Sanders’ policies would cost Americans.Wall Street Journal
Robert Reich, a political economist, said so many people asked him to explain if Sanders’ plan would balloon the federal deficit and dash the dreams of Sanders supporters everywhere that he felt it necessary to respond. Reich said the WSJ’s claim was “bogus” because they dropped a scary number with no further analysis of the impact such policies would have on the country.
Robert Reich explains:
Bernie’s proposals would cost less than what we’d spend without them. Most of the “cost” the Journal comes up with—$15 trillion—would pay for opening Medicare to everyone. This would be cheaper than relying on our current system of for-profit private health insurers that charge you and me huge administrative costs, advertising, marketing, bloated executive salaries, and high pharmaceutical prices. (Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, estimates a Medicare-for-all system would actually save all of us $10 trillion over 10 years).
In fact, Americans already pay four times more for private health insurance and other social services than people pay in taxes for the same services in democratic socialist countries. So when people claim, “Socialist countries pay high taxes!” We can set them straight and say, “We pay higher prices to fund greedy fecks’ lavish lifestyles.”
Robert Reich continued:
“The savings from Medicare-for-all would more than cover the costs of the rest of Bernie’s agenda—tuition-free education at public colleges, expanded Social Security benefits, improved infrastructure, and a fund to help cover paid family leave – and still leave us $2 trillion to cut federal deficits for the next ten years.
“Many of these other “costs” would also otherwise be paid by individuals and families — for example, in college tuition and private insurance. So they shouldn’t be considered added costs for the country as a whole, and may well save us money.”
Think about the implications that shifting the burden of paying for expensive services like health care and education off the backs of the working class and businesses will have on our economy.
The working class are the drivers of the economy. They are far greater in number and spend most of their money on products and services in order to cover their basic needs. Allowing them to keep their money in regards to insurance, child care and college puts more money in their pockets to spend. When the working class has more money to spend, they spend it, or they save it for rainy days and retirement. This creates greater consumer confidence and better financial security, and those at the top also fare well, because now more people are buying up their products and services. The demand for these products and services creates a need for more jobs, and voila, the economy is strong.
Lastly, Robert Reich says:
“Finally, Bernie’s proposed spending on education and infrastructure aren’t really “spending” at all, but investments in the nation’s future productivity. If we don’t make them, we’re all poorer.
“That Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal would do this giant dump on Bernie, based on misinformation and distortion, confirms Bernie’s status as the candidate willing to take on the moneyed interests that the Wall Street Journal represents.”
So Robert Reich thinks that Sanders has the one percent scared out of their wits because his message is resonating so well. Rupert Murdoch can’t seem to scare people with the word “socialism” any longer, now he’s trying a more nuanced approach by spreading misinformation that our national debt will skyrocket under Bernie which will “cost” everyone more money when it won’t, because he really doesn’t want Americans to figure out that trickle-down economics is a sham.
But, Americans are waking up and realizing that their government belongs to them, not the rich, and that when the working class is stronger the country gets stronger. A weak country is apathetic and will relinquish control to those with self-serving agendas. Bernie Sanders has started a political revolution, regardless if he becomes the democratic nominee or not, and it has the greedy class of this country scared out of their wits because they see the majority of Americans are now fighting to take back that control — and that’s a good thing.
Robert Reich has a new book coming out called Saving Capitalism which hits shelves Sept. 29
My question about his plan, I will pay more taxes will they pay me more since they don't have to pay me my health insurance?
No they won't pay you more but you will get shaken down by the government to redistribute your wealth to pay for Sanders' policies, which is why this will never fly. These schemes where taxes go up but people are told they will recoup their losses with savings in other areas will never be accepted by the voters.
Even if it's true? (Which I'm not saying it is)
So what's the alternative? Maintain the status quo? See the disgustingly wealthy get wealthier, the middle class become poorer and the poor descend into abject poverty? The fact that there are people in the US who are living in real poverty when there is also trillions of dollars in personal wealth is obscene.
But that's the American Dream isn't it? Any of these poor people, if they work hard enough can be as rich as any of these billionaires.
Bloomberg wouldn't actually run, right?
Getting genuinely concerned now that President Trump isn't all that long a shot...
Getting genuinely concerned now that President Trump isn't all that long a shot...
if you want more health insurance, you can have it. Think Australia does this.
Europeans accept it. It is a mind set. A German businessman said this. I do not want to be a rich man in a poor country. That is what is happening here...fast.
he wont run.
I had to look up who Mossadegh was.
I was (pleasantly) shocked when I saw his name mentioned. Between them, the Soviets and Americans managed to destroy all the good things in Afghanistan too...
Who would the Republican nominee have to be to force you to hold your nose and vote for Bernie in a hypothetical general? Trump/Cruz or Bush/Rubio?
we were right to take out Al Queda. But should never have stayed on. But if you look at history, there have been far too many cases where we have not respected the will of the people in other countries. The West is still paying for so many of these acts. We need to change our foreign policy. I think Obama has done this to a large extent. Not simply sending troops.
