The Trump Card...

[cheri1122]

Quote from that article:

Allen Gear, a Republican member of the Board of Aldermen since 1979, looking back over Sanders’s tenure as mayor, says, “He’s done things I don’t think we Republicans could have done, because the two traditional parties in a town like this are very close. We interact with each other on business over coffee, over tea, crumpets and marmalade, if you will, and it would have been very hard for us, us being Republicans, if we had the Chief Executive’s spot, to have done some of the things Bernie has done ... He’s taken a lot of very Republican ideas and put them in place. Such as combining all of the garages of the various city departments and putting them into a single public-works department, initially a Republican proposal, to gain efficiency in handling city rolling stock ... He’s put a lot of modern accounting practices and money-management practices into place that are good Republican business practices ... And he has surrounded himself with some very talented, vigorous people.”

This sounds like quite a different man than you described.
As the article notes, Sanders also works very hard, talks [and listens] to his constituents, doesn't pretend to know it all, and most important: he does not lie about who he is, what he can do, what is important to him, or anything, really. He is authentic, and that inspires people as no other candidate can. That he also happens to be an effective manager and legislator is why I think he deserves serious consideration..

 

[Turtle]

This sounds like quite a different man than you described.

That snippet is also not even remotely close to being representative of the article, or of Sanders, and you know it. I chose not to piecemeal the article in snippets, so as not to misrepresent the man or his history.

 

[iceroadtrucker]

 

[JohnWC]

They won't take their marbles elsewhere, John, trust me. If they knew of a 'better' place to live, they'd have moved out already. It's not like they have loyalty to their country, or to anything, other than more: money, status, etc.
Which part of "the flat tax is NOT fair for everybody" is hard to understand?

I think the % would be so low it wouldn't hurt anybody
And right now people who use the most of stuff pay no taxes
How fair is that
The rich have tax shelters so they don't have to pay that high %
So it still falls on the middle class to pay

 

[xiggi]

Which part of "the flat tax is NOT fair for everybody" is hard to understand?

In who's opinion? Are you making the claim that unless the wealthy pay a higher percentage of their income it would not be fair. I would veiw that as unfair.

You do realize most any flat tax proposal has exemptions or credits for the first x amount of money earned?

 

[JohnWC]

In who's opinion? Are you making the claim that unless the wealthy pay a higher percentage of their income it would not be fair. I would veiw that as unfair.

You do realize most any flat tax proposal has exemptions or credits for the first x amount of money earned?

I'm saying no deductible if you make 1 dollar a hour you pay the same % as someone making 100 dollars a hour

 

[xiggi]

Sorry John I thought I qouted cheri. Oh I did lol.

 

[JohnWC]

Yea

 

[davekc]

Everyone should have "some skin in the game". Just my opinion unless they are truly unable to contribute.
Wouldn't be totally opposed to a VAT tax if it is implemented correctly. Then you could lower the rates because you would pull money from the underground economy. Poor would pay little because they don't buy much, and the rich would "pay their fair share" as they make purchases.

 

[cheri1122]

In who's opinion? Are you making the claim that unless the wealthy pay a higher percentage of their income it would not be fair. I would veiw that as unfair.

You do realize most any flat tax proposal has exemptions or credits for the first x amount of money earned?

Yes, but that wasn't specified in the OP, so I don't know whether he is aware - nor do I know whether the 'X' amounts are reasonable.
I know that right now, legislators are proposing to raise the retirement age, [again!] to bring more money into Social Security. Those who are actually working for a living know what a toll the physical labor takes after decades, and those are the people who will be penalized.
They're not proposing to raise the income cap, which wouldn't harm people, are they? That's why I don't trust their 'solutions': they always hit those who can least afford it, while avoiding those who can bankroll their campaigns. [And often, life after leaving 'public service'] It's morally bankrupt.

PS JohnWC clarified: "no deductible". Point made.

 

[cheri1122]

That snippet is also not even remotely close to being representative of the article, or of Sanders, and you know it. I chose not to piecemeal the article in snippets, so as not to misrepresent the man or his history.

I think it's a good counterpoint to the images evoked by the word 'socialist'. Sanders is an effective administrator who can work with opposing ideologies and get things done. Somehow, the word 'socialist' just doesn't promote that view of him. It may not be representative of the article, but of Sanders' abilities & strengths, I think it's a fair representation. As for his history, would a study of Hillary Clinton in college tell us anything much about how she works today? How about Ted Cruz? No one is writing articles about how they were, in their 'salad days'. [I don't know about Cruz, but HRC was a pretty attractive coed, lol, and that's not an image anyone wants to preserve.] But Sanders as a wild eyed radical leftist? It's on!
Sanders is maligned for the 'Socialist' label, but he should be judged on who he is and what he believes, his integrity, honesty, and ability. I think he's the best man for the job - someone who can be trusted, even if his choices aren't the ones we'd most like him to make. Negotiation and compromise are sadly lacking in the other candidates, IMO.
One thing I especially admire is his refusal to be sidetracked into irrelevant issues, or to be baited into attacking his opponents. He sees his job as talking about his views of the issues, and he does his job well.

