Welcome to Bernie/Independent/Third Party Land

[Honky Tonk]

^^^ Yeah terms such as 'national wealth registry' et al are zesty morsels put forth to provoke votes from the ascribed victim classes to covet [[justifiably so) what the um' greedy others have.

Great until you find your own rank and file self out-of-compliance of said 'registry'! Ala YOUR wealth as defined by some official of the government you didn't even directly vote for. Good times! NOT.

Setting aside the perennial rich who PLAN to benefit from such a new governance, the true rich entities of wealth along with more manufacturing will leave the US along with their companies if too pressed.

They're not going to deal with the economic syllabus of a Warren or taxing rubric from Sanders etc.

They are pretending to go along now just to keep the extreme social justice warriors off their door steps. LOL!

The poor underclass will remain, more disillusioned as another batch of promises are conceived to keep them voting appropriately.

What I don't get is how the same left leaning factions of the academy can sign on to Sanders rhetoric of 'free college'? Really!?

Working in post secondary education it's obviously expensive -- check that. But they also knows there's been a dip in some programs re. the morale and commitment of students who are PAYING!

Now they will be expected to work harder for that which is completely free?

Where's the money going to come from to run the heat and cooling of the buildings, the technology [[where applicable - hah)??

Further, who'll pay the high tenured salaries of our great educational denizens of all of this eh, progress?

I guess they are moving on to their retirements in the sky. Let the lower wage adjuncts toil on! Got it.

You're asking too many questions, Zacha341. It's time you were brought in for reprogramming.

[Honky Tonk]

Get ready to divulge your most secretive financial information if Bernie or Warren get elected. You'll be ready for a plucking. There is no way that a wealth tax can be levied if the IRS doesn't know who has what. This will be like heaven on earth for litigious lawyers. If you like IRS audits and TSA pat downs, this is for you.

"Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders on Tuesday rolled out his plan to levy an “extreme wealth tax” on millionaires and billionaires, which he plans to enforce through the creation of a “national wealth registry.”" "The Vermont senator’s plan seeks to combat capital flight and other forms of tax avoidance through a “national wealth registry” and the addition of “significant additional third party reporting requirements.” The proposal calls for increased funding for the Internal Revenue Service to cover the bureaucratic costs associated with enforcing the wealth tax."

The "National Wealth Registry", if that doesn't sound like George Orwell's 1984 or Fahrenheit 451, I don't know what does. As long as the "Wealthy" are following legally established loopholes for write-offs and tax breaks, they're within their rights. You'll have to change and get rid of those loopholes first, and as long as you need votes from the very people that are using them [[eg. Clinton Foundation, Trump, Inc., and Bernie Sanders) it ain't gonna happen. The guy's losing. it, and so are his Green Kool-Aid followers.

[Zacha341]

Hah. I know. It's rough out here for a thinker! LOL!

Yeah, I'm not batting for the uber rich, they don't need my endorsement, but all that 'registry' stuff sounds fine so long as you're immune from it.

And of course poor people will be most adversely affected. Oh the irony......

You're asking too many questions, Zacha341. It's time you were brought in for reprogramming.

[Dan Wesson]

^^^ Yeah terms such as 'national wealth registry' et al are zesty morsels put forth to provoke votes from the ascribed victim classes to covet [[justifiably so) what the um' greedy others have.

Great until you find your own rank and file self out-of-compliance of said 'registry'! Ala YOUR wealth as defined by some official of the government you didn't even directly vote for. Good times! NOT.

Setting aside the perennial rich who PLAN to benefit from such a new governance, the true rich entities of wealth along with more manufacturing will leave the US along with their companies if too pressed.

They're not going to deal with the economic syllabus of a Warren or taxing rubric from Sanders etc.

They are pretending to go along now just to keep the extreme social justice warriors off their door steps. LOL!

The poor underclass will remain, more disillusioned as another batch of promises are conceived to keep them voting appropriately.

What I don't get is how the same left leaning factions of the academy can sign on to Sanders rhetoric of 'free college'? Really!?

Working in post secondary education it's obviously expensive -- check that. But they also knows there's been a dip in some programs re. the morale and commitment of students who are PAYING!

Now they will be expected to work harder for that which is completely free?

Where's the money going to come from to run the heat and cooling of the buildings, the technology [[where applicable - hah)??

Further, who'll pay the high tenured salaries of our great educational denizens of all of this eh, progress?

I guess they are moving on to their retirements in the sky. Let the lower wage adjuncts toil on! Got it.

^^^
I'm impressed at Zacha's ability to "turn a phrase". Not surprised mind you. Appreciative actually.

