The never-ending POTUS Election thread....

[JBond]

At face value, I agree.

Of course the reality is that nearly everybody who is not intelligent WILL BE voting and their numbers are so great that no amount of rational voters can do anything to change the outcomes.

Roughly 2/3rds of the country that votes is entirely sold on party affiliation alone. That is a fucking problem. Imagine being able to pick a guy who had solid ideas but didn't have to piggyback them with bullshit party rhetoric.

Is Trump spouting the GOP lines? Hillary is as stupid and as corrupted as they come. How many hundreds of millions did she take in selling to the highest bidder? Uncle Bernie is absolutely bat shit crazy. $41 trillion in new taxes? No thanks. He is a complete phony. He wife cashed in on a golden parachute that he rails against and retarded young kids have no idea it happened.

 

[JBond]

Lol. The fact that her best race monger deserted her has to be a blow to her plan.

 

[Hoofbite]

The government spent $3 trillion last year on healthcare. Why lowball it?

Actually, that would be the total for National Healthcare Expenditures. So, what was spent on everyone by the government, employers, and out of pocket.

 

[Dodger12]

Look at the minimum wage. Nobody is saying that the minimum wage should give everyone a 6-figure income. But maybe - just maybe - the minimum wage should be enough to where it would preclude the need for someone to collect government assistance. How much sense does it make for someone to be be able to collect government assistance even though they are employed full time? Tax payers subsidizing corporate wages. For what? That may as well be some odd dystopia version of socialism where everyone has a shared responsibility in funding the means or production but they don't have the shared wealth generated by it.

You're fooling yourself if you think making the minimum wage higher will motivate people to find a job. The ugly truth is that some people have just become complacent and lazy on the government tit.

And as businesses continue to increase their prices to make up for the increase in operating costs, $15.00 will become another meaningless figure and we'll be calling to increase minimum wage once again so people can't afford the simple goods whose prices increased.

 

[peplaw06]

And as businesses continue to increase their prices to make up for the increase in operating costs, $15.00 will become another meaningless figure and we'll be calling to increase minimum wage once again so people can't afford the simple goods whose prices increased.

People who think just raising the minimum wage will increase the quality of life for people making that amount either have no clue about economics, or they just willfully ignore those principles.

Bernie keeps campaigning on "allowing workers to earn a living wage." But the cost to live -- at least the way he thinks everyone should live -- continues to increase. And you double the minimum wage, it's just going to increase more. Not to mention, companies who have to double the wages they pay to their employees will start cutting jobs, cutting hours, trying to find inefficiencies and eliminate them, etc.

It's just short-sightedness. They look at their bank account and want more money... Where does that money come from? Don't care, want more money.

 

[dbair1967]

Robin Hood politics. Rob from rich or fairly well off people, give to everyone else. All the while painting the picture that rich people or well off people got that way at the expense of those less fortunate.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[Doomsday]

Robin Hood politics.

While no one remembers that in ALLLLL of the Robin hood stories, not ONE poor person was ever helped!

 

[jnday]

I feel sorry for Ben Carson. He is a good, decent man and now his own party has went to bashing him for not dropping out. I don't think he was ready for the office , but it is a good example of why a good man shouldn't get involved in politics. Why in the hell would a decent man want to put his family and themselves in politics? It takes a crook to do what is required to get elected.

 

[Hoofbite]

You're fooling yourself if you think making the minimum wage higher will motivate people to find a job. The ugly truth is that some people have just become complacent and lazy on the government tit.

And as businesses continue to increase their prices to make up for the increase in operating costs, $15.00 will become another meaningless figure and we'll be calling to increase minimum wage once again so people can't afford the simple goods whose prices increased.

My comment wasn't even addressing that. My comment was talking about the fact that a minimum wage worker qualifies for government assistance. Minimum wage doesn't put someone over the limit to be ineligible for Medicaid in most states. Essentially, the general population gets to pay these people and provide healthcare for them that their employer won't. How's that for socialist? Company A pays minimum wage to a dozen employees, those employees then receive assistance that is funded by tax payer dollars.

