Lol at the sheep not voting for Bernie sanders lmao srs

[mynameisuntz]

You don't earn it, you don't decide how to spend it.

If you've been a taxpaying citizen all your life, then fine. If you're costing the economy more than you're contributing, no.

So, a pseudo-plutocracy of sorts? Or we could just invest in social programs that actually lead to people becoming social contributors, rather than the more expensive "bootstraps" route.

It's not just rhetoric or assumptions. One of my best m8s is a staffer in DC and has seen it first hand. That's literally all Washington is. It's a massive power grab. Just about every single program that is created to benefit the politically connected businesses and insiders that lobby for them. When Bernie expands the government, we'll be getting a chitload more of that.

What a shame that we don't value economic freedom as much as we value freedom of speech.

So, you actually know nothing about Bernie but you claim to be able to speak to his values. I remember when I was a libertarian too, dude. True story. It was right around the time shortly before I grew up.

[PickleBrah]

Here's your average Sanders supporters

[psychosylocibin]

This is a ridiculous statement. How much of their taxes are going towards the military-industrial complex? How about towards the prison industry? How about towards arbitrary pharmaceutical prices inflating costs of health care?

Yet we want an educated and healthy populace, both of which will SAVE MONEY LONG-TERM, and you...complain? It's LUDICROUS. How much will taxes go up when ANY of the GOP/HRC increase military presence in the Middle East? But we want to educate Americans and offer them better preventative health (again, both of which will save tons of money long-term) and you...freak out.

Whoa Whoa, I never said I was a hardcore republican supporting spending 1/3 of our budget on national defense. Easy there sailor. My taxes are still going up, regardless. If you can cancel out some military spending to pay for it, I'm game, but WE KNOW THATS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

I lean more towards libertarian, so I am actually against all this insane military spending.

Yeah, I freak out. Who is going to pay for it? Seriously? chit isn't free, you idiot. I went to school, paid 50,000 in loans, worked my ASS OFF for 6 years to pay it off, and you want me to PAY FOR OTHERS' EDUCATIONS THAT i HAD TO PAY 50,000 FOR? You are double penalizing me. That's like me busting my ass of to pay for my mortgage, and then announcing that houses are now "free", and then making me pay for other peoples' free houses.

In that process you take away the incentive to work, to invent, to further society. YOU FAIL TO ACCOUNT FOR PEOPLES' INHERENT SELFISH NATURE, which is not ALL EVIL.

Do you know how much technological progress has been made, to improve healthcare in the past 50+ years, our computers, are phones, are defense, made possible in large part by the structure we have in place. It's not perfect, I agree, but it is a "necessary" evil. On top of that, the CEOS of a lot of these large corporations involved in technological progress have vowed do donate their fortunes to charity. WOW. SUCH *******S. Mark Zuckerberg. Bill Gates. Etc Etc Etc.

[hotsaucebrah]

I'm not sure I have that information, may I ask the basis of your question? We know that investment via social programs leads to these improved outcomes. What is your concern with that specifically?



So people who lost their jobs due to the economic meltdown resulting from private industry deregulation (with much help from the government) who now live in poverty and thus do not qualify to pay taxes should not get to vote? Or people who had to declare bankruptcy to afford cancer treatment? No vote for them, either?

Do you actually believe that?



Ignoring the rest because I think it's mistaken, but this is so important. How many people on these boards are blood thirsty to nuke ISIS without questioning the cost but put up a fight to save American lives via improved healthcare? It's amazing. But like, in the most horrible way imaginable.

Wouldn't vote for Bernie, but it is spot-on. It's insane how we can immediately come up with trillions, not billions, trillions for asinine military campaigns but when it comes actually investing in our citizens and infrastructure you get politically bertstared.

The Congressional Research Service, for example, just fired up its calculators and concluded that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost U.S. taxpayers $1.6 trillion.

A truer measure of the wars’ total costs pegs them at between $4 trillion and $6 trillion. This fuller accounting includes “long-term medical care and disability compensation for service members, veterans and families, military replenishment and social and economic costs,” Harvard economist Linda Bilmes calculated in 2013.

The American electorate continues to get trolled into voting for big government neo-cons and neo-liberals.

Here is a depressing graph to look at:



They're all the same.

[ContrarianIndi]

So, a pseudo-plutocracy of sorts? Or we could just invest in social programs that actually lead to people becoming social contributors, rather than the more expensive "bootstraps" route.



