Could have saved yourself a lot of time by stopping right there and finding out if that is indeed what he’s proposing – because it isn’t. He’s proposing to make public colleges and universities tuition-free. And has specified exactly where he’s get the revenue – a tax on Wall Street speculation.
But you did a great job of courageously battling that straw man that you (knowingly or otherwise) constructed.
If you’re going to do it that way, you need to look at the number of Americans attending public universities in a given year, NOT the total number of Americans under 18 which is an absurd number to look at! The cost of educating all those people would be spread out over 18 years by definition, only about half of them will actually enroll in college once they turn 18, and a significant percentage will choose private universities (Sanders’ proposal only covers public institutions), etc. etc.
Plus, you are assuming that somehow the 1% can get out of paying any more taxes than they are paying now so the burden would fall entirely on the working middle class — but we do have a Congress and if we elect the right representatives, they could revise the tax system to oblige the 1% to pay their fair share and close those loopholes you’re worried about. You’re aware that under Eisenhower the top tax rate was 90%? as opposed to today’s 39%. So there is a lot of room there for more revenue.
Anyway, as I already said, the proof that it can work is that it already does work! A public university education used to be highly affordable in America (though not quite free) until about 30 years ago, and in most European nations it is completely free, just like elementary and high school. So I’m not convinced you want to have a fair, reality-based discussion.
And there goes your credibility, swirling right down the porcelain vortex.
“and has acquired a lot of emotional armor in her years in the political arena, and maybe just needs to shed that armor (if possible) and loosen up a little.”
I would agree with you on that part of Clinton’s makeup. And married to Bill all these years, let’s face it, would make every woman a wreck. I’m sure Bill’s been fucking around on her ever since he was governor of AR. But for some reason, probably insecurity, she needs to be pandering or taking cheap shots, or rearranging words, or making them up even, in ‘explaining’ what she said she said. But the story in the NYT about the Clinton Found was had to fathom. The Clinton’s go way past the appearance of impropriety.
She’ll probably be the nominee and should relax and stop pandering. She has a big lead nationally, has the money, and should act the role. But as Bernie closes in she find a reason to take a cheap shot and fuck everything up. Anyway, that’s what I’m hoping for.
I don’t see the difference between my definition of have universities give free tuition or show the cost of per child. However, can Wall Street transactions by viable if there is a tax on each transaction to equal the funds necessary, A broker could buy the stock in London or Hong Kong.
Dow average transaction per day, 120,480,507 x. 261 (work Days) = 31,445,412,327
Nasdaq average transaction per day 459,194,396 x 261 = 31,445, 412,327.
Total 151,295,149,683
Cost of under 18 children in 2014, at 25,000 per child is $1,833,428,072,000 divided by 12 as not all go to college in the same year, $152,785,672,666.67
$152,785,672,666.67 / 151,295,149,683 = 1.01
So Sander’s fee would be about $1, on 151,295,149 transactions, therefore the costs of stocks in America would be $1 more then in London or Hong Kong, that is easily the margin of any profit between buying or not buying, so the US stock market would crash, and the middle class will lose their 401 funds as they do not have the ability to transfer to non-American stock market.
I guess Trumps insults are rubbing off on you.
If Hillary wants to address the trust issue, she can. Assuming she is on our side and not Wall Street’s side, she just needs to express her policies in plain English without weasel words and repeat them over and over on camera so there is a record, we all know what she promised, and we can hold her to that promise.
Instead, she started out quietly campaigning to women’s groups and telling them what they wanted to hear. One of those things was that she wanted to make Social Security even better for women – not secure for all, better for women. When she started to campaign to general audiences, that disappeared from her website. She almost sounds like “etch-a-sketch” Romney.
Another problem is when asked if she would restore Glass-Steagall, she responds with some vague words about doing something better. The way she answers sounds like the audience she cares about are her backers from Wall Street, not the voters who have suffered lost jobs, lost homes, and pillaged 401Ks. She should say Yes!, I will restore Glass-Steagall, and then I will go on to stop all the high stakes gambling on Wall Street and require sane, rational business decisions that are good for the country."
I’m not holding my breath for Hillary to fix her image, I think what we see is what she is, a corporate Dem who will only make promises that will not cost the 1% anything. So Glass-Steagall is out, empty promises about gun control are in.
