Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even Bernie and many democrats will not support her because of her fees and campaign contributions from Wall Street firms.
Do you mean he won't campaign for her? Bernie has repeatedly said he will support Hillary if he is not the nominee. Many of Berni'es older supporters, on the other hand, will vote for Trump. I hear it day after day on C-Span. Sanders or Trump. Many of Bernie's younger supporters probably won't vote at all.
The sustainable way of getting out of this is more Capitalism, much better economic growth, 5% or even higher. Every year.
There's no evidence that is possible.
We have thousands of years of data on 0 Level Economies (Agriculture), plus centuries of data on 1st Level (Natural Resources) and 2nd Level Economies (Manufacturing). However, we have very little data on 3rd Level (Light/Clean Manufacturing) and 4th Level (Technology & Services) Economies.
If we look at the historical record of the US since 1960 we find:
1961-1970 4.22% (Expansion of 3rd Level Economy/Transition to 4th Level Economy)
1971-1980 3.21%
1981-1990 3.27%
1991-2000 3.41% (Expansion of 4th Level Economy with no Transition to 5th Level Economy)
2001-2010. 1.68%
Average 2.89%
If we look at GDP for the Euro-States, we find the same thing.
Just because 1st and 2nd Level Economies typically grow at 5%-12% annually, it doesn't logically following that such growth is sustainable. That's especially true for a Technology & Service-oriented economy which produces nothing.
Services produce nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
None of them are going to do anything about SS because they don't have to.
The SS crisis won't be happening during their term.
Our government has a history of waiting until the 11th hour and then they do funky accounting to make everything good again !
That's most unfortunate, since that will require an higher FICA payroll tax to offset the losses.
My guess is once the Social Security Trust Fund is totally depleted, there won't be a Trust Fund, the program will run on "pay-as-you-go."
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrkliny
So again, I can only conclude VA coverage varies and your experience does not reflect my limited knowledge and experience with the VA system.
Good point.
Most people are ignorant of the fact that each VA hospital is independently run by an administrator. Some administrators are more effective than others.
Also, some VAMCs are overwhelmed with the sheer number of veterans they serve. That is a local problem and not a federal problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matisse12
"Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Ted Cruz, and supposed-moderate, Governor John Kasich -- expressed their strong desire for huge Social Security benefit cuts."
Using different methods for determining the COLA is not a benefit cut.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry10
Absolutely harm. More Socialism is very destructive to retires.
I'm not seeing where a system that rewards the best and brightest, like Germany or Romania does, is Socialist.
Suppose we simply allowed qualified students to deduct tuition from their AGI or take tax credits, would that make you feel better?
Do you mean he won't campaign for her? Bernie has repeatedly said he will support Hillary if he is not the nominee. Many of Berni'es older supporters, on the other hand, will vote for Trump. I hear it day after day on C-Span. Sanders or Trump. Many of Bernie's younger supporters probably won't vote at all.
Well, we shall see how far Bernie will go in supporting Hillary. I am not sure about Bernie's younger supporters. Hillary is none too popular with younger voters. Trump has been so much of an unknown wild card that I would not want to make any predictions.
In any case I was not talking about support from Bernie during the campaign. If she is elected, she may not have a lot of strong support in the face of extreme opposition from Republicans. The fact that Bernie is doing so well reflects poorly on Hillary. She has more mainstream positions, is an insider and is extremely well know. Even so Bernie has been doing well against her. She is just not that popular or well liked. She also seems to have a great deal of difficulty explaining her positions. Her explanations are full of nuances, details and are so convoluted that they are difficult to understand. Sometimes they sound intellectual, but often they are just confusing and boring. They sound like typical politician doublespeak.
jrkliny, you might consider giving it a rest, in constantly expressing your political opinions. The views, interpretations, and analysis you write are very simplistic and simple-minded and often inaccurate. Your interpretations are not based on any extensive knowledge, and cannot be characterized as even having surface knowledge. Including your post at #173.
Seniors/retirees and everyone else should ask themselves whether they want a Republican agenda or a Democrat agenda in the White House.
If one wants one or the other - a Republican agenda or a Democrat agenda - in the White House, then being willing to vote for Trump or a Democrat (Sanders or Clinton) makes no sense.
Last edited by matisse12; 03-15-2016 at 01:55 PM..
I have paid high progressive taxes over decades of working. Those taxes have included income tax with further deductions for social security and medicare, property taxes, sales taxes, all sorts of licenses and fees and hidden taxes such as corporate taxation which is passed on to me for everything I buy. Somehow no matter how much comes in our federal and local governments seem to be able to spend more. It seems that more taxes will never work. It is time to make some cuts in spending and there is a huge and obvious category....the military. Cut military spending by 5% a year for every year for the next 10 years. Stop being the world's policeman and stop with the regime changes and the endless wars. Stop telling the rest of the world how their governments should work. With half the military spending we will still have huge military might dwarfing any other country. We will have more than enough left over to pay for social security, healthcare, and maybe even daycare and other social programs.
