2016 Republican Presidential Candidates.

Free said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

brianlux said:

What do you suppose would be revealed if one of the more reputable (yeah, I know, is there one?) polling organizations took a poll of all registered Republicans and asked these questions:

1. What is your main reason for supporting the candidate of your choice?
[I want to know what it is Republicans who support Trump really expect he would do for this country.]

2. Do you really take this year's Republican candidate selection seriously or have you just blown it off because you don't find any of the candidates in the running to be worth putting any serious effort behind?
[Yes, another theory of mine: Republicans know it's a lost cause and recognize that their party is badly broken down and fractured so they want to make some noise why they can.]

1. I would say that since americans will be choosing between Hilary and Trump in November (Bernie who?) they will vote trump because they at least know what they are getting. Both have pipe dreams (Hilary wishes things will get better if we all hold hands a little tighter and trump will build a wall paid for by Mexicans. Which one sounds more loony?

2. Bernie or Hilary, really? Of course she is winning - she is running against Bernie, It's bernie, come on.
Repubs are the only chance of not having 4more years of a Clinton. - unless that's what americans really want.

It's delusional and clearly denial to still think that Bernie does not have a solid chance, voters have been making and will continue to donate and vote for him, not Hillary. Her supporters are the ones not voting, they must think she's a shoe-in which is showing to not actually happen.

Hillary is the favorite, but right now its 4 times more likely Trump is POTUS then Bernie.

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

I think sanders would be better than Clinton
here are his ideas and how he intends to pay https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/

There are some problems with the proposals. For example on education, his 'speculation' tax is really a trade tax. Let's be clear. So if you go sell 25 shares of Apple to buy a car, buy a house, etc., then you pay a tax (along with capital gains). You will also pay on the buy side as well. Now, they estimate that it will produce 300 billion a year in extra tax revenue. Other estimates half that number. I think Bernie's advisers believe that trading will continue at the current pace. It won't. That defies the laws of economics.

Medicaire for all... There are a ton of base assumptions and some misleading angles in the proposal. For example, an 11% increase in payroll tax on 'business' sounds nice, but payroll taxes get passed on to the wage earner. You pay for it down there. And even if the math did work (not sure if it does), do we really want Medicare as our mandated health insurer? I sure as hell don't. My mom has medicare (she's 82) and it's a total PITA with lots of downfalls. Yes, I pay a lot for my health care, but it's superior than the administration by the government.

There are some interesting ideas. For example, I could get behind community college (2 years) as a base as part of standard education. But I prefer some state tries it first. Why try it federally to start? I do agree that the rate for education loans should be the discount rate. That's essentially what he is saying.

Here's an interesting read: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jan/13/how-much-would-bernie-sanders-health-care-plan-cos/

The one thing that he does not address is the deficit. Hell, many of these taxes should be imposed without any additional benefits, simply to reduce the deficit numbers today.

And going back historically, it's generally thought that the parties are split 40/40 with the rest independent, disinterested, unaffiliated, etc. That's why I say he has 35 of the 40%

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

I think sanders would be better than Clinton
here are his ideas and how he intends to pay https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/

There are some problems with the proposals. For example on education, his 'speculation' tax is really a trade tax. Let's be clear. So if you go sell 25 shares of Apple to buy a car, buy a house, etc., then you pay a tax (along with capital gains). You will also pay on the buy side as well. Now, they estimate that it will produce 300 billion a year in extra tax revenue. Other estimates half that number. I think Bernie's advisers believe that trading will continue at the current pace. It won't. That defies the laws of economics.

Medicaire for all... There are a ton of base assumptions and some misleading angles in the proposal. For example, an 11% increase in payroll tax on 'business' sounds nice, but payroll taxes get passed on to the wage earner. You pay for it down there. And even if the math did work (not sure if it does), do we really want Medicare as our mandated health insurer? I sure as hell don't. My mom has medicare (she's 82) and it's a total PITA with lots of downfalls. Yes, I pay a lot for my health care, but it's superior than the administration by the government.

There are some interesting ideas. For example, I could get behind community college (2 years) as a base as part of standard education. But I prefer some state tries it first. Why try it federally to start? I do agree that the rate for education loans should be the discount rate. That's essentially what he is saying.

Here's an interesting read: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jan/13/how-much-would-bernie-sanders-health-care-plan-cos/

The one thing that he does not address is the deficit. Hell, many of these taxes should be imposed without any additional benefits, simply to reduce the deficit numbers today.

Good point.
From an outsider I just see that this guy has a plan on paper.
Will it pan out?, who knows.
At least he speaks from the heart.
The deficit on the other hand is a hot topic. I remember when your current POTUS administration was gathering world headlines saying "USA will collapse at midnight when the gabillion dollar debt ceiling is breached".
Nothing happened right?

Not exactly. There is a law on the books about funding the interest on the debt. If the ceiling wasn't extended, the US would technically default on the loans. That would damage bond ratings, raise rates, etc.

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

I think sanders would be better than Clinton
here are his ideas and how he intends to pay https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/

There are some problems with the proposals. For example on education, his 'speculation' tax is really a trade tax. Let's be clear. So if you go sell 25 shares of Apple to buy a car, buy a house, etc., then you pay a tax (along with capital gains). You will also pay on the buy side as well. Now, they estimate that it will produce 300 billion a year in extra tax revenue. Other estimates half that number. I think Bernie's advisers believe that trading will continue at the current pace. It won't. That defies the laws of economics.

Medicaire for all... There are a ton of base assumptions and some misleading angles in the proposal. For example, an 11% increase in payroll tax on 'business' sounds nice, but payroll taxes get passed on to the wage earner. You pay for it down there. And even if the math did work (not sure if it does), do we really want Medicare as our mandated health insurer? I sure as hell don't. My mom has medicare (she's 82) and it's a total PITA with lots of downfalls. Yes, I pay a lot for my health care, but it's superior than the administration by the government.

There are some interesting ideas. For example, I could get behind community college (2 years) as a base as part of standard education. But I prefer some state tries it first. Why try it federally to start? I do agree that the rate for education loans should be the discount rate. That's essentially what he is saying.

Here's an interesting read: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jan/13/how-much-would-bernie-sanders-health-care-plan-cos/

The one thing that he does not address is the deficit. Hell, many of these taxes should be imposed without any additional benefits, simply to reduce the deficit numbers today.

Good point.
From an outsider I just see that this guy has a plan on paper.
Will it pan out?, who knows.
At least he speaks from the heart.
The deficit on the other hand is a hot topic. I remember when your current POTUS administration was gathering world headlines saying "USA will collapse at midnight when the gabillion dollar debt ceiling is breached".
Nothing happened right?

Not exactly. There is a law on the books about funding the interest on the debt. If the ceiling wasn't extended, the US would technically default on the loans. That would damage bond ratings, raise rates, etc.

Your press made it sound like America would implode and forever be but a moment in time unless the ceiling was raised.
So what number is this imaginary ceiling now?

I don't know but we have enough headroom for another year or so. It wouldn't implode, but it's silly because we have raise the ceiling because we have to pay the interest. Not raising it is simply the GOP (in this case) trying to use that leverage for something else or to make a statement. In the end, there was no way it wasn't happening.

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
So is this a yearly thing where your government asks to raise the debt ceiling?

Evidently the one from this past fall should be good until 2017.