Will Trump win again???
Started by Planktonmd
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
- Status
I'm not a Republican but I'll answer.
Perhaps marginally more shady than the DNC's use of superdelegates and their push to anoint Hillary Clinton for the 2016 election. But hey, the means by which political parties determine their nominees is (and ought to be) determined by those parties. They're free to do whatever self-destructive things they want to do.
On the list of self-destructive things the Republican Party has done in recent memory, I'm not sure this cracks the top 10.
Agree, with one correction... they won't get nothing... they will get increased taxes to pay for everyone elses tuition, and that is beyond Fuc*ed up!
I would love to see a Trump Yang ticket, and a Yang win.
IMO Yang was the only person who didn't sound like a senile, childish, repetative, follower on the debate stage.
He was the only one who made sense, and he is the only one who's policies make sense.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
D
deleted643396
An excellent article on the dangers of our New gilded age.
The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats
A memo for my fellow filthy rich who live in our gated bubble worlds: Wake up, people. It won’t last.www.politico.com
History has been very clear on what happens to societies that don’t do anything about widening wealth disparity...see Roman Empire, France, and Russia. Ironically, there is also precedent for a country that successfully addressed widening wealth disparity and saw huge growth in a successful middle class...see the United States in the 1920s and 1930s with the New Deal.
D
deleted162650
It was really WWII and not the New Deal that pulled us out of the Great Depression and set the stage for the unprecedented economic growth and rise in standard of living in the post-war years.
That’s true. Europe was flattened and the only place to produce goods was the US so the economy skyrocketed
D
deleted87051
It’s about making things better for our kids and grandkids than they were for us. I would love to take that burden off them. The transition has to occur at some point. Didn’t you all have parents like mine who walked to school 3 miles uphill both ways in a snowstorm with no shoes?
D
deleted87051
D
deleted162650
History is also very clear what happens when the government begins to take control of the economy, strip its citizens of arms and defacto tell you how to live your life through massive taxes and new legislation. In that type of society only the truly wealthy are able to live their lives like we do today.
The current crop of Democrats aren't about increasing taxes back to the clinton era. They have moved very far left of the electorate on all issues from Climate Change to Gun Control. This new Socialist Democratic Party will lose the moderate and independent voters who do want reasonable changes to our society but in a moderate, slowly evolving way.
Sleepy Uncle Joe is the most moderate of the bunch but he isn't up to the task of running against Trump. He is too confused and forgetful to be president.
Want to make things better for our grandkids? Go back to the USA we all know and love. The type of country where one is expected to work hard and be independent of government.
Social programs are a fail safe for the those that can't help themselves. They aren't intended to use tax payer money to help those who are able bodied citizens fully capable of working. We have always had the poor among us and no amount of socialism will change that fact. But, what it will do is destroy the middle class and the incentive to work/produce in this country. Call it what you want but more government isn't the solution it is the problem.
We have an obligation to pay down the debt, curtail government waste, cut back on our foreign military bases as well as protect this planet for future generations. IMHO, that means letting private businesses and technology help all of us to live longer, healthier lives with less carbon emissions and respect for the environment.
It wasn't government who made the electric car a replacement for the petrol vehicles, it was Musk. It was government that invented the smart phone: it was Jobs and Apple.
Government should be kept out of our lives as much as possible. Their good intentions rarely translates into good policies. The country accepts the "safety net" programs currently in place but those who want to expand these programs into all aspects our lives are misguided in the proper role of government.
Millennials: Raised To Be Socialists?
We should be teaching it to our kids, and remind young people that free markets are vastly superior to any alternative for organizing a workable, growing economy. For free markets to work, you must have free speech. So political correctness must be abandoned.
"Indeed, history manifestly shows that neither socialism nor other alternative economic systems — and many have been tried — come close to the record of free-market capitalism in promoting peace and growth, as well as improving the overall human condition," writes Anthony B. Kim at The Daily Signal.
Moreover, not only does socialism not work, it is very expensive. As Brian Riedl of the Manhattan Institute recently estimated, Sen. Warren's blue print for democratic socialism would cost the U.S. $42 trillion, requiring tax rates on everyone of 60% or higher.
Millennials beware: With socialism, there will be no money left for anything other than government. You will be following the path of Venezuela and Cuba, not the path of Norway, Sweden and Denmark.