 

[Turtle]

I think it's a good counterpoint to the images evoked by the word 'socialist'.

Not to mention it totally deflects attention away from the word.

As for his history, would a study of Hillary Clinton in college tell us anything much about how she works today?

A study limited to her college days, probably not. But a study of her college days and how attitudes and philosophies developed at that time have been applied over her career absolutely.

No one is writing articles about how they were, in their 'salad days'.

Not at the moment, mainly because those articles have already been written, most of them back when Bill was president and she was spearheading universal healthcare. But for example, in one of those many stories written about her college career, it was shown that while at Wellesley College in Massachusetts, she became head of the local chapter of the Young Republicans, and within a year of becoming the head of that organization she began to turn leftward in her politics, campaigning for Eugene McCarthy for president, organizing the school's first teach-ins on the Vietnam War. She wrote her senior thesis on poverty and community development. She graduated in 1969 with a degree in political science. Like Sanders' background story, that information gives Clinton's actions and attitudes some context that is impossible if she was looked at in the bubble of the present.

Sanders is maligned for the 'Socialist' label, but he should be judged on who he is and what he believes, his integrity, honesty, and ability.

Well, gee, he believes in entitlements for the middle class, he believes in public ownership of the means of production (which means the tools and capital to make things) and a democratic political system to elect the officials to oversee that means of production, and he cites Eugene Debs, the five-time presidential candidate of the Socialist Party of America, as his hero. So, clearly, he is being judged on who he is and what he believes.

 

[xiggi]

PS JohnWC clarified: "no deductible". Point made.

You stated flat taxes are not fair to some, you weren't pointing out how john thought thought it should work you didn't even know at that time . I don't think he is writing any legislation so your safe.. It's rather obvious your feelings about things that you feel hurt the less fortunate.

 

[davekc]

Yes, but that wasn't specified in the OP, so I don't know whether he is aware - nor do I know whether the 'X' amounts are reasonable.
I know that right now, legislators are proposing to raise the retirement age, [again!] to bring more money into Social Security. Those who are actually working for a living know what a toll the physical labor takes after decades, and those are the people who will be penalized.
They're not proposing to raise the income cap, which wouldn't harm people, are they? That's why I don't trust their 'solutions': they always hit those who can least afford it, while avoiding those who can bankroll their campaigns. [And often, life after leaving 'public service'] It's morally bankrupt.

PS JohnWC clarified: "no deductible". Point made.

This is one of those penalties for those that thought Obamacare was such a great thing. Had to rob a portion of SS to pay for Ocare. When you are 18.5 trillion in the hole, have to pull the money from somewhere.

 

[cheri1122]

This is one of those penalties for those that thought Obamacare was such a great thing. Had to rob a portion of SS to pay for Ocare. When you are 18.5 trillion in the hole, have to pull the money from somewhere.

According to Chris Christie, SS was raided to make up shortfalls in the General Fund. You can blame it on Obamacare, but whatever the reason, the SS Trust Fund should be reserved solely for SS benefits - and people should be screaming bloody murder about it. But how much media coverage does the issue get?
Christie is one who proposes raising the retirement age - no big deal when your 'job' is as physically demanding as his, right? Not to mention having had proper medical care your entire life, which the less fortunate go without.
Both raiding the fund and raising the retirement age are a betrayal of the people who spent many decades contributing to the fund, and were promised the return of their money when they reach 65. If there is a shortage of funds, the obvious solution is to increase contributions, by raising the income cap that currently allows people to pay into the fund the same amount whether they earn $118,00 or $1 million. Raising the cap would not harm them, as raising the retirement age and/or cutting benefits would harm many of those affected. It's a no brainer, so why are the Republicans choosing to harm people who really, truly, actually have worked hard all their lives?
This country was founded on brains good enough to write the Constitution, but it was built by people willing to get their hands dirty by literally building everything it contains [outside of flora & fauna]. Such people deserve much more than the contempt of the current 'leaders' who would cheerfully take the bread from their table, to pander to their own.

 

[cheri1122]

You stated flat taxes are not fair to some, you weren't pointing out how john thought thought it should work you didn't even know at that time . I don't think he is writing any legislation so your safe.. It's rather obvious your feelings about things that you feel hurt the less fortunate.

No sh#t, Sherlock, lol. Maybe the fact that I was a nurse could be a clue: I have a strong need to nurture & protect those who are in need of it. Many others do also, and society needs us as much as any other class/group that contributes to the general welfare, without looking to 'get rich'. Not that there's anything wrong with getting rich [provided it's done without deception or coercion], it's just not something I care that much about. I care about making our society a good place for everyone who is willing to work, and for those who cannot, as well.

