And We Do. K-12. Anything after that is YOUR responsibility. I aint signing off on you getting your tuition money back - Sorry. You may as well drop the conversation , I'm not gonna budge one micron. You want more - Earn It.
Lol don't flatter yourself with assuming I'm asking you, the great successful elder, for your money to pay for my imaginary loans. Unfortunately I almost had to lose a leg to get my post 9/11 GI bill. My desires are for what's best for the country. Our economic output potential is severely stiffened by a large percentage of an entire generation of citizens having to to pay 400 dollars a month for years which suprsesses their chances of entrepreneurship, home ownership etc which in turn hurts the economy. And k-12 is an arbitrary cut off point that didn't have any modern understanding of the science of human development. For example, science has found that education the couple of years before kindergarten is one of the most important development periods for a child and high quality Pre-K provides a massive head start for the kids who have parents who can afford it.
What is the socialist garbage? Are our current socialist programs of socialist schooling, socialist security for the elderly, socialist food security, socialist public infrastructure, socialist police & defense, socialist healthcare for elderly/children/pregnant women, socialist military, and socialist firefighters all a part of the garbage that needs to be beaten handily? What would you think of communist energy in America? ... HELL NO, right? Well, I got some bad news for you, there are some commie bastards in Nebraska right now that need to be beaten handily. https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2015/01/30/nebraskas-community-owned-energy/ We need as a nation, to understand what hell we are saying when talking about when referring to socialism, communism. What do we dislike? Because many socialist and communist programs are GREAT, and we use them and enjoy them all the time in America TODAY, like all highly developed countries do. So what do we dislike? What we mostly agree on disliking, are purely socialist/communist economic systems (government/communal owned means of production). Note, I said purely, not that we don't want any socialism within our economy... Because we do, and we already have some "socialism" within our economic system, it's the public sector, it's just mixed with capitalism. It's called a mixed economy, it's what virtually every country in the world has. Why do we not want socialist/communist based economies? Because we in the western world, really appreciate having the right to have private property, the right to have private buisnesses, we appreciate having a strong market place, we can call it a free market but it will be regulated (like it currently is in the USA, like it is in all countries), these are all things that are impossible within socialism, communism based economies. We appreciate what capitalism brings in some areas, just as we appreciate what socialism brings in other areas. We dislike a purely socialist/communist based economy, but we have and love a mixed economy. We currently do not have a purely capitalist economy, and we do not have a completely free (unregulated) market. What else do we dislike? Authoritarianism. We as Americans, love democracy, hate authoritarianism, and rightfully so, democracy is absolutely wonderful it brings freedom, authoritarianism is awful it takes away civil rights and freedom, we view authoritarian countries with great disdain (NK, China, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia), and again rightfully so, awful countries. Note that authoritarianism is not purely a feature of social programs or economies, it's a feature of too much power in one person or groups hands, this can come from single-party control within any type of economic system, military control, and oligarchal control (which I'd argue we are getting closer and closer to). Democracies, mixed economies, can have a great deal of extensive socialist and communal programs, while still having a strong market, without being authoritarian, without having socialist or communist based economies. I have good news for you Corrosion, I know Bernie, AOC and their movements scare the hell out of you... but listen, they shouldn't. They aren't pro authoritarianism, they don't want exclusively socialist/communist based economies, they want a mixed economy like we already have, they want a strong market with better regulations, they want stronger social and welfare programs to take better care of our people, they want ambitious action on climate change... This might sound wild, but there are already countries that exist that are similar to the ideals Bernie has, Nordic countries, which have what political commentators call social democracy, or the nordic model. The Nordic countries have very strong, thriving markets that have common-sense regulations, they have a lot of very strong (and wonderful) social programs, wonderful welfare systems, they provide universal healthcare, they provide tuition-free college, they provide paid sick, maternal and vacation leave, they provide universal childcare. They have strong environmental protections, they have ambitious plans to combat climate change. They do it within a democratic system. They have strong unionization, they have large public sectors that make over a quarter of their economies. The cost? More regulations, higher taxation, more government spending. The results? They have what I'd argue, and what many statistics would show, are the best-governed countries in the world, the most democratic countries in the world, that provide the highest quality of life provided to its citizens out of any other group of countries in the world. The fear-mongering claiming Bernie and AOC want America to become Venezuela, is dishonest horseshit, it's scare tactics. America is decades behind the developed world on enacting social programs to take care of our citizens, to increase the quality of life in America, due to corruption, due to scare tactics like this.
Scandinavian countries are hyper capitalist, with very low taxes on the capital class, and very high taxes on everyone else, that sort of thing only really survives because they have control of their own immigration volume, and they're awfully homogeneous (and so have a strong sense of shared identity with the rest of their people) which also allows central management to function efficiently. In Sweden, they even have a government website that shows how much people's taxes are, the Wallenberg family, far and away the richest family in that nation, often pay less than 1% (and no that's not a typo). If that's what you want, then sure, but they tried the high taxes on the wealthy thing and nearly collapsed because of it, but if you have some sort of tax the wealthy sentiment, they aren't the place to compare, if that was what you really wanted to replicate, there would be very few, if any of the "moneyed elite" who would even lobby against that, just as they don't there, care to guess why? Imagine a scenario where a candidate had called himself a fascist all his life, honeymooned in nazi germany, consistently talked up fascism, then gave some nonsense how he doesn't mean "those bad fascists", he means "those good fascists", then lists a bunch of countries who aren't just not fascist but had their own elected leaders publicly rebuke such comparisons. And then along come the people "he's not really a fascist at all", you know what we call those people? Morons,or liars, it's one of those two.