So, you actually know nothing about Bernie but you claim to be able to speak to his values. I remember when I was a libertarian too, dude. True story. It was right around the time shortly before I grew up.

Bernie is promising to massively expand the size and scope of the federal government. That's literally all I need to know.

It doesn't matter how moral Bernie is. He could be a perfect, sinless individual and I still know for a fact that the power he unconstitutionally gives the federal government will be abused. Because the unscrupulous businesses, lobbyists and bureaucrats who always end up seizing the new power that goes to Washington are far from perfect.

[mynameisuntz]

Whoa Whoa, I never said I was a hardcore republican supporting spending 1/3 of our budget on national defense. Easy there sailor. My taxes are still going up, regardless.

I lean more towards libertarian, so I am actually against all this insane military spending.

Yeah, I freak out. Who is going to pay for it? Seriously? chit isn't free, you idiot. I went to school, paid 50,000 in loans, worked my ASS OFF for 6 years to pay it off, and you want me to PAY FOR OTHERS' EDUCATIONS THAT i HAD TO PAY 50,000 FOR? You are double penalizing me. That's like me busting my ass of to pay for my mortgage, and then announcing that houses are now "free", and then making me pay for other peoples' free houses.

In that process you take away the incentive to work, to invent, to further society. YOU FAIL TO ACCOUNT FOR PEOPLES' INHERENT SELFISH NATURE, which is not ALL EVIL.

Do you know how much technological progress has been made, to improve healthcare in the past 50+ years, our computers, are phones, are defense, made possible in large part by the structure we have in place. It's not perfect, I agree, but it is a "necessary" evil. On top of that, the CEOS of a lot of these large corporations involved in technological progress have vowed do donate their fortunes to charity. WOW. SUCH *******S. Mark Zuckerberg. Bill Gates. Etc Etc Etc.

Again, this is that myopic perspective I was referring to earlier.

How much would it have costed to prevent the disaster unfolding in Flint with just a bit more tax dollar investment? How much will it cost now? This is what we see in all areas of society whether it's healthcare, education, crime, poverty, or anything. It makes FAR more financial sense to invest upfront in regulated social programs than it does to pay for things once they become problems.

[VoxExMachina]

So, a pseudo-plutocracy of sorts? Or we could just invest in social programs that actually lead to people becoming social contributors, rather than the more expensive "bootstraps" route.

No thanks, Jeff. Social programs and military actions are BOTH taking too much of the non-existent federal budget. This nation cannot continue to spend money it doesn't have, and if it's going to take EVEN MORE money to correct the wrongs of the past then the least we can do is allow those who have to pay for it to decide what it gets spent on. No more of this "the rich have lots of money so let's just take theirs" nonsense. Why? Because it never ends.

This nation needs to CUT its way back to being healthy, not spend even more.

[ContrarianIndi]

Again, this is that myopic perspective I was referring to earlier.

How much would it have costed to prevent the disaster unfolding in Flint with just a bit more tax dollar investment? How much will it cost now? This is what we see in all areas of society whether it's healthcare, education, crime, poverty, or anything. It makes FAR more financial sense to invest upfront in regulated social programs than it does to pay for things once they become problems.

Pretty much every failed program we have to date was touted as an "investment" in the future.

Maybe the government should stop making chitty investments with money we don't have.

The "investments" you're calling for will also inevitably fail. Why? Basic economics.

Take a look at how well all of Venezuela's investments in the future have panned out.

[mynameisuntz]

Bernie is promising to massively expand the size and scope of the federal government. That's literally all I need to know.

Because government expansion only takes one form, right? Except for all those other countries with large central governments AND strong free trade policies who are doing infinitely better than us. This isn't rocket science. For whatever reason people want to cling to their ideology and their rhetoric over actual, factual, working models.

It doesn't matter how moral Bernie is. He could be a perfect, sinless individual and I still know for a fact that the power he unconstitutionally gives the federal government will be abused. Because the unscrupulous businesses, lobbyists and bureaucrats who always end up seizing the new power that goes to Washington are far from perfect.

Appealing to the constitution is so boring, and borderline fallacy (e.g., appeal to history/tradition). Who gives a sht? Are we here to uphold a document written over 200 years ago or here to create the most functional society possible?

Bernie is the person who has made a career of removing big money influence on politics, so again your whole "government expansion = bad" argument is erroneous.