Millennials need to rethink their youthful allegiance to socialist ideology. It will bring them less income, worse inequality, insecurity, hunger, despair and a loss of freedom.
www.investors.com
We should be teaching it to our kids, and remind young people that free markets are vastly superior to any alternative for organizing a workable, growing economy. For free markets to work, you must have free speech. So political correctness must be abandoned.
"Indeed, history manifestly shows that neither socialism nor other alternative economic systems — and many have been tried — come close to the record of free-market capitalism in promoting peace and growth, as well as improving the overall human condition," writes Anthony B. Kim at The Daily Signal.
Moreover, not only does socialism not work, it is very expensive. As Brian Riedl of the Manhattan Institute recently estimated, Sen. Warren's blue print for democratic socialism would cost the U.S. $42 trillion, requiring tax rates on everyone of 60% or higher.
Millennials beware: With socialism, there will be no money left for anything other than government. You will be following the path of Venezuela and Cuba, not the path of Norway, Sweden and Denmark.
Millennials need to rethink their youthful allegiance to socialist ideology. It will bring them less income, worse inequality, insecurity, hunger, despair and a loss of freedom.
Millennials May Love Socialism, But Socialism Won't Love Them Back
Americans' heavy flirtation with socialism continues. For many millennials, socialism appears to be both a viable and desirable replacement for capitalism. It isn't, on any level.
www.investors.com
Watch and learn:
D
deleted643396
It was a combination of factors, but the New Deal was important for creating lasting financial reforms that were instrumental in maintaining that growth and providing the security needed for a strong middle class. It was all about reforming the economy so as not to repeat the sins of the largely deregulated economic system that led the the Great Depression. The New Deal was way more than just Social Security.
It just blows my mind that the richest country in the history of the world has the balls to say we can’t afford to pay for primary care visits for our citizens. It’s frankly absurd. It’s worse than the nerds that come on here saying they can’t pay off their student loans while making $400k a year.
Then you get some holier-than-thou doofus talking about baby life at conception, but then looks the other way while fellow citizens can’t afford insulin. I don’t believe in Jesus, but I doubt he would condone that.
I guess I’m just a crazy leftist, though.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
The problem is that primary care can be amazingly affordable when you don't involve the government (Google Direct Primary Care for details).
We don't need the government to pay for it when 99% of the country can easily afford it.
Also, insulin can be had for $25/vial at Walmart.
D
deleted643396
I know all about Direct Primary Care. The trouble is that it works great for the people who have surplus money every month, but not so much for the people living paycheck to paycheck.
When I was doing that a few years ago, the vast majority of my patients were blue collar types. None of them had much surplus income.
But that aside, if you remove primary care from insurance than insurance gets a fair bit cheaper. For instance, my yearly physical and blood work cost my insurance around $300 all told. Cut that out of insurance premiums and you've just about paid for a year of DPC.
Plus, there's emerging data saying DPC leads to less referrals/testing which again saves money. I know that I refer more now than I used to as I just don't have time to do everything anymore.
Millennials: Raised To Be Socialists?
We should be teaching it to our kids, and remind young people that free markets are vastly superior to any alternative for organizing a workable, growing economy. For free markets to work, you must have free speech. So political correctness must be abandoned.
"Indeed, history manifestly shows that neither socialism nor other alternative economic systems — and many have been tried — come close to the record of free-market capitalism in promoting peace and growth, as well as improving the overall human condition," writes Anthony B. Kim at The Daily Signal.
Moreover, not only does socialism not work, it is very expensive. As Brian Riedl of the Manhattan Institute recently estimated, Sen. Warren's blue print for democratic socialism would cost the U.S. $42 trillion, requiring tax rates on everyone of 60% or higher.
Millennials beware: With socialism, there will be no money left for anything other than government. You will be following the path of Venezuela and Cuba, not the path of Norway, Sweden and Denmark.
Millennials need to rethink their youthful allegiance to socialist ideology. It will bring them less income, worse inequality, insecurity, hunger, despair and a loss of freedom.
Millennials May Love Socialism, But Socialism Won't Love Them Back
Americans' heavy flirtation with socialism continues. For many millennials, socialism appears to be both a viable and desirable replacement for capitalism. It isn't, on any level.
unfortunately we are brainwashed by professors in higher education
D
deleted643396
What is your definition of the “USA we all know and love?”