 

[Turtle]

When people start living to an average age of 130, should the retirement age still be set at the current 67 years? When the program was first instituted, the life expectancy of people reaching the age 65 was 77.4 years for men, and 79.7 for women. Since the program first began paying monthly Social Security benefits in 1940, the average life expectancy for men reaching age 65 has increased nearly 7 years to age 84.3, for women reaching age 65, their average life expectancy has increased nearly 7 years to age 86.6. So, if you think the retirement age should still be 65, then you have to concede to ceasing all Social Security benefits when people reach 77.4 years for men and 79.7 years for women, just as the program intended.

The full retirement age of 65 was set in 1935, when few people lived longer than that. In 1983 the full retirement age was raised to 67. but only for those born in 1960 or later, and was a gradual increase that took 22 years to go from 65 to 67. So the only people affected by raising it from 65 to 67 were those 23 years old or younger. So no, raising it from 65 to 67 wasn't any sort of "betrayal of the people who spent many decades contributing to the fund, and were promised the return of their money when they reach 65." Sheesh.

 

[cheri1122]

Not to mention it totally deflects attention away from the word.

A study limited to her college days, probably not. But a study of her college days and how attitudes and philosophies developed at that time have been applied over her career absolutely. Not at the moment, mainly because those articles have already been written, most of them back when Bill was president and she was spearheading universal healthcare. But for example, in one of those many stories written about her college career, it was shown that while at Wellesley College in Massachusetts, she became head of the local chapter of the Young Republicans, and within a year of becoming the head of that organization she began to turn leftward in her politics, campaigning for Eugene McCarthy for president, organizing the school's first teach-ins on the Vietnam War. She wrote her senior thesis on poverty and community development. She graduated in 1969 with a degree in political science. Like Sanders' background story, that information gives Clinton's actions and attitudes some context that is impossible if she was looked at in the bubble of the present.

Well, gee, he believes in entitlements for the middle class, he believes in public ownership of the means of production (which means the tools and capital to make things) and a democratic political system to elect the officials to oversee that means of production, and he cites Eugene Debs, the five-time presidential candidate of the Socialist Party of America, as his hero. So, clearly, he is being judged on who he is and what he believes.

He believes in a strong middle class, and in workers [not the general public] owning the means of production. Their own production, specifically, so that everyone benefits from success, and suffers from failure for which they bear responsibility.
Socialist is a four letter word to many [most?] older Americans, who don't want anything to do with Communism. [Me neither!] But it's not so for the younger people - they see 'social' as a good thing. They may have learned about Eugene Debs & Eugene McCarthy in school, but they don't see the relevance to their life today. They see the near impossibility of going to college without taking on massive debt, and the equally near impossibility of becoming financially independent in today's economy, and they like what Sanders is saying.
I like it because it's exactly what he's said for decades: no BS with Bernie, lol. I trust him, and that's more than I have been able to say about any other candidate, ever.
Tomorrow's debate is gonna be real inneresting, I think.

 

[cheri1122]

When people start living to an average age of 130, should the retirement age still be set at the current 67 years? When the program was first instituted, the life expectancy of people reaching the age 65 was 77.4 years for men, and 79.7 for women. Since the program first began paying monthly Social Security benefits in 1940, the average life expectancy for men reaching age 65 has increased nearly 7 years to age 84.3, for women reaching age 65, their average life expectancy has increased nearly 7 years to age 86.6. So, if you think the retirement age should still be 65, then you have to concede to ceasing all Social Security benefits when people reach 77.4 years for men and 79.7 years for women, just as the program intended.

The full retirement age of 65 was set in 1935, when few people lived longer than that. In 1983 the full retirement age was raised to 67. but only for those born in 1960 or later, and was a gradual increase that took 22 years to go from 65 to 67. So the only people affected by raising it from 65 to 67 were those 23 years old or younger. So no, raising it from 65 to 67 wasn't any sort of "betrayal of the people who spent many decades contributing to the fund, and were promised the return of their money when they reach 65." Sheesh.

You make a good point about the increase in life expectancy. What you don't mention, though, is the difference made by level of education, diet and medical care, all which make a longer life span more likely for those who can afford 'better than average'.

 

[Turtle]

You make a good point about the increase in life expectancy. What you don't mention, though, is the difference made by level of education, diet and medical care, all which make a longer life span more likely for those who can afford 'better than average'.

I didn't mention it because other than medical care as being a major factor in longevity, the other factors aren't nearly as clear cut as you make them out to be. Education appears to be a factor, but it's clear that education alone isn't the cause for longevity, as blacks and Latinos without high school educations have a longer life expectancy than those with higher educations. White women without a high school diploma have a shorter life expectancy than those with a high school or college diploma, but only those white women with no diploma who smoke and do not have a job, with having a job having more of an effect on life expectancy than quitting smoking does for that group. There are far too many factors than can simply be pointed to as "can afford better than average, so we have to give everyone free healthcare, free educations and free healthy breakfasts, lunches and dinners because they'll live as long as rich people do if we do that." It's just not that simple.