[Canadian Visitor]

What I don't get is how the same left leaning factions of the academy can sign on to Sanders rhetoric of 'free college'? Really!?

Unto itself, I don't see this as particularly controversial or challenging.

University is free is several European countries and much cheaper in most countries than in the United States.

As with healthcare, there is excessive spending in the U.S. system in all sorts of ways, much of it a function of unnecessarily high tuition.

For instance, look at all the money spent on student aid, in loans, loans collection and forgiveness/non-payment/bankruptcy etc. As well as scholarships and bursaries.

If you nixed most of the above you could literally drop tuition by 1/3 at most schools without a single new tax dollar.

On top of that schools in the US vastly over invest in athletics adding an exhobinant bill absorbed, in part, by tuition.

High tuitions also lead to a significant marketing spend on student recruitment, both domestic and international.

Imagine if you scaled that down to having the info prospective students need on the website and otherwise let them find you?

I can see a tuition reduction on the order of 40-45% without any new money.

The rest of the way would require new money and if reduced/eliminated tuition resulted in higher enrollment then more money still.

Handily, the Green Party in Canada has made the tuition abolition promise, and its been costed independently at 16B CAD per year. Which is about 12BUSD.

Obviously that is calculated with already lower Canadian tuitions in mind; but it gives us a decent sense of some of the costs, with the US being roughly 9x larger.

Where as Canadian tuitions tend to be about 1/2 of the comparable numbers for State Universities, you're looking at 50% tuition reduction at a cost of about 108BUSD per year.

That's very high-level estimating since there are lots of variables.

But the bottom line is that its a do-able thing, and that it need not compromise educational quality.

What is fair though, is to ask for credible costing and credible ideas on how to raise the requisite revenue.

Its also fair to ask what the end goal is?

Is it merely to reduce student debt?

Is it to change the mix of students by removing financial barriers such that some qualified low-income students will displace their less qualified high-income peers?

Or are you expecting those already in University/College to stay there and grow enrollment, in which case, by how much, and whose paying?

[Canadian Visitor]

^^^ Yeah terms such as 'national wealth registry' et al are zesty morsels put forth to provoke votes from the ascribed victim classes to covet [[justifiably so) what the um' greedy others have.

Germany is a very successful country, very capitalist, and it has had a wealth tax, albeit a very modest one.

The idea is not an evil one.

No moreso than Property Tax which is already a wealth tax on the Real Estate portion of your wealth.

I would take issue w/the terrible name [[marketing fail) and with the proposed means, which strike me as rather cumbersome and awkward.

One should not rely on voluntary compliance, nor create a bureaucratic nightmare.

Easier ways to achieve a similar goal would be to tax capital gains at source [[have a broker withhold 'x' percentage on sale of any shares and remit that to the government just like employer does with income tax.)

I'm not endorsing this by the way, merely pointing out if one wanted to do this, that would be the easier way.

Personally, I think the US Federal gov't does need additional funds, if only to balance the budget.

I don't think cuts alone would square things.

But I would suggest the route of a 5% VAT before other options.

As well as streamlining the existing income tax and corporate tax codes which are far too lengthy with all their deductions and loopholes.

Doing so would raise a bunch, some of which could be disbursed back as a higher tax-free threshold or lower entry-level income tax; that's a matter of political preference.

[Richard]

With good intentions all of these suggestions are a floor plan of transferring the wealth from the bottom to the top.

They say or used to anyways the average person makes 1 million in thier lifetime.

The Heathcare plan alone removes $600,000 from that equation.

Now deduct
free collage.
Conforming to the Green deal
UBI
Free housing as a right
and what ever else they can dream up.

The United States is over 325 million citizens,because a program may work in a country of 30 million does not automatically equate to it will work in the United States.

Even at that all of these programs take years to implement,Sanders has admitted it would take 5 years for his health care dream to be implemented.

So what will happen hypothetically is a far left candidate wins the election,starts implementing policies that cost trillions to implement,money that we do not have,at the end of the term an opposition party is elected instead and rolls everything back,

Both Warren and Bernie Sanders own multiple large sqft homes while they can only live in one at any given moment.

When I see them offering up thier homes to the homeless or disabled and actually walking the walk then just maybe they will have some credibility.

Warren excepted a $400,000 a year salary as an educator,she is exactly the reason the education system of higher learning is in the mess that they are.

But yet we are supposed to swallow the pill of she knows how to fix it?

[canuck]

you don't have money for Universal Health care but carry on 800 military bases abroad. I feel sorry for you Richard. Don't quit smoking.