I bet that a primary care visit would cost $80-$100 without government involvement. That said, if the only issue was the expansion of health care for the poorest among us I bet the Democrats would beat Trump in 2020. Americans are kind, fair, reasonable people who want to help those in need especially those needing healthcare.
Medicare for all and abolition of private insurance is a lot bigger than expanding medicaid for the poor. Perhaps, a single payer solution is in our future down the road but the majority of citizens need time to go from a private insurance based system to a single payer one. Obama knew this would take 20 years and the next step in the process is a Medicare Option on the exchange.
Again, the Democrats would likely win the 2020 election by focusing on the expansion of the ACA and basic prescriptions for all those in need. But, that isn't what Warren or Sanders is proposing to the country.
Radical change in all areas of our lives won't be an easy sell to the majority of Democrats and Independents.
Reagan circa 1984. How about Clinton: " the era of big government is over"
Last edited:
This politician wouldn't stand a chance in today's Democrat part. He was a moderate Democrat who even today knows the vast majority of citizens still agree with him on these issues. The Democrat party is now way, way left of Obama and only Biden remains as a centrist.
"We live in an age of possibility. A hundred years ago we moved from farm to factory. Now we move to an age of technology, information, and global competition. These changes have opened vast new opportunities for our people, but they have also presented them with stiff challenges. While more Americans are living better, too many of our fellow citizens are working harder just to keep up, and they are rightly concerned about the security of their families.
We must answer here three fundamental questions: First, how do we make the American Dream of opportunity for all a reality for all Americans who are willing to work for it? Second, how do we preserve our old and enduring values as we move into the future? And, third, how do we meet these challenges together, as one America?
We know big government does not have all the answers. We know there's not a program for every problem. We have worked to give the American people a smaller, less bureaucratic government in Washington. And we have to give the American people one that lives within its means.
The era of big government is over. But we cannot go back to the time when our citizens were left to fend for themselves. Instead, we must go forward as one America, one nation working together to meet the challenges we face together. Self-reliance and teamwork are not opposing virtues; we must have both.
I believe our new, smaller government must work in an old-fashioned American way, together with all of our citizens through state and local governments, in the workplace, in religious, charitable and civic associations. Our goal must be to enable all our people to make the most of their own lives -- with stronger families, more educational opportunity, economic security, safer streets, a cleaner environment in a safer world.
To improve the state of our Union, we must ask more of ourselves, we must expect more of each other, and we must face our challenges together.
Here, in this place, our responsibility begins with balancing the budget in a way that is fair to all Americans. There is now broad bipartisan agreement that permanent deficit spending must come to an end.
I compliment the Republican leadership and the membership for the energy and determination you have brought to this task of balancing the budget. And I thank the Democrats for passing the largest deficit reduction plan in history in 1993, which has already cut the deficit nearly in half in three years.
Since 1993, we have all begun to see the benefits of deficit reduction. Lower interest rates have made it easier for businesses to borrow and to invest and to create new jobs. Lower interest rates have brought down the cost of home mortgages, car payments and credit card rates to ordinary citizens. Now, it is time to finish the job and balance the budget.
Though differences remain among us which are significant, the combined total of the proposed savings that are common to both plans is more than enough, using the numbers from your Congressional Budget Office to balance the budget in seven years and to provide a modest tax cut.
These cuts are real. They will require sacrifice from everyone. But these cuts do not undermine our fundamental obligations to our parents, our children, and our future, by endangering Medicare, or Medicaid, or education, or the environment, or by raising taxes on working families.
I have said before, and let me say again, many good ideas have come out of our negotiations. I have learned a lot about the way both Republicans and Democrats view the debate before us. I have learned a lot about the good ideas that we could all embrace.
We ought to resolve our remaining differences. I am willing to work to resolve them. I am ready to meet tomorrow. But I ask you to consider that we should at least enact these savings that both plans have in common and give the American people their balanced budget, a tax cut, lower interest rates, and a brighter future. We should do that now, and make permanent deficits yesterday's legacy."
President Bill Clinton
If I paid my Family Doctor cash and got the same rates as my insurance company my annual physical, labs, tests, etc would cost me around $220.00
As for my prescription costs again the private market place would save me more money. If I was allowed to buy my Meds in the UK or Canada the costs would be lower than my prescription plan through my insurance company.
The free market works when the we give it a chance.
