2020 dem pres pick
If you had to pick a dem running for pres, who would you pick? As we see the limited Democrats on this forum. I would like to hear who they are going to vote for?
|
no idea. Repub here. but I cannot recall an election with this many extreme left candidates, many openly calling for socialism. I think a few moderate (D) candidates would do well in 2020, but dems have completely missed the concept of a candidate that could attract a few republican votes while also keeping the dem base interested.
|
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lgA0fjztqaQ" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
|
Quote:
|
At this stage I would guess it will be Warren but my track record of picking winners is terrible. I'd like to see a Bernie/Yang ticket just to own the Cons. Is cons the alternative term for Libs?
|
Bernie is a self proclaimed socialist so I am not sure what you are talking about.
|
Quote:
Socialism is collective property rights, planned economy. The terms are pretty similar but the systems are completely different. |
I agree with Ralph... surprised as I am to say so, my bet is it'll be Warren at the nomination. Biden seems to be losing a step and Bernie can't get past his own core supporters. Crazy as it is to say a year out, but I feel like the rest of the group is just falling behind. Maybe that's just perception, but perception becomes reality.
Me personally, I really like Mayor Pete, but I don't think this is quite his time. |
Who knows. If there are enough Reps to kick Trump's sorry a$$ to the curb, it could be a Republican. Otherwise it will be any Dem on the ticket. I guess nobody cares about the deficit anymore.
|
Ralph
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Good point Ralph. From the Country that Voted in people like Maxine Waters, AOC, The LibTards will vote in virtually anyone, Hey what happened to Michael Avanatti's 2020 Presidential bid? LOL LOL
|
Don't forget that TrumpTurds will vote in anybody. Don't want to leave anyone out. I bet no one here voted for Maxine or AOC, but we do have TrumpTurds here.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Is Trump the perfect Pres? Not by any stretch of the imagination. But WAY better than any offering the left has or will put forward. MAGA. |
Quote:
|
So we have one supporter of Mayor Pete and one for Bernie/Yang. Anyone else want to weigh in?
I will probably vote for Trump again. If I were to vote Democrat I would most likely lean toward Tom Steyer. For the most part the whole Democratic fields policy positions are homogeneous, making it difficult to distinguish candidates by anything other than temperament. |
what have Dems accomplished in 3 years? Besides waste billions in taxpayers money. <--- I realize that's nothing new to them, but at some point, their job is to represent their constituents. Not start a bunch of **** for the sake of starting it.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Or better yet, how does such a staunchly republican state like Alaska participate in such a similar scheme and not go all ANTIFA? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
If all you are talking about is the redistribution of wealth, then is the $28B (and counting) "bailout" of farmers as the result of cancelled sales to the Chinese (far far more than the "government motors" bailout ended up costing) also socialism? If not, why not? What about the mortgage interest deduction? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
AOC is a self proclaimed socialist. And the left parades her dumbass around like we should put her face on the statue of liberty. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Basically what you are trying to argue is if I don't come down and take your grain, but instead take all the money you made from the grain sale, then it is not socialism? right....... |
Quote:
Quote:
Or is the idea just if you proclaim you are or are not a thing then it's true? Like how the NAZIs were socialists, because socialist was right there in the name (National Socialist German Workers Party)? Ergo, Bernie = NAZI, right? |
Governments job should be to help Business make and employee more and more people. Help business move money. Government makes 10c on every dollar they move her in Ca. Governments job should be to help people move money, giving tax credits to simulate business to hire workers so they have a paycheck and spend money and pay taxes is basic.
|
A guy with a Job & Money in his pocket spends a whole lot more and pays more Tax then a guy in the Un Employment line with no money.
|
Quote:
|
Back on topic.