No thanks, Jeff. Social programs and military actions are BOTH taking too much of the non-existent federal budget. This nation cannot continue to spend money it doesn't have, and if it's going to take EVEN MORE money to correct the wrongs of the past then the least we can do is allow those who have to pay for it to decide what it gets spent on. No more of this "the rich have lots of money so let's just take theirs" nonsense. Why? Because it never ends.

This nation needs to CUT its way back to being healthy, not spend even more.

Okay, for the fifth time, which do you think costs more: an uneducated population or the tax money required to educate said population? We can run this scenario with regards to crime, health care, etc. as well if you like. You keep saying "we need to spend less" in a way that suggests cutting VITAL SOCIAL PROGRAMS THAT WILL SAVE MONEY IN THE LONG-RUN. It makes zero sense.

Pretty much every failed program we have to date was touted as an "investment" in the future.

Maybe the government should stop making chitty investments with money we don't have.

The "investments" you're calling for will also inevitably fail. Why? Basic economics.

Except for the dozens of other countries who are doing precisely these things. This comment is not only ridiculous but it is factually incorrect.

[LesMiscerables]

It makes sense that most of Sanders' demographic is too young (or was too stoned) to remember the Carter administration.

[VoxExMachina]

Okay, for the fifth time, which do you think costs more: an uneducated population or the tax money required to educate said population? We can run this scenario with regards to crime, health care, etc. as well if you like. You keep saying "we need to spend less" in a way that suggests cutting VITAL SOCIAL PROGRAMS THAT WILL SAVE MONEY IN THE LONG-RUN. It makes zero sense.

You seem to think that there is always more money, and everything is "vital". Apply the same logic to your own personal finances. if you spend more money than you have, you're on a path to nowhere. You don't just go pick more money off the money tree in the back yard. In real life, hard choices and tradeoffs have to be made.

Anyway, I already answered you. I have no interest in bickering with your potato logic. If you think the government is good at anything other than creating more government, go get some real world experience and come back in 10 years.

[ContrarianIndi]

Appealing to the constitution is so boring, and borderline fallacy (e.g., appeal to history/tradition). Who gives a sht? Are we here to uphold a document written over 200 years ago or here to create the most functional society possible?

If you don't like the constitution, maybe you should support an amendment to lawfully get rid of it? Or are you silly enough to believe that we can have a functional society where we pick and chose which laws to ignore and which we will follow? That's how you get tyrants.

The Constitution was created to prevent populist fuknuts like you from plunging us into a 3rd rate mobocracy.

[mynameisuntz]

You seem to think that there is always more money, and everything is "vital". Apply the same logic to your own personal finances. if you spend more money than you have, you're on a path to nowhere. You don't just go pick more money off the money tree in the back yard. In real life, hard choices and tradeoffs have to be made.

Anyway, I already answered you. I have no interest in bickering with your potato logic. If you think the government is good at anything other than creating more government, go get some real world experience and come back in 10 years.

Potato logic? Go look up the ROI for education with regards to employment, entrepreneurship, innovation, reduced crime, incarceration, greater health, reduced mental health, poverty, etc. You know, facts. Data. That sort of thing. It pays itself off massively by not having to pay as much in other areas.

Do you know what "investment" means? Or...?

If you don't like the constitution, maybe you should support an amendment to lawfully get rid of it? Or are you silly enough to believe that we can have a lawful society where we pick and chose which laws to ignore and which we will follow?

The Constitution was created to prevent populist fuknuts like you from plunging us into a 3rd rate mobocracy.

I'm not saying I dislike the Constitution; I am saying appealing to it as though it is in infallible document in guiding policies of the 21st century is ridiculous. Open up a medicine book from the 1700s, or maybe a book on astronomy or how the brain works. Will you trust them or think that, while some aspects might be right, some clearly no longer apply based on what we now know.

For whatever reason, people treat the Constitution as though it does not need updates or major revisions. It does. It will.

All this is to say: other countries have forms of government which deviate from how the Constitution might suggest, and they are all doing better than we are. Counter to your point, they are doing all the things you are saying would plunge us into a "3rd rate mobocracy."

[arn710]

Bottom line: other countries do significantly better than we do in virtually all meaningful metrics that define and predict flourishing nations. If they can do it, so can we.