Unfortunately in this election there does not seem to be anyone who gets it. Bernie just wants to spend and spend and somehow he tells everyone he will just get the money by "going after Wall Street." That sounds good but means nothing. Hillary is practiced in doing exactly what we need to stop doing. She is great about arguing what we should have done or should do, but has no hint about stopping the nonsense of foreign policy interventions. The Republicans want to build up the military even more and bomb any perceived enemy until the sands glow.
I tend to agree with you in general about government spending (although not necessarily with your specifics). But - SS and Medicare are supposed to be self-sustaining programs. That's why they have "trust funds" (although the trust funds are at best an accounting gimmick IMO). Whether or not you agree with that concept - that's the way the programs are set up now. Robyn
matisse, I see no reason that you should be insulting. That reflects on your character more than on mine. If you do not want to read about retirees and their political concerns, I suggest you stop looking at this thread.
When I was low income a couple years back, I was on the ACA plan. My state was not one that accepted Medicaid expansion, so no state exchange to deal with, but the federal system worked well, I had no problems enrolling, filing claims, etc.
I think the problems over user unfriendliness were dramatically overstated. If you had no idea how to work a web browser, yeah, I could see running into difficulties over the phone, but it was probably one of the easiest government programs I dealt with.
I'm not talking about the enrollment process. I'm talking about the insurance itself. With its high costs and high deductibles. If you were low income and received subsidies - you were probably shielded from at least some of these problems. Robyn
I tend to agree with you in general about government spending (although not necessarily with your specifics). But - SS and Medicare are supposed to be self-sustaining programs. That's why they have "trust funds" (although the trust funds are at best an accounting gimmick IMO). Whether or not you agree with that concept - that's the way the programs are set up now. Robyn
I do understand the initial intention. It seems that each generation is paying for the benefits of the previous generation. If boomers had paid into a fund that kept growing throughout the decades when they worked, there would be plenty of money available. That is not the case.
My prediction is after tonight--and the Florida primary--its all over for Marco Rubio. If Rubio pulls out of the race, its down to Trump, Cruz, and possibly Kasich on the GOP side (if he pulls out a win in Ohio). I don't see Kasich as the GOP nominee which is unfortunate. He's the sort of person, I'd be willing to consider voting for.
Kasich's positions on immigration (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...e-ohio-rally)/ - which I disagree with - have doomed him IMO. Ditto his position on Medicaid expansion. At least when it comes to the Republican vote. I know that Utah has illegal immigrants. But they mostly seem to be farm workers. Not the kind of jobs most citizens are clamoring to get. OTOH - here in Florida - (illegal) immigrants are taking over some previously good blue collar jobs - like construction jobs. When it comes to immigrants - legal or illegal - are you thrilled about having lawyers admitted to the Utah Bar who aren't citizens or even in this country legally? I know most lawyers here in Florida aren't thrilled by it at all.
If the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton which I fully expect than we are looking at either a Clinton-Trump race or a Clinton-Cruz race.
A few words about "Bernie". While some may believe he is correct in his opinions about the way America is turning into a corporate oligarchy, Bernie's solutions are unworkable. We cannot afford to give every college age student a free education. We may ultimately get national health insurance in this country, but it is going to take years and many issues are going to have to be worked through first. Bernie calls himself a "socialist" and this may, in and of itself, render him unelectable. Bernie is a not a viable candidate. He will lead to a republican victory if nominated.
Cruz is a poster child for the worst part of the Tea Party bomb throwers in Congress. This clown was organized a revolt to default on the nation's debts to prove a point. He has few or no friends at all in Congress. He could hardly be seen as a friend of the seniors. If elected, he will not work or compromise with anyone. Nor, will anyone work or compromise with him. Its a formula for massive gridlock.
I agree with you about Sanders and Cruz - although not necessarily for the reasons you gave. Among other things - I think Cruz is a phony and a liar.
Quote:
Trump is scary and there is no other word for it. I say that no one here really has a clue what he would do if he were elected. He might be good for seniors and he might be extraordinarily destructive. What is clear is that he isn't stable. His opinions change just like the direction of the wind changes. Such a person cannot be allowed to be President of the United States.
Trump doesn't scare me at all. In fact - he makes me laugh. He is flexible and somewhat centrist IMO - and that is a good thing. Kind of like Michael Bloomberg (who was a lifelong centrist Democrat before he became the Republican mayor of New York) minus the sour-puss nanny state stuff. Do I have a clue what he'll do when it comes to various issues? No. Then again - a president doesn't have much authority to do most things alone. And some of the things they do do can be surprising (like Nixon and China).