So who’s the democratic candidate you guys are pulling for? You got like 8 choices. Somebody should have made this a poll. |
1 Attachment(s)
I would Vote for Kamala.
|
One of many ubi experiments currently taking place. This one over in Stockton. The ultimate idea is that ubi replaces most of not all welfare/assistance programs, drastically cutting the cost/overhead of managing them
https://www.businessinsider.com/stoc...uccess-2019-10 |
Text I got from Yang campaign:
Sorry for the late reply, I'm a volunteer using a texting tool and we try not to message people late at night. To pay for it, Andrew is proposing a VAT tax of 10%. It's a more efficient, fair tax and will have large tech companies finally paying their fair share. For almost all American consumers the VAT+Freedom Dividend will mean a lot more money in their pocket at the end of the day. This is how it works: for the first $120,000 you spend, or $240,000 for couples, you are still receiving more money than you pay in. But if you have a year where you spend more than a quarter million dollars as a couple, then you are just starting contributing to everyone else's Freedom Dividend. yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/ That is Yang's plan for UBI. Won't putting a 10% tax on everything cause people to spend less? Maybe it would only be short term, but if you go to the store and everything costs 10% more overnight, it's got to at least be psychological to not spend as much? Of course, a lot of Americans spend outside of their means, so maybe it would help some of that? At least short term, it would have to put a hurt on the economy. Yes, maybe some people would feel richer their $12000 a year, but the people spending more than that are who in talking about. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
So we have a few people for Andrew Yang i guess/
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/ It would be easier than you might think. Andrew proposes funding the Freedom Dividend by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value Added Tax of 10 percent. Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction. A Value Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the production of goods or services a business produces. It is a fair tax and it makes it much harder for large corporations, who are experts at hiding profits and income, to avoid paying their fair share. A VAT is nothing new. 160 out of 193 countries in the world already have a Value Added Tax or something similar, including all of Europe which has an average VAT of 20 percent. The means to pay for the basic income will come from four sources: 1. Current spending: We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like. This reduces the cost of the Freedom Dividend because people already receiving benefits would have a choice between keeping their current benefits and the $1,000, and would not receive both. Additionally, we currently spend over 1 trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like. We would save $100 – 200+ billion as people would be able to take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional. The Freedom Dividend would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up. Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth. 2. A VAT: Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone. A VAT at half the European level would generate $800 billion in new revenue A VAT will become more and more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income tax from robots or software. 3. New revenue: Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy. The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy will grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs. This would generate approximately $800 – 900 billion in new revenue from economic growth. 4. Taxes on top earners and pollution: By removing the Social Security cap, implementing a financial transactions tax, and ending the favorable tax treatment for capital gains/carried interest, we can decrease financial speculation while also funding the Freedom Dividend. We can add to that a carbon fee that will be partially dedicated to funding the Freedom Dividend, making up the remaining balance required to cover the cost of this program. |
Quote:
1) The town I grew up in, that $1000 would go to booze, week or meth. There is a reason that Welfare was tied to certain purchases because they already leaned where the money would go. 2) Robots and software? Where are you going to get the taxes from if you are supposedly replacing them with robots and software 3) I see Jack Daniels and Juan Pable Escobar Jr, getting billions. 4) Carbon fees are creating yet another feat currency that is going to be another rich person give away like it is in California. Tax the regular people while they give craps loads of money to the Sierra Club and other large land owners for not developing land that they could not develop anyway. All while we the consumer pay through the nose for it. |
dang delta, the way you talk about where you grow up it's this inexpensive Nirvana of self reliant folks with easy access to nice schools and low cost healthcare. Why would everyone suddenly start spending their income on drugs? Remember, EVERYONE would get the money, you included. Is all that keeps you from going on a meth bender not having the $$$?
Consider that we already give thousands away in the form of exempting income from taxes -- does everyone who gets the personal exemption on their taxes use it for drugs? |
Quote:
Our high school has vocational and academic programs. Has an two level basketball stadium with 6 courts if they fold the seats up and run side to side. Not bad for a broke little town with a population of 19,000 and 60 miles to even the nearest mall. It is true, it did only cost us $100 dollars for a urgent care visit with medication with no insurance needed while on vacation there. It cost us $45 when I was a teen for a ER visit when some lady pulled in front of me and my friend on our bicycles. So if everyone gets this money, what is the point? The market will offset. It is just like credit cards right now. everyone is pretty much approved. What has costs done of products since the easing of credit? money in the market makes prices go up, not down. The difference is and "exemption" of taxes is allowing people who EARNED their money to keep it. Not taking from those who earned it and giving it to others who did not. That is the difference I have compared to you. I don't believe that things I work hard for are yours for the taking. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Ubi makes the government stronger and the people weaker.
