Thoughts on Bernie Sanders?

[Misanthrope]

39 minutes ago, thekeemo said:

That kind of makes more sense. However I would like to see the USA defend international law by say taking action against agressors instead of just being a bystander but I see where you are coming from.

Both Israel and Palestine are aggressors, what them just fucking kill them all?

[thekeemo]

5 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Both Israel and Palestine are aggressors, what them just fucking kill them all?

I tend to think of the occupier and the one international courts condemned as the agressor

[RaunchyTacoBowl]

On ‎4‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 10:35 AM, Misanthrope said:

He proposed close to no changes AFAIK except for a tax on Wall Street speculation. Which people claim will hurt the economy but I don't believe people will stop trading just because of it, nobody wants a new tax but if it's imposed people will rarely go out of their way to avoid it. 

It's his proposed implementation of a higher minimum wage, free schooling, and higher taxation on higher income tax brackets. The first two things are awesome things but our country isn't built or stable enough to handle it.

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, RaunchyTacoBowl said:

It's his proposed implementation of a higher minimum wage, free schooling, and higher taxation on higher income tax brackets. The first two things are awesome things but our country isn't built or stable enough to handle it.

On 4/15/2016 at 5:54 AM, Misanthrope said:

I keep reading how it would never work or is not possible In such a large scale, etc. I still don't understand how you can expect change without trying anything at all. Obama is living proof that traditional liberalism and moderation won't accomplish nothing but more of the same. Americans will probably vote Hillary in and expect something to improve when it will be the opposite cause you're all basically too scared of change since you listen to extreme rhetoric far too much. 

 

Enough fence sitting guys. 

[cluelessgenius]

well im not from the states and am not taht well informed on his policies. but as far as public opinion goes id say trump is a joke, hillary sells out and sanders comes across as a man of the people. if it was my decision id pick him by default alone. and anyone making life just a bit harder for the rich kids has my vote anyways. 

[oscarpaca]

It's great to hear everyone elses opinions. To me, he comes across as a man of his word, and I agree with his proposals to reallocate tax dollars which would have previously been spent on things like military to healthcare, education and the like. That can always be a good thing. Thanks for providing a good debate guys.

[Real_PhillBert]

On 4/16/2016 at 2:02 AM, Misanthrope said:

 

Yes there is an increase, and I don't fully agree with it but take a look, it looks like it affects the 1%ers the most with 99% of the country having 5 to 10% increase.

 

Saying he's proposing a tax raise across the board is a bit disingenuous: he's basically taxing just the reach. Most middle class would literally saving 40 to 50% of their income by not having to pay insurance premiums and college for example. So yes, but not really.

I didnt get a notification from this post. Weird.

 

Anywho; The bolded part, It's absolutely not disingenuous, it's factual. You might notice that I did mention that he wants to increase social spending drastically, which may or may not be a justification of the increased taxes in your mind. However you CANNOT claim that he does not wish to raise your taxes, that is simply not correct.

 

Also your last sentence needs a source. I am a 26 year old male, who makes ~$65,000 per year. Since the passing of the ACA, my health insurance premiums have about doubled, and my coverage has gone down. Tell me again how this is more affordable than the open market? 

[stconquest]

7 minutes ago, Real_PhillBert said:

I didnt get a notification from this post. Weird.

 

Anywho; The bolded part, It's absolutely not disingenuous, it's factual. You might notice that I did mention that he wants to increase social spending drastically, which may or may not be a justification of the increased taxes in your mind. However you CANNOT claim that he does not wish to raise your taxes, that is simply not correct.

 

Also your last sentence needs a source. I am a 26 year old male, who makes ~$65,000 per year. Since the passing of the ACA, my health insurance premiums have about doubled, and my coverage has gone down. Tell me again how this is more affordable than the open market? 

He raises your taxes, but saves you money.  That is the theory anyways.  Proven mathematically.  Math and the general public are not always friendly though.