 

[Hoofbite]

People who think just raising the minimum wage will increase the quality of life for people making that amount either have no clue about economics, or they just willfully ignore those principles.

Bernie keeps campaigning on "allowing workers to earn a living wage." But the cost to live -- at least the way he thinks everyone should live -- continues to increase. And you double the minimum wage, it's just going to increase more. Not to mention, companies who have to double the wages they pay to their employees will start cutting jobs, cutting hours, trying to find inefficiencies and eliminate them, etc.

It's just short-sightedness. They look at their bank account and want more money... Where does that money come from? Don't care, want more money.

And as the cost of living continues to increase without any sort of increase in wages, more and more people will qualify for government assistance. The Federal Poverty Level is not stagnant. It has increased by 40% (for a single individual) since 2000. Without wages going up, that means more people are eligible for all forms of government assistance. Ultimately, it is the taxpayers who make up for this difference.

 

[JBond]

And... How much more are you willing to pay? Sanders wants to hammer anyone with a retirement account.
?

 

[Hoofbite]

And... How much more are you willing to pay? Sanders wants to hammer anyone with a retirement account.
��

It's not really a matter of willingness. At some point, funding for Medicare and Medicaid will have to increase. When the tail end of the boomers start collecting retirement and utilizing their Medicare resources the costs are going to increase significantly. When the Federal Poverty Line moves up far enough, the population of people utilizing all forms of government assistance will increases significantly. This is just healthcare. Throw in the crumbling infrastructure and annual defense spending and there's really no aspect of willingness involved.

Who wouldn't like lower taxes? That'd be fucking great, but I just don't see how it will ever come to pass. The only way my taxes don't move noticeably higher in my lifetime is if my generation decides to pass massive amounts of debt onto our grandchildren.

 

[Doomsday]

Throw in the crumbling infrastructure

Something the "stimulus" was advertised to fix by the way. It was one of the major, demagogued selling points of that crony payoff scam.

 

[junk]

It's not really a matter of willingness. At some point, funding for Medicare and Medicaid will have to increase. When the tail end of the boomers start collecting retirement and utilizing their Medicare resources the costs are going to increase significantly. When the Federal Poverty Line moves up far enough, the population of people utilizing all forms of government assistance will increases significantly. This is just healthcare. Throw in the crumbling infrastructure and annual defense spending and there's really no aspect of willingness involved.

Who wouldn't like lower taxes? That'd be fucking great, but I just don't see how it will ever come to pass. The only way my taxes don't move noticeably higher in my lifetime is if my generation decides to pass massive amounts of debt onto our grandchildren.

The simple answer would be to cut spending. Something that neither party seems capable of doing

Start with ethanol subsidies.

 

[dbair1967]

It's not really a matter of willingness. At some point, funding for Medicare and Medicaid will have to increase. When the tail end of the boomers start collecting retirement and utilizing their Medicare resources the costs are going to increase significantly. When the Federal Poverty Line moves up far enough, the population of people utilizing all forms of government assistance will increases significantly. This is just healthcare. Throw in the crumbling infrastructure and annual defense spending and there's really no aspect of willingness involved.

Who wouldn't like lower taxes? That'd be fucking great, but I just don't see how it will ever come to pass. The only way my taxes don't move noticeably higher in my lifetime is if my generation decides to pass massive amounts of debt onto our grandchildren.

If it weren't for ridiculously out of control spending, raising taxes wouldn't be necessary at all.

Too much waste & corruption in the entitlement programs in place. They all need to be thoroughly restructured/redesigned.

 

[peplaw06]

And as the cost of living continues to increase without any sort of increase in wages, more and more people will qualify for government assistance. The Federal Poverty Level is not stagnant. It has increased by 40% (for a single individual) since 2000. Without wages going up, that means more people are eligible for all forms of government assistance. Ultimately, it is the taxpayers who make up for this difference.