As for my prescription costs again the private market place would save me more money. If I was allowed to buy my Meds in the UK or Canada the costs would be lower than my prescription plan through my insurance company.
The free market works when the we give it a chance.
D
deleted643396
Maybe if companies spent $15 billion on paying employees fair wages instead of spending it on stock buybacks to further enrich CEOs and shareholders we can talk about a system where people pay cash for primary care visits, but that America doesn’t exist.
D
deleted87051
Why does it cost so much less in Canada and the UK? Maybe because they don’t have a bunch of bankers, insurers and financiers skimming money out of their healthcare industrial complex. Capitalism has its limits.
Sure, we can debate this issues during the next election if there were any moderate Democrats left to take up the cause. But, the current crop is so far left that I'm sure "fair wage" will mean $25 per hour by the time the election occurs.
After all, blame it all on the Billionaires and steal their wealth. That's the path to success in the USA according to Sanders and Warren.
Capitalism? All we need to do is pass a law allowing USA citizens to go online and buy drugs from the UK and Canada. That my friend is true capitalism at work.
The same goes for health insurance. Allow me to buy the policy I want from any of the 50 states. I'd even be for allowing Canadian Insurance companies to start up and get into the business. The ACA is wrong in dictating the coverage I need for myself and my family.
Regulations drive up the cost of any product and prevents competition. Democrats love regulations in the name of fairness.
D
deleted87051
So you want to take advantage of the government regulations of other countries but don’t want the same regulations for our own country?
Last edited by a moderator:
D
deleted643396
Yes, I am blaming it on the billionaires. They’ve commandeered the government to serve them. Right now the government exists only to make the rich richer. That is the purpose of our government right now. That is not the intended purpose, but that is what it is doing. We are seeing record stock market highs and record amounts of wealth in this country, yet that wealth is enjoyed by a select few. The rest are seeing their small towns decimated and are working multiple jobs just to pay the bills. Yet we keep talking about how all you need to do is work a little harder to achieve the American dream.
The Republicans want to blame brown-skinned people for those problems and the Democrats want to blame the billionaires. Who you blame for causing America not to be great is who you will vote for. That’s what it comes down to. All the stuff about guns and abortions are side show issues, which may swing a few votes here and there, but people really vote about economic issues at the heart of it.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
This america never existed and if you look at the conditions in which your idyllic idea of America was, it was extremely high taxes on high earners, regulation, and trust busting that led to it. That ignores the fact that women and minorites were shut out of the job environment. It ignores the fact that seniors lived in abject poverty (some estimates >50% of all seniors lived in extreme poverty prior to SS and Medicare). It ignores that if you didn't have a job, you were SOL. It ignores the fact that high state taxes on both corporations and individuals were able to fund public and private universities. It ignores the fact that poor people were marginalized and institutionalized. It ignores the fact that prior to environmental regulations, rivers were literally on fire and this was a normal occurrence (the Ohio and Erie rivers caught fire >20 times before the Clean Water Act). It ignores the fact that forests were blackened with soot and kids born with birth defects were a price to pay for industrial advancement.
I want capitalism that works. Our regulations stifle competition in the name of safety. If this is true by all means keep it. But, crony capitalism isn't real capitalism. No point continuing this discussion as Socialism doesn't work, has never worked and will fail in the USA.
I don't remember the USA in the 1990's to be at all like you state. In fact, your statements are pure fabricatons. Clinton had one of the most successful expansions of any President ever on record. My water was clean, there were plenty of jobs, Minorities were finding work and poor people were not marginalized at all.
Taxes were reasonable by Sanders/Warren standards and the USA was booming.
The year was 1994 and in today's Democrat Party Bill Clinton would be a Republican.
So, you are stating that armed citizens will prevent a dictatorship from forming? and you say that history supports that assumption?
Can you give us an example where armed citizens where able to prevent a dictatorship from taking control of country? You said history proves that, but I am not aware of any historical evidence supporting your theory! Please enlighten us.
The question is will Sanders/Warren destroy this country through Socialism at a level never seen before. Government expansion beyond anything ever imagined by a JFK, Clinton or even Obama. Programs that can't be paid for and debt in the trillions of dollars.
The idea that brown-skinned people have anything to do with the left wing nut jobs is ludicrous. The economics of Warren/Sanders is a disaster for the poor and middle class. I just hope they aren't stupid enough to fall for it.