 

Are those private sector insurance premiums?  If so, how does that (premiums) become inclusive to the government's ACA efforts? 

[AlwaysFSX]

Lesser of what, eight evils? Still doesn't know how to fix problems, just putting band-aids over gunshot wounds because that's what the public wants to hear because they have no idea how things work. I don't agree with his foreign political views but then again I think damn near everyone in that area is a moron.

[stconquest]

2 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Lesser of what, eight evils? Still doesn't know how to fix problems, just putting band-aids over gunshot wounds because that's what the public wants to hear because they have no idea how things work. I don't agree with his foreign political views but then again I think damn near everyone in that area is a moron.

Sanders is not an "evil".  That term would have some extremely loose definition to include that man in it's scope.  Success or failure, he would work hard for the country.

[AlwaysFSX]

Just now, stconquest said:

Sanders is not an "evil".  That term would have some extremely loose definition to include that man in it's scope.  Success or failure, he would work hard for the country.

He will not push the country in to an overall better direction, therefore he is not a "good" candidate. I disagree with him on many topics, however I disagree with the other candidates more. That does not mean he is a "good" candidate either.

 

Band-aids on gunshot wounds.

[Real_PhillBert]

1 hour ago, stconquest said:

He raises you taxes, but saves you money.  That is the theory anyways.  Proven mathematically.  Math and the general public are not always friendly though.

 

Are those private sector insurance premiums?  If so, how does that become inclusive to the government's ACA efforts? 

Again, that first sentence needs a source, I've seen it thrown around a lot but no one can link any math to it. 

 

Um... You are aware that part of the ACA makes it so your private insurance must comply to ACA standards, otherwise you have to pay the fine as just as if you did not have insurance, right? So why did my premiums increase, because all the sudden my insurance has to cover ovarian cancer... I DONT EVEN HAVE OVARIES!!!!

 

And believe it or not the US already has a completely socialized healthcare system in place, it's called the VA. It's also the slowest, most complex and most expensive health insurance you can get in the US. So understanding that this is the level of bureaucracy the US gov brings to healthcare, why would we want to put the whole country on it?

 

Another note, I have no problem with a socialized health care system, I have a big problem with a forced socialized healthcare system. If someone wants to make the decision to forgo health insurance, that should be their choice, and the government should not be involved in that choice. .

[Real_PhillBert]

Just now, AlwaysFSX said:

There's also Tri-Care which is the most god awful health care ever. Never again do I want to sit in a hospital for 12 hours with a 104+ fever because of idiotic insurance paperwork.

Welcome to the US government. The break pretty much everything they touch, and some people think the only way to make things better is to give them more control.

[AlwaysFSX]

Just now, Real_PhillBert said:

Welcome to the US government. The break pretty much everything they touch, and some people think the only way to make things better is to give them more control.

They're also the worst at spending taxes. $60 for a hammer? Sure, no problem. Yeah, let's have those geniuses run the books.

[Real_PhillBert]

3 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

They're also the worst at spending taxes. $60 for a hammer? Sure, no problem. Yeah, let's have those geniuses run the books.

We need another federal audit.

 

It's not like we are $16 trillion in debt or anything...

[stconquest]

1 minute ago, AlwaysFSX said:

He will not push the country in to an overall better direction, therefore he is not a "good" candidate. I disagree with him on many topics, however I disagree with the other candidates more. That does not mean he is a "good" candidate either.

 

Band-aids on gunshot wounds.

Weird... I believe he WOULD push the country in a better direction.  Maybe it has something to do with perception :

 

Away from war, and a better redistribution of the country's wealth; a tax on speculative bank practices; a message of empowerment to the citizens to become part of the country's political system; a crackdown on bad policing efforts; a movement to repeal CU and get corporate money in politics under control.  There are more, but you get a sense of what I perceive.

[AlwaysFSX]

Just now, Real_PhillBert said:

We need another federal audit...

Hey you never know, there might be one coming. Maybe.. I wish.

 

God they're so fucking dumb.