That proves the point. Minimum wage has increased 40% since 1997. So as wages increase, the cost of living increases.

You can't legislate people into prosperity... or into earning "living wages." If the minimum wage increased 100%, then the cost of living will increase, jobs and hours will decrease, and the federal poverty level will go up... my guess would be around 100%.

 

[dbair1967]

then the cost of living will increase, jobs and hours will decrease, and the federal poverty level will go up... my guess would be around 100%.

This is exactly what one side of the aisle wants really....massive dependence on government..

Then said people who get the massive assistance continue to elect those that give out the goods....they stay in power forever, or until "enough is enough" happens and another revolutionary war breaks out sometime in the future

 

[Hoofbite]

That proves the point. Minimum wage has increased 40% since 1997. So as wages increase, the cost of living increases.

You can't legislate people into prosperity... or into earning "living wages." If the minimum wage increased 100%, then the cost of living will increase, jobs and hours will decrease, and the federal poverty level will go up... my guess would be around 100%.

The correlation may be there but cause-effect is not established. I don't think it proves or disproves anything. Minimum wage increases could increase cost of living, or perhaps the minimum wage was increased in response to the climbing cost of living.

Do you think the cost of living would stay right where it is now if the minimum wage stays put?

Edit: Was on my phone earlier.

Here's a comparison.

1997:

Minimum Wage: $5.15/Hr
Poverty Threshold: $7,890​

2006:

Minimum Wage: $5.15/Hr
Poverty Threshold: $9,800​

That's a 24% increase in the poverty threshold over a decade without any increase in the minimum wage.

 

[Hoofbite]

Something the "stimulus" was advertised to fix by the way. It was one of the major, demagogued selling points of that crony payoff scam.

Who told you this, or where are you getting this from? You've said this before and I can't help but wonder who in the hell is even saying this. Is there a politician or some media person out there propagating this idea?

The "stimulus" only provided $105B for infrastructure over 10 years. It was roughly 12-13% of the total package.

That $105B is the same amount that is estimated would be necessary to fix the nations levees.. The nations bridges need something like another $70B.

In total, estimates to actually "fix" the infrastructure have been as high as 3.6 TRILLION by 2020.

I have no idea how you can even buy into the idea that the stimulus was supposed to fix the infrastructure. Only 1/8th went to infrastructure, and the amount is roughly 3% of total necessary.

Seriously, how do you even believe this?

 

[Hoofbite]

The simple answer would be to cut spending. Something that neither party seems capable of doing

Start with ethanol subsidies.

If it weren't for ridiculously out of control spending, raising taxes wouldn't be necessary at all.

Too much waste & corruption in the entitlement programs in place. They all need to be thoroughly restructured/redesigned.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP account for 48% of federal spending. The Military accounts for 18% and there aren't many politicians who talk about cutting defense spending. Interest on national debt is 7%. These numbers are from 2014.

That's almost 3/4ths of the entire federal budget. When more people go into retirement, start collecting social security and utilizing Medicare, this percentage of the national budget consumed by these areas will increase and you cannot run a campaign with cuts to these areas on your platform. You will not get elected.

Assuming it would be possible to cut spending in half across the board on everything else (just imagine what everything else actually is for a minute), that would decrease national spending by a total of 12.5%. Considering that would be nearly impossible to do, you'd be fortunate to cut an amount equal the interest payments on the national debt.

Bottom line, you can't possibly cut enough because the vast majority of the federal budget is nearly non-negotiable. Cutting social security or Medicare would be political seppuku. Alienate one of the largest voting populations who also shows up at a higher percentage than all other voting groups? No chance. Medicaid and CHIP will not be cut because cutting funding from children, pregnant women, and persons with disabilities will not get anyone elected or re-elected. Defense spending is always non-negotiable.

There may be waste in all of these programs but there isn't a fucking chance in hell that any one of them will seriously be scrutinized for it.