Right and those are all small countries with largely homogeneous populations

You can't just pick that model and claim it will work here because it worked there. Not even close to the same situation.

[NVious]

Potato logic? Go look up the ROI for education with regards to employment, entrepreneurship, innovation, reduced crime, incarceration, greater health, reduced mental health, poverty, etc. You know, facts. Data. That sort of thing. It pays itself off massively by not having to pay as much in other areas.

Do you know what "investment" means? Or...?

>12 years of government education
>Not educated
>Just needs another 2-4 years and they'll be good fam!

Because everything the government gets involved in turns to gold:
Bush/Clinton backing low income mortgages
War on terror
War on drugs
War on poverty

All wild successes.

Right and those are all small countries with largely homogeneous populations

You can't just pick that model and claim it will work here because it worked there. Not even close to the same situation.

Oh please, just because a country has:
Completely different demographics with mostly the same IQ
1/50th or 100th the population
Is the size of a single state

Doesn't mean you can't use it as an example!

[LtGoose]

So what I've gathered so far is we should eliminate social programs, cut military spending, rage against government expansion, and ax public healthcare.

Where do I sign up?

[mynameisuntz]

Right and those are all small countries with largely homogeneous populations

You can't just pick that model and claim it will work here because it worked there. Not even close to the same situation.

I always find this statement laughable. It's amazing that people honestly believe homogeneity accounts for all that success! America has been heterogeneous since it started; pretty sure we're more well-adapted to it than other countries.

>12 years of government education
>Not educated
>Just needs another 2-4 years and they'll be good fam!

Because everything the government gets involved in turns to gold:
Bush/Clinton backing low income mortgages
War on terror
War on drugs
War on poverty

All wild successes.

Straw man on straw man on straw man.

[jakeeck]

The presidential campaign is hilarious, and I feel bad for anyone who thinks this stuff is legit.

Each one of them picks a hot topic in the U.S. ie student loans, immigration, etc, and uses that to capture votes of the people who care about said topic. Once in office nothing ever happens with said topic they said they would fix. 4-8 years of complaining happens about our president and then a new cuck is picked.

Have fun with your pointless voting goals of 2016.

[NVious]

I always find this statement laughable. It's amazing that people honestly believe homogeneity accounts for all that success! America has been heterogeneous since it started; pretty sure we're more well-adapted to it than other countries.



Straw man on straw man on straw man.

Wrong, shows precedence:
Government fails at everything it does

And also shows the inconsistency of your logic:
On one hand you claim people are uneducated DESPITE 12 years of government education

On the other hand you want to claim that with just 2-4 more years, these same people would bring in some amazing ROI

Oh and how do you want to pay for this? By government using force to steal more from people.

Go quote me more minuscule countries with 1/50th the population, 1/100th the land mass and a completely different set of people who inhabit the country as proof of anything.

[mynameisuntz]

Wrong, shows precedence:
Government fails at everything it does

And also shows the inconsistency of your logic:
On one hand you claim people are uneducated DESPITE 12 years of government education

On the other hand you want to claim that with just 2-4 more years, these same people would bring in some amazing ROI

Oh and how do you want to pay for this? By government using force to steal more from people.

Straw man on straw man on straw man.

[psychosylocibin]

Again, this is that myopic perspective I was referring to earlier.

How much would it have costed to prevent the disaster unfolding in Flint with just a bit more tax dollar investment? How much will it cost now? This is what we see in all areas of society whether it's healthcare, education, crime, poverty, or anything. It makes FAR more financial sense to invest upfront in regulated social programs than it does to pay for things once they become problems.

Chit that happens in flint should NEVER HAPPEN. That appalls me, to be honest.

However, you cannot equate that situation to every other situation like poverty/crime etc. Again, people have an inherently selfish component to them (which isn't BAD), and if you tax the chit out of people they will still find away to use it to their advantage to get free chit, just as corporations use it to their advantage now to get tax loopholes. The more you realize that you cannot control peoples' inherent actions, the more you realize that the only way to institute these policies effectively is to continue taxing and controlling, to the point where you end up the a communist state with a phukking dictator. That is the only way to take away free will. As long as you have free will, there will be perverse components of your society. But would you rather have no free will and complete control?


On another note, I have this crazy theory that each phase of a society works to benefit the society the most, but only at at specific point in that society's development. Capitalism only works at certain point, but works the best to progress society at that point. Socialism only works at certain point, but works to progress society at the point. Eventually, the natural progress is for the society to "collapse". So you may be right, we are entering the time where socialism would most benefit, but it would inevitably cause society to collapse. There is no steady state.