[Richard]

you don't have money for Universal Health care but carry on 800 military bases abroad. I feel sorry for you Richard. Don't quit smoking.

你必須向主人鞠躬

Chinese for - You must bow to your new masters.

Freedom is never free and you guys would never be able to afford your healthcare if you did not have our skirts to hide behind.

You would have already been speaking Russian or Chinese by now.

Your fishing and natural resources make you guys a prime target,we could have sent the Salvation Army to take your country but French is hard to learn so it was figured,why bother.

You healthcare system covers a headache but it has serious problems when ones care revolves around the value of ones life is based on how much the surgery costs.

Why is it that people that live in countries with free heathcare come to the United States for healthcare.

Maybe it is you get what you pay for.

If you were not intent on spending billions on bridges to nowhere you would have the funding for your national school lunch program,but it is bridges over children.

I guess there some positives around if a starving schoolchild falls over from hunger and bumps thier head,at least they can get it stitched up for free.

[canuck]

你必須向主人鞠躬

Chinese for - You must bow to your new masters.

Freedom is never free and you guys would never be able to afford your healthcare if you did not have our skirts to hide behind.

You would have already been speaking Russian or Chinese by now.

Your fishing and natural resources make you guys a prime target,we could have sent the Salvation Army to take your country but French is hard to learn so it was figured,why bother.

You healthcare system covers a headache but it has serious problems when ones care revolves around the value of ones life is based on how much the surgery costs.

Why is it that people that live in countries with free heathcare come to the United States for healthcare.

Maybe it is you get what you pay for.

If you were not intent on spending billions on bridges to nowhere you would have the funding for your national school lunch program,but it is bridges over children.

I guess there some positives around if a starving schoolchild falls over from hunger and bumps thier head,at least they can get it stitched up for free.

Don't get all worked up there, Ricky. If you comoound the feect of rednecked over Canada and your blackened lungs, your heart could fail, oh, and that with the heat, eh?

Better wake up pretty early iffen you want to overtake Canada. You've tried more than once and failed. Big time.

[Richard]

^ yea you guys may have whipped our butts before but now you gave up yer weapons under the guise of the greater good.

So now all that would be needed is stop sticks for yer killer vans and pictures of scary AR-15s and we would be in Ontario by nightfall.

[Canadian Visitor]

^ yea you guys may have whipped our butts before but now you gave up yer weapons under the guise of the greater good.

So now all that would be needed is stop sticks for yer killer vans and pictures of scary AR-15s and we would be in Ontario by nightfall.

This exchange is silly.

Putting aside that some of the most senior US military officials are Canadian [[see NORAD).......

And the fact that AR-15s are legal in Canada, if you have the right permit.......

[Richard]

^ thank you for the intelligence report,it is helpful to have an insider.

How many AR-15 owners are currently in Canada and how many light vans are registered?

What is the weather like in Ontario this time of year and what are the non rush hour traffic times?

How many horses do the Mounties actually have in thier Calvary division?

Asking for a school research project.

More important,do they even sell Camel lights in Canada?

[canuck]

The mounties have been riding camel lights ever since the calvary, didn't you know?

[Pam]

you don't have money for Universal Health care but carry on 800 military bases abroad. I feel sorry for you Richard. Don't quit smoking.

Nobody ever asks "how are we going to pay for it" when it comes to the bloated military budget. I'd like to see it cut to pay for healthcare and education.

[Jimaz]

Sen. Bernie Sanders: The Impeachment Inquiry Needs To Move Quickly

Presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders has been calling for impeachment for months because he says Trump is damaging America as "the most corrupt president of the modern era."

[Richard]

Nobody ever asks "how are we going to pay for it" when it comes to the bloated military budget. I'd like to see it cut to pay for healthcare and education.

Saying the military budget is bloated is a generalization.

The military budget also covers

FBI
Department of Homeland security
The VA which includes medical
The State Department
Department of energy

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-milit...growth-3306320

The VA was spending $49 billion to provide healthcare for over 6 million service members.

So how much would spending be for 325 million US citizens and 20 million illegals!

Useing the military budget as a example when it comes to healthcare funding is easy because most do not even know what is included in the budget,which is actually minuscule when compared to a national healthcare plan.

That is like comparing a ford pinto to a Bentley when it comes to costs.

Actualy the current administration has done what no other administration has done in the past,which was to implement cost sharing with allies when it comes to actions,even if they are not directly involved.

The Naval blockade in Iran with US ships was not implemented until the allies either sent ships or cut a cost sharing check so we would not have to bear the total costs.

