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.
Yeah. Free, free, free ...until you realize the taxpayers are paying for all the "free stuff."
$15/hour wage for people with no marketable skills. More job destroying wisdom from the Left.
The middle class bailed out Wall Street. Now its time for Wall Street to bail out the middle class, not be given free stuff in a new Trump cabinet! Funny how you guys never complain about the trillions of free stuff handed to the donor class after billions in bribes of your elected official. But as soon as people suggest investing money in health care and education for our people, the moaning starts. Fact of the matter is that working stiffs will benefit massively from tax payer funded education and health care, just as they benefit from freeways, Medicare, public schools, Social Security, SSDI etc.
$15/hr living wage is lower than it should be if it had kept pace with inflation and productivity since the late 1960s. There were no shortage of jobs in the late 1960s and there wont be a shortage of jobs 50 years later either. Slave wage jobs shouldnt exist in the first place.
Free tuition doesn't mean that it is free, if you want to know how it works, then look at a country like Germany and see how they are able to provide free college to people in the EU.
You can also listen to this Dave Ramsey rant, who discusses "free" community college in his home state.
You can also listen to this Dave Ramsey rant, who discusses
Tuition free college is $70 billion a year. The total cost of the Iraq war is $3 trillion. That's 50 years' worth of tuition free college for the American people. This is typical. Whenever the donor class is whipping the people into a war frenzy to line their pockets, the costs go out the window and the taxpayer cheer them on. Its particularly prevalent among republican war hawks who rarely see a military project or war they dont like. Investing in the health and education of the American people? NO, never any money for that. It costs too much, nothing is free, blablabla. And a substantial section of working stiffs who would massively benefit from a national health care system and better access to education and trade schools swallow this propaganda hook, line and sinker.
Dems want their candidate to go Far Left and Republicans want their candidate to go Far Right. Whichever side gets to capture most of the Independents is normally going to win. This time, it was Trump winning the Independents.
I personally believe his success was more to do with him running against Hillary Clinton who was disliked even by many Democrats rather than a huge desire for the party to go far left but some say otherwise and say that people like Elizabeth Warren and Keith Ellison are the people who need to lead the Democratic party because their ideas are what people want. What do you think?
do you think Sanders is similar to people like Warren and Ellison?
Only if you want a real nice 3rd home on a lake with a beach.
does the success of Bernie Sanders show the dems need to go far left?
No, not necessarily. It does demonstrate that you want a candidate with fresh new ideas who has the ability to get people really and truly excited. Bernie had that ability. He could have been a man with a moderate message proposing lots of changes and it would have looked pretty much the same.
Consider how appealing the idea of a far-right GOP candidate is to Democrats and left-leaning independents. A far-left Democrat is no different, and it may have cost Bernie the election if he'd beaten Hillary for the nomination.
No, not necessarily. It does demonstrate that you want a candidate with fresh new ideas who has the ability to get people really and truly excited. Bernie had that ability. He could have been a man with a moderate message proposing lots of changes and it would have looked pretty much the same.
Consider how appealing the idea of a far-right GOP candidate is to Democrats and left-leaning independents. A far-left Democrat is no different, and it may have cost Bernie the election if he'd beaten Hillary for the nomination.
These labels are just media silliness. There is nothing far left about FDR, JFK or Bernie Sanders. Just run of-the-mill mainstream New Deal democrats. People have this idea in their head that Wall Street is center-left and Big Oil is center right and anything else is far left or far right.
Both Sanders and Trump actually campaigned as economic centrists. The success of Bernie show the dems they should go to the center, away from the right wing Wall Street policies that are not popular among the electorate.
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.