[Cfitz717]

Just want to post this.

Not relevant to his policies or anything, but just lold so hard at 3:43.

[ContrarianIndi]

Aware me on all these vastly superior countries that are better than the United States in every metric. You make it sound like the US is literally the toilet of the world. Meanwhile we have the most immigrants trying to get in here.

[mynameisuntz]

Chit that happens in flint should NEVER HAPPEN. That appalls me, to be honest.

However, you cannot equate that situation to every other situation like poverty/crime etc. Again, people have an inherently selfish component to them (which isn't BAD), and if you tax the chit out of people they will still find away to use it to their advantage to get free chit, just as corporations use it to their advantage now to get tax loopholes. The more you realize that you cannot control peoples' inherent actions, the more you realize that the only way to institute these policies effectively is to continue taxing and controlling, to the point where you end up the a communist state with a phukking dictator. That is the only way to take away free will. As long as you have free will, there will be perverse components of your society. But would you rather have no free will and complete control?

I'm not equating it, just comparing it. This is how it always goes: people don't want to spend taxes on things and so when things go bad, it ends up being more expensive than had we just coughed up the tax money to fix it in the first place.

Free will doesn't exist regardless of the social structure, so...

[NVious]

Straw man on straw man on straw man.

>Makes a claim (country XYZ does this therefore country YXZ should do it too)
>Claim is refuted (that doesn't apply because of the multitude of differences)

YOU RE MAKING A STRAW MAN ARGUMENT HAHAHAHAH I DON'T HAVE TO ADDRESS IT BECAUSE IT'S INCONVENIENT FOR ME TO ADMIT THAT MY ARGUMENT IS BUILT OFF OF A FALSE PREMISE

[JazB]

Bernie isn't gonna win. The guy is a hard left winger stuck 4 decades in the past. socialism has failed everywhere, but yet he and his supporters want to implement it on a scale of 350 million people. and thats not even the point, you could give this man every us tax dollar and he would have zero idea what to do. why? because he has no track record. hes achieved absolutely nothing and now people think just because he has a heart, he can be a management genius.

amazing how promising free stuff with emotional appeal gets you this far.


I really hate to say it, but Hillary clinton is going to become president

[mynameisuntz]

Aware me on all these vastly superior countries that are better than the United States in every metric. You make it sound like the US is literally the toilet of the world. Yet we have the most immigrants trying to get in here.

Most nations in Europe, particularly Western Europe/Scandinavian nations, do much better than us with regards to crime, poverty, education, health, quality of life, etc.

We have the most immigrants in terms of raw numbers, but not in terms of percentages, which is a far more meaningful metric when comparing countries of vastly different sizes.



Based on OECD data (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=MIG)

>Makes a claim (country XYZ does this therefore country YXZ should do it too)
>Claim is refuted (that doesn't apply because of the multitude of differences)

YOU RE MAKING A STRAW MAN ARGUMENT HAHAHAHAH I DON'T HAVE TO ADDRESS IT BECAUSE IT'S INCONVENIENT FOR ME TO ADMIT THAT MY ARGUMENT IS BUILT OFF OF A FALSE PREMISE

No, you just ignore levels of nuance and attribute VERY general claims to my initial post and then deconstruct said claims and call it intellectual success. It's...boring.

[zinkhan99]

I'm not sure I have that information, may I ask the basis of your question? We know that investment via social programs leads to these improved outcomes. What is your concern with that specifically?

My concern is the standard of living for those who are actually making above minimum wage and pursue careers. Last time I checked, since Germany is Bernie's beloved country, they have college enrollment rate lower by almost 40% while providing excellent trade programs sponsored by both state and business/corporations. Also, the wages for IT field that I am in are ridiculously low compared to U.S. Now, this is what I am concerned about.

[hotsaucebrah]

Just want to post this.

Not relevant to his policies or anything, but just lold so hard at 3:43.

Ideological college kids gonna ideological college kid. At least they can have the excuse of being ignorant.

The big government neo-cons at Fox that did that segment are worse, they don't have an excuse.

[MisterInfinity]

Lol @ thinking the president has any real power

This. Holy **** Americans are such fking retards. Bunch of sheep attending a circus called "Elections"