[stconquest]

14 minutes ago, Real_PhillBert said:

Again, that first sentence needs a source, I've seen it thrown around a lot but no one can link any math to it. 

 

Um... You are aware that part of the ACA makes it so your private insurance must comply to ACA standards, otherwise you have to pay the fine as just as if you did not have insurance, right? So why did my premiums increase, because all the sudden my insurance has to cover ovarian cancer... I DONT EVEN HAVE OVARIES!!!!

 

And believe it or not the US already has a completely socialized healthcare system in place, it's called the VA. It's also the slowest, most complex and most expensive health insurance you can get in the US. So understanding that this is the level of bureaucracy the US gov brings to healthcare, why would we want to put the whole country on it?

 

Another note, I have no problem with a socialized health care system, I have a big problem with a forced socialized healthcare system. If someone wants to make the decision to forgo health insurance, that should be their choice, and the government should not be involved in that choice. 

Uhmm, that is the governments fault?  Is your insurance so dumb that they cannot adjust the policy for any particular circumstance?  (like not having ovaries) 

 

@Real_PhillBert

 

Math?  Hmmm... How much profit does the private health insurance industry make?  The government would make $0 profit. 

[Real_PhillBert]

6 minutes ago, stconquest said:

Uhmm, that is the governments fault?  Is your insurance so dumb that they cannot adjust the policy for any particular circumstance?  (like not having ovaries) 

LOL, no the government is in fact mandating that my coverage include treatment plans for ailments that I simply cannot get. So, yes, it is the governments fault, before the ACA I would not have to be paying for such coverage. If I bought a policy in which did not cover such things, I would also have to pay the government fine for not having ACA approved health insurance, which is my major gripe. 

 

However we are moving off topic again, to my knowledge Bernie Sanders did not have any major role in the details of the ACA. 

[stconquest]

2 minutes ago, Real_PhillBert said:

LOL, no the government is in fact mandating that my coverage include treatment plans for ailments that I simply cannot get. So, yes, it is the governments fault, before the ACA I would not have to be paying for such coverage.

 

However we are moving off topic again, to my knowledge Bernie Sanders did not have any major role in the details of the ACA. 

IDK, but I am almost certain the government would not mandate ovarian cancer coverage on men... just saying... something sounds weird here.

[Real_PhillBert]

1 minute ago, stconquest said:

IDK, but I am almost certain the government would not mandate ovarian cancer coverage on men... just saying... something sounds weird here.

You can look it up, the coverage have to be applicable to both genders, one size fits all does not really fit all when it comes to health care. 

 

You seem to be operating under the impression that the US government is bounded by logic, I assure you, this is far from the truth. 

[ThinkWithPortals]

12 minutes ago, Real_PhillBert said:

You can look it up, the coverage have to be applicable to both genders, one size fits all does not really fit all when it comes to health care. 

 

You seem to be operating under the impression that the US government is bounded by logic, I assure you, this is far from the truth. 

"A government? Act logically? That's crazy talk!"

[stconquest]

23 minutes ago, Real_PhillBert said:

You can look it up, the coverage have to be applicable to both genders, one size fits all does not really fit all when it comes to health care. 

 

You seem to be operating under the impression that the US government is bounded by logic, I assure you, this is far from the truth. 

Are you deliberately trying to depress me?  I ain't looking that shit up.  I don't even want to see that.  Maybe tomorrow. 

[nj4ck]

On 15.4.2016 at 6:09 AM, No said:

minimum wage and taxing the rich is a no

what do you mean? The rich often pay lower effective rates than the middle class, you're saying you're OK with that? And how is minimum wage a "no"? It would literally be close to $15 today had it just kept up with inflation.

[Real_PhillBert]

1 minute ago, stconquest said:

Are you deliberately trying to depress me?  I ain't looking that shit up.  I don't even want to see that.  Maybe tomorrow. 

Keep your chin up, dont let my cynicism get you down

 

I'm an angry old guy trapped in a young guys body haha.