[Zacha341]

Thank yah! I love words and language. In another incarnation I'm a poet.

^^^
I'm impressed at Zacha's ability to "turn a phrase". Not surprised mind you. Appreciative actually.

[Zacha341]

Yes, there's an aspect of the military that unquestionably parlays to the military industrial complex. Spending and wars to spend more.

Then there is the primary need of self-defense, which must be funded.

Nobody ever asks "how are we going to pay for it" when it comes to the bloated military budget. I'd like to see it cut to pay for healthcare and education.

[Canadian Visitor]

Yes, there's an aspect of the military that unquestionably parlays to the military industrial complex. Spending and wars to spend more.

Then there is the primary need of self-defense, which must be funded.

How robust a self-defense?

Enough to fight one other great power?

Two other great powers?

Three?

That last answer is the current standard the Pentagon uses.

It strikes me as rather excessive, I think if Russia, China and India all declare war on the U.S........probably time to surrender, LOL I mean all 4 are nuclear powers; there won't be anything left for anyone anyway.

But more seriously.


Those next 3 powers combined spend roughly 320B USD on defense.

The U.S. literally spends more than double that.

That's just insane.

I think if you lowered the amount to equal the next biggest 3 combined, that would surely be ample, and then some.

It would also offer up more than 300B USD to the annual budget for whatever your political preference demands [[deficit reduction/tax cut/expanded programs)

[Richard]

To me that is not a way to compare.

The United States has 54 allies and the majority of those do not have the military power to protect thier own borders.

How much would Canada be spending on thier military if the United States was taken out of the picture,we do not have the luxury of depending on others for our National security and protection.

So to say Russia spends less or China spends less is not a comparison.

When the Soviet Union fell we also picked up more allies that at the time could not barely feed thier population but have the US military might as a security force.

The strong always eats the weak.

Our military budget is what it is excluding the increases when we get involved in actions.

We were perfectly content to keep within our borders,both WW1 and WW2 proved that does not work.

We cannot be complacent and then when a call to action comes say hold on while we gear up,we have to be ready to go.

Lets be honest here,if Russia or China decided to get aggressive towards,Canada,Holland,France,Poland,Estonia and 50 others who is going to stop them but the United States?

We have combined forces with many other countries that all kick in,what happens if everybody said,not my problem.

We decided to be the police force,we have a population of 325 million compared to countries of 32 million or less and countries that have less land mass then 1 of our states.

We can say,okay we are no longer the worlds police force and it is time to shrink our military back within our borders.

But that means everybody that is crying military spending reductions had better be prepared to pick up a weapon and defend your country,if you are not ready to do that maybe it is better to leave it to the professionals.

Exactly what happened in France after WW1,everybody became complacent and said they did not feel it necessary to fund a military.

How well did that work out for them.

Based on the recent events when it comes to gun control,my guess is the ones most vocal now are going to be the ones looking for somebody else to save thier butts if it becomes necessary.

You think guns are scary now,how do you think it is going to be when some other country has them in their hands while ordering you to climb into the boxcar.

What people also fail to realize is a lot of those countries have a mandatory minimum service requirement,you will spend you time there or in a cell.

The mamby pamby anti military anti gun folk do not fare well in those countries,but then again they also have what is called a national pride in thier country,something that is sparce as of late in this country.

Russia and China would never have the balls to attack the United States,they may have the population advantages but they cannot match our standing military or the amount of guns on the streets that they would also have to face.

It is called a deterrent,no nukes necessary,look at our past kill ratios not to even mention we have weapons that shoot a million rounds per minute.

Outside of that all they would have to really do is crash our banking system and let rest happen without even stepping foot on our shores.

A majority of our allies only have a standing military that will be used to create a delay or buy time while the rest of the allies mobilize,that is thier only goal,so thier military spending is irrelevant in comparison.

Massive difference in a home security force verses a country with invasion capabilities.

Canada cannot protect its borders from an all out invasion,it would take China less then 60 days to take the country in a blitz rush.

What if the US said MEH we will sit this one out,then your free healthcare care would consist of a bullet.

Actually if Russia or China were to go to war with the United States,strategy wise they would take Canada or Mexico first because they need a base of operations verse shipping every thing 5000 miles.

Nobody likes Mexico so it would be Canada,because it has ports,resources,lots of people scared of guns and they could cross the river and enter the United States easy enough.

[Canadian Visitor]

To me that is not a way to compare.

The United States has 54 allies and the majority of those do not have the military power to protect thier own borders.