I think the best thing a president can do is be an inspiration to the people in the country. Who takes advantage of the "bully pulpit" (a phrase which President Theodore Roosevelt popularized). I don't know about anyone else - but President Reagan was the last president who made me feel good about the country. Even if he did it because he was suffering from early Alzheimer's. And Trump leaves me feeling the same way. FWIW - I think that Trump may well be able to pull together the kind of coalition that elected Reagan - and bring the "Reagan Democrats" back to the Republican party. I will note in passing that Trump has really developed as a (political) speaker IMO. He is a very gifted politician.
Quote:
This leaves Hillary Clinton. Clinton is not an inspirational candidate. She is not a good speaker. I suspect her performance as Secretary of State is neither as good, nor as bad as many people claim it is. The world is passing through turbulent times. Clinton was not responsible for the "Arab Spring of 2010". Nor, could she have stopped it. The computer email scandal hangs over her head.
Nevertheless, Clinton is the only stable choice available for seniors. The other two candidates are simply too undependable. We have some idea what Clinton would do as President and while it is perhaps not exactly what any of us completely want, it is better than the alternatives.
Hillary Clinton is the only reasonable voting choice for seniors.
I don't have any more of a clue what Clinton might do than what Trump might do. Who would have thought that her (now seemingly somewhat brain-addled) husband would have pressed for the kind of welfare reform he got? Might she not have the same up her sleeve when it comes to seniors? I honestly don't think the Clintons care about anyone/anything other than themselves and their money. That they have been grubbing for endlessly - often in questionable places - in return for favors - since Bill left office.
Finally - as a woman - I am totally repulsed by what the Clintons stand for when it comes to women. I have never seen anything as shameful as the way Bill Clinton treated women - and the way his wife covered up for him - stood by him - and attacked the women who were Clinton victims after he did shameful things. So let's see. On the one hand - Trump says some things about some women (like Megyn Kelly - who I happen to dislike a lot) that some people don't like. While Bill Clinton had a young White House intern - in her early 20's at the time - get down on her knees and perform oral sex on him in the Oval Office (not once - but multiple times). Hillary Clinton dismissed Monica Lewinsky as a "narcissistic loony toon".
Could be. But what do I make of Hillary Clinton? At this point - she's just another money grubbing politician to me. Who would rather sell seniors down the river if their well being depended on offending her generous donors. Whether you're talking about Goldman Sachs - George Soros - or foreign governments.
I am ready for a breath of fresh air. Wouldn't have voted for Bush had he still been on the ticket. Would never vote for Clinton either. It is possible we'll have not 1 - but 2 brokered conventions this year (I think Sanders is likely to pick up lots of delegates in non-caucus non-Southern states). That would be extremely interesting. Robyn
jrkliny, you might consider giving it a rest, in constantly expressing your political opinions. The views, interpretations, and analysis you write are very simplistic and simple-minded and often inaccurate. Your interpretations are not based on any extensive knowledge, and cannot be characterized as even having surface knowledge. Including your post at #173.
Seniors/retirees and everyone else should ask themselves whether they want a Republican agenda or a Democrat agenda in the White House.
If one wants one or the other - a Republican agenda or a Democrat agenda - in the White House, then being willing to vote for Trump or a Democrat (Sanders or Clinton) makes no sense.
Every voter is entitled to an opinion. At the voting booth. And whether people choose to express the reasons why they're voting in a certain way in other places is ok by me too - even though I don't necessarily agree with them. In fact - I'm interested in hearing why various people vote the way they do.
I am not sure there is any "Republican" or "Democrat" party line these days when it comes to the common issues all seniors have - Medicare and SS. For example - Bernie Sanders talks about "Medicare for all". But how could we possibly do that unless all but the poorest seniors pay more for Medicare than we're paying now? There may be specific plans that we don't like - like I don't like the Paul Ryan Medicare voucher plan - but that isn't part of the party platform.
And - of course - seniors are interested in issues other than Medicare and SS. Depending on their circumstances. For example - as people live longer - and many work longer - good jobs are important. So a candidate who has better job plans than another candidate may well be attractive.
Also - when you talk about voting - these are the primaries. And states have different rules when it comes to primaries. Some are decided at the ballot box. Some in caucuses. When it comes to voting - there are both open and closed primaries. Today - well here in Florida we have a closed primary. You can't vote in the primary election unless you're registered to vote in a particular party. Ohio seems to be an open primary state. Where Democrats can vote for Republicans and vice versa (although I don't know exactly how that works). Robyn
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
