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.
My opinionated list.
1. Gary Johnson, who has no chance of winning
2. Trump/Cruz, economically I don't think there would be much of a difference
3. Clinton/Rubio
4. Sanders
Carson would have been my first choice followed by Huckabee, but since Trump might be full of himself nearly justifiably so) I cannot see him accomplishing his platform due to the constraints of the establishment ie, Senate and Congress. In the end I would select Rubio. I also like Sanders but too
many liberals in the Democratic side . I agree we are already a mostly socialistic society or quasi.
I'm not fond of either candidate but I have a feeling the President who wins this year won't win again in another four years whether they run or not. I fear both will have economic issues. Trump is an ogliarch demagogue even though in theory I do agree with some policy, the question is the "how do we do that, how do we get there," types that he don't answer (IE: the Wall) or it is the issue of holding immigrants for ransom from their countries and how Trump handles issues. While Hillary, I don't like for being Hillary, I honestly don't really disagree with her. That said I agree more with Sanders on getting the middle class back than anyone but I am pragmatic that he wont win.
That said, I agree with your assertion on the issues that libertarians claim are issues and need changing. Sadly, the problem is they are needed. I don't see the free market answering all the questions and likely would cause the questions to continually change, making the answers harder to come by.
That said, I don't think Sanders' plan is all that bad and would drive up the cost. The cost is mainly because of a lack of funding coming from the state and somewhat the federal government. Arizona for example has continually made cuts to its colleges and drove up its state public universities a lot since 2003, when the initial increases happened. Don't get me wrong, the loan amounts don't help, but when you lose state funding and schools need to stay competitive with all the administrators "they need," those costs come from somewhere.
Cost is cost, doesn't matter who is funding it.
Take the UC System. In constant (inflation-adjusted dollars) in 1990-91 they were getting $17,500 per student. Total cost per student was $22,390. Fast forward to 2012-'13 (last year available) and they're getting only $6,190 from the state per student. Total cost per student, $16,890. All that is instructional cost, not total cost which tends to be quiet high as the UC system is focused as much, maybe more, on research than it is education. So while you definitely had a lot of squeezing the air around in the balloon (state funds UC less and Calgrant more), UC is much leaner than it was 20 years ago. If we restored funding up to $17,500 -- which essentially would make education free, I suspect the natural direction it would go is back towards being much more expensive. I'd say likely even more expensive than in the '90s since I really doubt UC would drop tuition. That's not to say you couldn't do it, you just couldn't do it without far more oversight. UC operates largely autonomously.
Trump, by a landslide. Hillary couldn't run a convenience store. And not because the Patel families have it locked up but, rather she's incompetent....her only answer to the market would be to charge more for goods and services thus putting her out of business....same theories she intends to apply to business....
If you think corporate downsizing is over, think again. Put this hack in and those corporations are going to downsize and flee to other countries as fast as Delta and Southwest Airlines can accommodate them. Can't blame them. Who wants to hang around and get sodomized by her and her cronies?
If I were them, I would shut down US operations the day after she is elected. Move overseas and never look back. Let her figure it all out.....she has all the answers on how to run a business....LOL LOL LOL...repeat....
Trump. He has studied and actively been involved in the business word for years. As we slide into 3rd world status, Trump and his family also slide right with the rest of the country so he has a two-fold interest in saving us from that fate that is breathing down our necks as I type this post.
Hillary has no business background and doesn't have a clue about earning her own way what yet ours. She will give away the house and further drive us toward 3rd world status.
Bernie Sanders. We will not have a rigged economy controlled by and for the interest of the top 1%. As said in the Sanders vs. Greenspan speech, the laughable "we have the highest standard of living" only applies to the top 1% so far. Hillary will continue it, and more likely to make it worse, in view of her self-serving.
I think he simply makes smarter decisions by comparison.
Hillary is far too predictable (which is a safe choice for some people), but she's a typical run of the mill bureaucrat...just an everyday tax and spend liberal. SHe;s a little less wilder than Bernie Sanders...but she's still out there.
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.