How much would Canada be spending on thier military if the United States was taken out of the picture,we do not have the luxury of depending on others for our National security and protection.

The exact same.

Before the US was a significant military power, no nation, save and except one, ever invaded Canada. The one, was the United States.

Canada has nuclear capability [[we supply the US nuclear material) and is the #21 power in the world militarily as it is, today.

But our mobilization capability is just fine; see WW2, where Canada got in 2 years before the US. By the time the war ended Canada has 95000 sailors and over 300 warships; remember that this was 1945.

We also started from only 6 vessels, we have a lot more today.

Between that and deterrence, Canada has little to worry about from would-be rivals.

***

As to the 54 allies; France and the UK both have their own nuclear weapons, as do several others, they don't need US military protection.

Further, no one is attacking all 54 allies at the same time. You don't need a military to deal with a non-existent situation.

So to say Russia spends less or China spends less is not a comparison.

Sure it is; but if you can come up with a better, logical criteria, feel free to share with the group.

Lets be honest here,if Russia or China decided to get aggressive towards,Canada,Holland,France,Poland,Estonia and 50 others who is going to stop them but the United States?

China and Russia only have the option of nuking Canada.

Neither have the logistical capability to take and hold Canada.

They don't have the requisite assets or personnel to spread over the second largest country on the planet; and keep their own populations in check.

PS, you might have missed that Canada, The Netherlands, Estonia and France are all in NATO; we can defend each other. The Russians are a land-based threat in Europe, but not beyond the Balkans and Ukraine. They don't have the ability to take and hold Poland, never mind anywhere west of that.

The Chinese are not about to invade either.

Russia and China would never have the balls to attack the United States,they may have the population advantages but they cannot match our standing military or the amount of guns on the streets that they would also have to face.

LOL, such drivel.

The Russians and the Chinese aren't going to attack anyway, and if they did, they'd nuke and your gun would be irrelevant, your home would be erased and the land irradiated.

Which is the same thing the U.S. would do to Russia/China.

As to a power to power stand up, excluding nuclear, the US is much stronger than either China or Russia, which makes my point. You could be 1/2 as strong and that wouldn't change a thing.

Actually if Russia or China were to go to war with the United States,strategy wise they would take Canada or Mexico first because they need a base of operations verse shipping every thing 5000 miles.

Nobody likes Mexico so it would be Canada,because it has ports,resources,lots of people scared of guns and they could cross the river and enter the United States easy enough.

LMAO; back to geography class for you.

Russia taking Canada, presumably not going through Alaska; would require going directly over the arctic with a supply line; not remotely feasible for a full-scale invasion, that would be a suicide mission.

The alternative, would be the Pacific front, while somehow not bothering the U.S......and even that would be a nightmare; though theoretically feasible.

***

Oh and what River are the Russians crossing to get into the US from Canada?

I suppose if they went all the way to the bottom of Ontario to cross, the could go over or under the Detroit River or the Niagara.....but that would be insane when there are thousands of miles of undefended land border against Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota and Minnesota.

[Richard]

^ you sure love your nukes.

What is the point of nuking a country for war if you cannot occupy it in the end?

Having suffered from nearly 20 years of neglect, Canada's armed forces were small, poorly equipped, and for the most part unprepared for war in 1939. King's government began increasing spending in 1936, but the increase was unpopular. The government had to describe it as primarily for defending Canada, with an overseas war "a secondary responsibility of this country,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mili...g_World_War_II


What do you think the whole Greenland thing was about ?

Stopping China and Russia from establishing a northern foothold,why would they want a frozen ice pack?

We could be 1/2 as strong but what happens if China attacks Mexico and Russia attacks through Canada,the ability to fight on more then one front plays a big role in things.

It is easy to say it is silly to think like that and easy to not support preventing it but it is worse if it does happen and you are not prepared for it.

There are still some left in Europe that could probably explain it better because they had to live through what nobody thought would happen.

60 million dead that thought it would never happen,given the risk assessment based on past history,squeeze the dime elsewhere,because by the time you found out you were wrong,it is to late.

They could cross the shiny new bridge that you guys are providing for them but I am sure the Detroit region would give them a butt whooping that they were not anticipating.

All they would need to do is take the north east corridor,industrial and shipping.

[Jimaz]

In Conversation: Robert Reich and Bernie Sanders

Robert Reich and Senator Bernie Sanders discuss how to fight Trump's agenda and how to keep building a progressive movement.

I was distracted by his bookshelf. He read The Soul of A New Machine! LOL

[Zacha341]

^^^ Or at least it's on the book shelf... any Solzhenitsyn?