That's not what my post said so please read it again. The right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights. Any attempt to remove a RIGHT without a Constitutional Amendment is unlawful.
So, having no health insurance and giving tax breaks to the wealthy was good for middle class?
You are clearly ignorant of this nation's history in the late 1800's and early 1900s before there were any social programs.
The poor in this nation have never had it any better. No country has lifted more people out of poverty than the USA.
By the standards of pre-social program era the poor have never had it better. There is more mobility in the USA than almost anywhere else in world. The left is lying when they say otherwise. The USA is still THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITY.
Bearing arms against the government is what you are advocating, and you seem to think (naively) that it could prevent a dictatorship, you are not alone in that assumption, so don't get too sensitive, there are many like you, but I can tell from historical evidence that bearing arms against the government only results in more deadly and more authoritative government!
If you don't believe me, and I don't expect you to, try to find one instance where armed people where able to prevent the tyranny of a government!
Yes, the income inequality gap has widened over the past few years. Yes, CEO pay is very high and going higher vs the average worker in that company. But, socialism will tear at the very fabric that working hard is the path to success. The country can't afford to lose its work ethic and expect government to provide assistance.
This isn't about taxes. This is about a world view of free market vs socialism/government run economy. Taxes have to go up because of our current debt. Taxes may need to double under a Warren/Sanders administration.
When it comes to taxes the rich can only pay so much. The real money is taxing the middle class. When and if Warren wins the White House she will be coming after you to pay your fair share:
Pew looked at various household sizes. Here’s the minimum amount you’d have to earn each year to be considered upper-class, depending on the size of your family:
Household of one: Minimum of $78,281 to be upper-class
Household of two: Minimum of $110,706 to be upper-class
Household of three: Minimum of $135,586 to be upper-class
Household of four: Minimum of $156,561 to be upper-class
Household of five: Minimum of $175,041 to be upper-class
Pew looked at various household sizes. Here’s the minimum amount you’d have to earn each year to be considered upper-class, depending on the size of your family:
Household of one: Minimum of $78,281 to be upper-class
Household of two: Minimum of $110,706 to be upper-class
Household of three: Minimum of $135,586 to be upper-class
Household of four: Minimum of $156,561 to be upper-class
Household of five: Minimum of $175,041 to be upper-class
Looks like your teachers skipped the American revolutionary war, which was all.about British tyranny. And an armed people rose up to defeat tyranny.
This country has built it's economic system and it's educational system on the 1950's economy where this country was a leading industrial nation with factories everywhere that needed workers.
These workers were able to make good money and become the 1950's middle class with secure jobs, houses, cars, and pension plans.
That type of economy did not require college education and that "work ethic" you are mentioning was based on hard manual labor that fueled the economy.
Today, we are no longer a leader of manufacturing for many reasons, and most of the factories have closed, so the concept of "hard work" is no longer about showing up every morning to the factory and doing the same repetitive manual tasks as many times as possible.
It is now about higher education and more skilled and intelligent work force, unfortunately our education system has not adapted to this change and as a result we continue to produce blue collar workers in a world that requires highly educated and talented professionals.
We also don't invest enough in education and actually continue to decrease funding to all educational programs.
This is why the current generation feels that they cannot be rewarded for hard work, it's because they are unable to do the work we need in the 21st century, because we gave them a 1950's education.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Can Elizabeth Warren build a bigger welfare state without taxing the middle class?
It’s hard to build a Nordic welfare state on the backs of the rich alone.
www.vox.com
It’s hard to build a Nordic welfare state on the backs of the rich alone.
Can Elizabeth Warren build a bigger welfare state without taxing the middle class?
It’s hard to build a Nordic welfare state on the backs of the rich alone.
www.vox.com
This is pretty darn true and I'm a black guy who's mother grew up in the projects and has an MD after his name saying so.
It's actually Tyranny, with 2 N's
And that revolution you mentioned was people revolting against foreign occupation, not against their democratically elected government!
But if you think that forming armed militias is the way to prevent your government from being too authoritative in the 21st century where they have tanks and drones then don't let me stop you.
D
deleted50478
That’s evidence of indoctrination not of actual economic mobility.
Looks like you are quick on the draw and posted before I edited. I would try to deflect from the fact I had posted a factually inaccurate statement if I were in your shoes too. You asked for just one example and I gave you one.
Last edited:
- Status