|
1000 a month is pennies if you are on welfare and have 3 kids. Plus all the free housing, free cable, free healthcare, free free free free. 1k is a joke. Welfare is to help people, but it turns into a lifestyle they are not going to work and take 1k to get off
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
In the end this is a wealth redistribution scheme to spread the wealth around. IMHO, the weak point in the idea is that the payments ($12K per person) continue even if the economy tanks, people spend less, and collections fall. And as bcd suggests, increasing the cost of most goods by 10% overnight (through the VAT) is probably going to slow the economy down. From a policy perspective, I do really like the idea of taxing consumption through a VAT vs taxing earnings through income tax, because it doesn't penalize savers, it penalizes spenders. But I do wonder about feasibility given our dependence on no-money-down-same-as-cash-72-month-car-loan freewheeling easy spending to buoy the economy. If everyone starts behaving responsibly with their money, the economy will definitely contract. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The other irony is to eco what you just said, saving money will actually tank the economy. |
Quote:
This happens to also be the unintended (or maybe intended) consequence of welfare that it has destroyed the family unit. I don't think you realize the position these people are in where they will purposely have kids to get more checks and make sure their is never a man in the house so they continue to qualify for benefits. The effect (while I am sure it is complicated) is the black community when from around 25% single parent homes to over 70%. Now we have generational problems such as drug addition, gang violence, and a large population who are in now way shape of form ready to contribute to society in a positive way. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
What shouln't everyone just get it comment ignores the basics of humanity and also the way money works. While the system should not be set up keep people from working or getting married, giving people money is not the answer either. Why is it that democrats keep wanting to try and relearn the lessons that were already learned by the democrats before them. Just giving it to them does 2 things. First, it everyone has it then it is worth nothing. Business people will find out what is getting the uptick in sales, then raise the price. Second is the always ignoring the human aspect to this all. The ones who live generationally will still find a way to stay in the system. They have no intention of leaving the system. Why make it easy and why make it so others would want to stay. Easy money right? The only ones who would suffer would be the kids. That is why they have reformed it now to where they can only buy certain products and not booze and smokes. I see you have not thought about the middle class paying for this again. The price point is every home sales. 10% increase. Children in single-parent families by race in the United States https://datacenter.kidscount.org/dat...185,13/432,431 https://www.census.gov › prod › statbrief African-American family structure - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa...mily_structure https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._1940-2014.png |
BTW, kind of funny. The spike in single family birthrate started dramatically increasing right after second major welfare reform of the 1960's. The first big reform being the New Deal with FDR. Not saying that the two are absolutely related, but look at the numbers and then look at the details of what it takes to qualify. You would have to really want to try to discount it but it has to be a factor.
|
I'm not sure a VAT would apply to home sales? There are different suggestions for treatment of capital gains and investment income, so I don't think that every transaction of everything is supposed to be subject to the VAT. Interesting question tho, and devil is DEFINITELY in the (nonexistent at this point) details.
What your graph shows is that we have measured by different yardsticks over the years. (some end, some begin etc etc). All tend to follow the same curve. Do you have that same graph by income? That would be the interesting question -- do poor whites actually marry at a higher rate than poor folks of other races? Or do poor folks act similarly? Or to say it another way, what is the rate of out of wedlock births among the white middle class and the minority middle class? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
So you would be in favor of UBI, W2W?
|
Quote:
Technically a family making $102,000 a year in the bay area qualifies for assistance. |
so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/ Learn to pronounce noun a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. By that definition, America would not be considered "socialist" until gov controls 100% of allocation of resources and money. Nobody is calling for socialism, but the current class of Dems definitely have socialist tendencies! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I prefer to keep my slippery slopes confined to Kirkwood, Heavenly and Squaw Valley, thank you very much.
|
Ahhhh kirkwood. Used to teach there, love that place. And a Trump supporter whining about slippery slopes is hilarious!
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 2:34 AM. |