I didn’t mention the Uranium scandal but your response proves the point. The Clintons live like royalty. How can Hillary really understand the loss of hope for the future experienced by most Americans. As hard as she might try she still doesn’t have a clue what her Bankster buddies have done to America. We are turning into a backwater.
I’ll go to the NC primary polls and vote for Hillary. If Bernie wins the democratic nomination, I’ll go to the NC polls and vote for him in the general election.
What’s the big fuckin’ deal that people think only one of these two democratic candidates is worth a shit? God damn relax people, the worst democrat will be light years better than the best Republican, so vote for the one that you think will actually win the presidential election. I think Bernie might be able to do that, but I really believe Hillary stands a better chance because, 1. she’s more middle, and 2. she’s a woman.
He won’t be president, but he could damage Clinton enough to ensure a GOP president in 2016. That would mean the end of the Supreme Court and the end of the country as we know it.
First of all, the “political machine” you are talking about is the Democratic Party. And yes, while we all know that the Party at this time is working purely as an extension of the Clinton campaign, one would hope that if Sanders is elected, the rest of the party will come together behind him rather than actively support the Republican Party out of sour grapes.
Second, if you look at Sanders’ record in Vermont, you will find a record in which he has consistently been able to find ways to get agreements from his Republican opponents.
Eugene Debs died in 1926. FDR was first elected in 1932.
FDR didn’t run on The New Deal in 1932. After he was elected, he took the ideas in the New Deal from the Socialist Party.
The tax is described in “The College For All Act:”
====
The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any covered transaction
shall be the applicable percentage of the specified base amount with
respect to such covered transaction. The applicable percentage shall be—
(1)0.5 percent in the case of a security described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (e)(1), (2)0.10 percent in the case of a security described in subparagraph © of subsection (e)(1), and
(3)0.005 percent in the case of a security described in subparagraph (D), (E), or (F) of subsection (e)(1).
I don’t disagree that the Overton window as well as what was once considered liberal, center and right, has shifted to the right in the past coupe of decades.
But the point still stands. FDR was not a Democratic Socialist.
Again, the point was/is that Debs and the Democratic Socialist were not the Democratic Party, but a forerunner to and evolved into the Socialist Party of America.
FDR was a Democrat, never part of the Democratic Socialists or the Socialists Party.
Democratic Socialists were not behind the New Deal.
Do you know the difference between public colleges and universities, and private colleges and universities? Because Bernie is only proposing to make the public ones tuition-free. So, not making Yale and Harvard and the like tuition-free. But, I’m guessing facts aren’t going to matter to you, since I already pointed this fact out and you simply ignored it. Of course that kind of deliberate ignorance is to be expected from someone who is willing to vote for Trump, so I’m not going to waste any more time on you.
Them liking her or not liking her has zero effect in how much she can get done. Congress people don’t work together on legislation because they like each other, they work together on legislation because they can each find something in the legislation they want. Hillary and the Clinton political machine have all the pieces in place over 30 years of political-related relationships to get what the GOP might want in order to get what Hillary and the Democrats want. Gov’t is about negotiating, it has zero to do with making friends or liking one another.
By Machine I mean the 30+ year network of relationships that the Clintons have developed in and around government (people, lobbyists, business and union leaders, think tanks, foreigh leaders, monied interestes, etc.). All of that is required to get things done in Washington. Obama climbed an uphill battle in that regard particularly with the ACA. Sanders, to my knowledge, has little to no political machine which means he’ll be spending most of his political capital for the first year or two just developing those networks and seeing how/if he can move them towards his end goals. I don’t think he can do that, but to each his own.
Guys, I worked in political media a for a long time. Some of it was reporting on polls. Some very smart people told me that there are some organizations whose results you must always regard with a bit of salt, and ARG was one of the groups named by all of them. (Also, 538.com had then third from the bottom on their list of the 23 polling firms of 2012 graded for accuracy.) I think Bernie is doing very well and may be in the lead. But I’ll need to see more than one poll and from another organization, before I’m willing to put Bernie in front.
Meanwhile, looks like Chelsea has joined her mother in the Health Care Elide-A-Thon.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/chelsea-clinton-takes-bernie-sanders/story?id=36245706
Sad to see Chelsea sink to this level. Whether she’s an unwitting pawn / true believer, or has become a cynical player in her own right, either way it’s just sad.