I hope trump will look at how the college and universities work, hopefully he can address the issue rattle the cage and make some positive changes out of it. Focus should be why the cost increased so fast in short period of time.
People make the mistake that Socialism is just as bad as Fascism when it's just not true. There is this idea that Fascism is just extreme right and just as bad as the extreme left which is Socialism, the issue is though that socialism has a history of working more than Fascism. Those countries you mention are Democratic Socialism and prove that Socialist policies can work out very well for a country. Fascism on the other hand has ended poorly for every country that has tried it. Economically, it may work out for a country, since Fascism isn't concerned about economics in the first place but about imposing social morale and authority on a country and cannot exist really without a dictator...which we know just doesn't end well. Socialism can exist without a dictator, Fascism cannot. Fascism in its very nature is anti-American because of that reason. Socialism, well, we have social programs already and a lot of them have worked. So your comparison here just doesn't work. Of course a proud Fascist would get torn to shreds. Usually, the only people that call themselves fascist are Neo-Nazi groups that want to commit Genocide, so yeah, coming out and running on Genocide isn't going to poll as well as "I want to give you free healthcare."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care?wprov=sfla1 Countries in red are the countries that don't guarantee healthcare to all citizens. Fascism is not an economic system. Socialism is. You are comparing apples to oranges. And Bernie has always wanted an mixed economy system. He has never advocated for the elimination of private property. He just thinks that the United States can do better than 99% of developed countries.
Fascism has a nationalistic component to it where it makes a moral claim that your ethnicity, your nationality means you are superior. Ya it's a bad analogy.
So millionaires are the cut off? Do you immediately become evil when you cross that threshold? And yes a lot of those donors are millionaires.
Millionaires are nothing, seriously, 1 million in net worth these days is nothing, especially when most of that could be in the home or retirement funds. Unless you are multi millionaire, you are not close to wealthy.
Op-ed in the Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/agains...lesser-evil-11583084901?mod=opinion_lead_pos7 Against Sanders, Trump Is the Lesser Evil The president has been even worse than I expected, but I may have to vote for him. By James Huffman March 1, 2020 12:48 pm ET If Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee for president, he’ll have to secure the votes of people like me. He won’t have a chance. A man who sings the praises of Fidel Castro’s Cuba and promises to dismantle the most productive economy on the planet won’t win over America’s moderate middle, even running against an ill-mannered, ignorant and demagogic Donald Trump. Until 2016 I was a registered Republican. I voted for some Democrats, but mostly Republicans. In 2010 I was Oregon’s Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, challenging incumbent Ron Wyden as a social moderate and fiscal conservative. In July 2016, I wrote an op-ed in Oregon’s leading newspaper urging the state’s Republican National Convention delegates to lead a “revolution of conscience” against Mr. Trump’s nomination. When he was nominated, I changed my registration to “unaffiliated.” In November I voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson. If I lived in a swing state, I’d have voted for Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump has been even worse as president than I imagined—less civil, less informed, more demagogic. Yet if Mr. Sanders is the Democratic nominee, I’ll vote for Mr. Trump. Voting for Bernie Sanders will not be an option for millions of moderate Republican and independent voters, including those in swing states. They may like some of the things Mr. Trump has done, but they can’t abide his rude behavior, narcissism and disregard for the truth. But neither can they accept Mr. Sanders’s socialism with its limitless, unfunded promises. The lesser evil is clear. Most of the harm Mr. Trump has caused, and will cause in another term, will pass when he leaves office. It will take time but civil dialogue can be restored, foreign relationships repaired, tariffs repealed, executive orders revoked, and new people appointed to important positions. Contrary to the “resistance,” democracy and the rule of law are not in peril. Mr. Trump is a product of democracy, and the courts—including judges appointed since 2017—continue to enforce the law. If Mr. Sanders’s socialist agenda were to become a reality, undoing it would be nearly impossible. Once created, social-welfare programs are almost never reversed. It is a one-way ratchet to more spending, mounting debt and growing dependence on government at the expense of individual responsibility. Lawmakers have known for decades that Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable without major reforms, but there are no reforms. Everything government does is funded by the capitalist economy that Mr. Sanders’s proposed policies would deliberately undermine. Some hope that even Democratic congressional majorities would put the brakes on a President Sanders’s agenda. But in an era of unbending party loyalty, moderates can’t rely on that. That’s why people like me may end up pulling the lever for Donald Trump. Mr. Huffman is a professor and dean emeritus at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Ore.
Bernie's gonna paint himself into a lonely corner with all the talk of being oppressed by "establishment politicians." Those are his FELLOW Democrats.
Lmao all that can be done so easily huh? Dude should try to get out from behind his desk every now and then. The international community will be forced to move forward without the US if Trump is re-elected, and even if we return to some level of stability in 2024 the US will never have the same level of trust or confidence going forward. At least Bernie has read and believes in the Constitution.
Why do you think all of the fellow politicians Trump clowned for being establishment caved in for him immediately once nominated? Will the Dems not stand behind their promises of BluNoMattaWho and #Unity?
there are a lot of Dems who won't vote for Bernie. that's why you're seeing all this activity coalescing right now