I'm talking about the 80s/90s. When the US/Pakistan funded and trained the most extreme mujahideen faction (the Taliban) to oppose the Afghan commies and Soviet troops in Afghanistan. And the Soviets were there because they intervened to preserve a ruler friendly to them.
Glad to see Mossadegh mentioned in this thread. Lest we forget that the Middle East was believe it or not a largely secular collection of states. Mossadegh, early Ba'athists, Gamal Abdel Nasser, the PLO, all antagonised while empowering radical Islamists. And yet we still want to replace Assad with a ragtag bunch of Islamists linked to Al Qaeda.
two or more wrongs do not make a right. Are you content with Assad commiting genocide? wiping out his own people? Does not matter what sect a leader is. Wrong is wrong.
every time we trained any group, they have ended up turning their guns on us. I'm not saying there is a time where we should send in ground troops. The simple fact is that never ends atrocities. many still die. We need to get a coalition of local governments. Unfortunately no one really trusts the West anymore. And I don't blame them.
Genocide? Assad is by no means the good guy but that's a huge distortion of the whole picture. The only 'genocide' that will likely occur will be that of the Christians, Alawites and other minorities at the hands of the Islamist opposition.
coming back to Hillary. What is she offerring other than a third Obama term. What radical new proposal? All I hear is she will be better than any of the Republicans. Ok? Stating the obvious. Is that enough to bring excitment to the race.
The key issue this election is voters are fed up with the status quo. What voters are asking is 'how will my lot improve'. Its not enough to say I will not be as bad as the other guy.
The key issue this election is voters are fed up with the status quo. What voters are asking is 'how will my lot improve'. Its not enough to say I will not be as bad as the other guy.
so how many people has he killed then...or will he be willing to kill.
EDIT:
or are you saying all the people he killed deserved to die?
I don't know how you came to that conclusion.
I'm simply stating it's a bad idea to forcibly replace a secular dictator with unstable Islamists, many of whom are affiliated with Al Qaeda. This has been proven numerous times in the past.
I will say this though. He and Al Queda Or ISIS are all killers. I do agree that the US should not be sending ground troops. He needs to be contained/gone and such an event can only happen if all parties in that region agree with the US and Russia also being involved in any talks, because one way or another these powers are already involved and will be in some form.
My interests are foreign policy and economics, so any establishment candidate would do - Clinton, Bush, Kasich, Christie etc
And if the election throws up Sanders v Trump?
I'd probably abstain if those were the choices. Sanders wouldn't beat him, and even if he won, he would be dead in the water from day one.
I'd love another Obama term. She's basically a hawkish version of him.
The left doesn't do well when the populace is angry and fearful, unless you're talking about a full on revulotion, coup d' état stuff. France, UK, you name it, very recently. A Sanders GE win is a pipe dream. He does well now in head to head poll wise because it's largely about likeability at this point. When it's time to vote, Americans are still too centre-right or full on right wing to elect a left wing statist.
I think he would run if he thought Hillary looked vulnerable against a GOP opponent.
It is important everyone who is eligible to vote, does so. The more people who participate in the process, the more representative our government will be.
America would have the choice to become a bit more like the rest of the world... Or go full on nutter with a side order of racism, warmongering.
I actually think a Sanders victory in the democrats primary will give Trump his best chance of victory.
Whatever happens I can see the contest being very divisive.
Surely Sanders as well then?
Obama just did an interview, more or less effectively endorsed Hillary.
Obama is a proper part of establishment now, ofcourse he is gonna endorse Hillary. Sanders is never going to get the nomination. My prediction is Clinton vs Rubio with latter winning it.
Off topic surely
But just to add my 2 cents, as usual you give too much credit to Indian judges to believe that their own personal biases don't play any part. Also at certain level judges in India are promoted on recommendation by State level chief ministers. None will be eligible for top jobs if they don't attain such promotions first.What is the obsession with Benghazi
You can make some good money if you back your Rubio prediction 5/2 at the moment
But in Europe people may not pay that much for propriety tax and in New Jersey is a big issue if I have to pay more taxes then I will bring home less money. I'm paying more than 10k taxes a year for my house, insurance went up, prescriptions went way up so which benefits the middle class will get with his plan? That's the reason I think socialism is the cancer for any society, takes the money from the working people and distributes with the people with no ambition at all, you know the ones all their life on welfare.
You live in NJ?
What are your thoughts on Chris Christie?
As for your point about socialism, I think Bernie Sanders is talking more about taxing the 1% more, not the middle class.
You feel the general population will vote for Rubio?
He will not make it past the primaries IMO...Trump and Cruz have 1st and 2nd places locked down.
Benghazi is a tragedy that was sensationalized by the GOP to make money and to drive Hillary's poll numbers down, and they succeeded in doing both.
If 9/11 occurred during the Obama tenure, they would act the same....sadly it is part of Politics as usual these days.
- Status