Poll: Who would be president if Mustachians were the only voters?

[Killerbrandt]

Wow! Really? because all you did was bust on the military and say it was killing 10s of thousands of innocents which is completely false!

Actually, it's demonstrably true that the US has killed tens of thousands of innocent people:

http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/afghan
http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi
http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani

Good to know you support Communism, Fascism, ISIS, and many other human rights violators all over the world :)

The US is a well known human rights violator.  See: Guantanamo Bay for example.  ISIS is effectively a US creation, caused by removing the leadership of Iraq and then taking off before stabilizing the area.  They could not have come to power without that US assistance.

Ironically, the country you're so proud of is responsible for half of the hyperbolic 'bad things' on the list you provided.

I love how all your guys samples are just the middle east which has been a hell hole for centuries. Either way, we have protect millions over there from genocide. Have you all not read about the nerve gases previous Iraqi leader released on the Kurds? Have you not read about the countless places we have given fresh water, food and many other essentials to survive? Why not look outside of the middle east like Bosnia, Korea, and many other samples. What about Georgia? when Russia invaded? What about the Berlin wall that we helped push to end? What about the soviet campaign we stopped and the countless countries that were let free to govern themselves? You can point out the mistakes we have made because of course there will be some, but why don't we compare it to the horrors the other countries we have stopped have done? Sorry, but you will not solve the world issues with hugs and love, there will always be dictators and other evils that need to be kept in check or stomped out.

" middle east which has been a hell hole for centuries" -  please elaborate

The reason the middle east is used in examples may have something to do with it been current in the news along with the fact that the population in general has much more access to the real truth and are no longer dependent on the the spoon fed propaganda of the main media outlets.
The big difference as I see it is that the current conflicts are hitting closer to home, gone are days that you could meddle in foreign Goverments and kill brown people somewhere over there in the desert all the while secure in the knowledge that the homeland was safe. The recent attacks in the west although miniscule compared to what the US have unleashed overseas has brought a new fear,  this type of fear is obvious when you see the likes of Trump having so much support in the current election, suddenly you know what its like to be powerless.

Yes, "HELL HOLE", Most of those countries have been fighting for centuries, they have factions that believe in opposite ideas and resort to violence all the time. Just google, conflicts in middle east over the years, you will find your answer without me overloading this post with links. I am not even talking about the threats toward us recently, which are actually very small compared to other issues, but to ignore them as not a threat at all, yeah that is a mistake. Look at Desert Storm, look at the invasions on Israel further back, ect.. Also, why do liberal keep calling people that worry about safety as fear mongers? It is not right to worry about security and the safety of ones country anymore?
 

[Killerbrandt]

Not sure why it matters, or how it's relevant, but MMM is very socially liberal.

Given that statement, do you think MMM would have been happy to work several extra years to amass a larger net worth to pay a higher dividends/capital gains tax rate?

If it provided health care (not the ACA stuff, but real universalized health care), and other major social benefits.. yes.  I do think that.

Especially given what he knows now.

I can't speak for him, but have met the man, in person, a handful of times, and have read most of his public writings.  That's my read on him.

But again, I don't see why that matters or how it's relevant.

Really? then why did he not stay in Canada? They have all that there.

[phwadsworth]

So because you "Believe" it will be better, then others should be forced to follow? What about supporting a system that allows people to take care of their own finances and responsibilities, which then that individual can decide their own route.

No, not because I, or even we, believe....only if a majority of voters do.

A thought exercise:
I think we can all agree that taxes cannot be 0%, right?  Some non-zero number is the right amount of tax, and depending on where we are in history Bernie's proposed tax plan could be am increase or decrease (http://qz.com/74271/income-tax-rates-since-1913/).  Makes me think of this old saw:

Guy:  Would you sleep with me for $1,000,000?
Girl: Yes.
Guy:  Would you sleep with me for $10?
Girl: No!  What kind of girl do you think I am?
Guy:  We've already established that, now we're just haggling over the price.

Anyway, regarding taxes to support social systems (like armies, roads, schools, and healthcare) we're just haggling over the price.  Within the last generation we've paid a lot more, and a little less.  But, under no circumstance are we discussing one "system that allows people to take care of their own finances and responsibilities" and another system that just doesn't.  This is not binary, we're talking subtle shades of the same system, and tax wise we're not even talking about a shade of taxation we haven't had before.  I don't think that anyone will argue that from 1932 to 1986 America did not allow people to take care of their own finances and responsibilities when the tax rates were much higher.  But, maybe I'm wrong, maybe you will argue that.

[Killerbrandt]

Actually we are a Democratic Republic, which acts different than just a democracy. We vote for representatives, which then votes for us. If the masses of the North want something, only their representatives will have a say, while my reps can stop that. It is meant to help stop mob mentality, which sometimes leads to bad choices.

I mean... yes?  So?  That's irrelevant to my point.  Change "democracy" to "democratic republic" (which is a form of democracy) in my post, and the point stands.

to the second point, YES WE ARE, so why are you trying to diminish that?

I'm not.  I don't think that will change.

to the last point, it does matter, isn't his blog about helping others to financial freedom? Wasn't this place (USA) the best place for MMM to become that? so why are we changing our ways to the opposite? There is nothing wrong about balance, but full blown education and healthcare like other countries does not make us unique anymore or fall into the same financial freedom we have now.

The world will not end.  The USA is not over if we help everyone, and provide a social safety net.  If the poor and old and helpless need help, it doesn't diminish our ability to become financially free, except in a selfish way.  Those of us arguing against you are saying we're okay with a slight diminishment in our FIRE time, to help people, and provide that social safety net.

You aren't. 

Okay.

That's why we vote for our representatives, who hopefully have similar views and interests as the people voting for them (whether they actually do is another topic of discussion).

Isn't your way selfish also? You want to take from everyone to pay for your beliefs. If one wants to help the poor and disadvantaged, why do you have to rob me from my goals? Why can't one personally invest their own money into helping them? What is stopping you right now giving money to the poor and disadvantaged?

[phwadsworth]

why do you have to rob me from my goals?

sincere question: at what tax rate does it become robbery?  is there a tax rate that is low enough that you aren't being robbed?

[GuitarStv]

Wow! Really? because all you did was bust on the military and say it was killing 10s of thousands of innocents which is completely false!

Actually, it's demonstrably true that the US has killed tens of thousands of innocent people:

http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/afghan
http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi
http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani

Good to know you support Communism, Fascism, ISIS, and many other human rights violators all over the world :)

The US is a well known human rights violator.  See: Guantanamo Bay for example.  ISIS is effectively a US creation, caused by removing the leadership of Iraq and then taking off before stabilizing the area.  They could not have come to power without that US assistance.

Ironically, the country you're so proud of is responsible for half of the hyperbolic 'bad things' on the list you provided.

I love how all your guys samples are just the middle east which has been a hell hole for centuries.

All my examples were recent US military actions.  If you want I could dig out 10s of thousands of civilian deaths from older US actions in Korea or Vietnam.  My point still stands, which is that your claim was demonstrably false.

Either way, we have protect millions over there from genocide.

Please, provide proof of this.  I don't even need proof that millions of people were protected from genocide . . . I'd be happy even with proof that the middle east is better off due to American intervention.

Ironically, what advocate for in the middle east is exactly what you're arguing against in your own country . . . government intervention and someone taking control away from the people for their own good.

Have you all not read about the nerve gases previous Iraqi leader released on the Kurds?

Have you forgotten who was funding Saddam in the 80s when he gassed the Kurds?  It was Ronald Regan.  Under Regan, the US lifted bans on pesticides and poisons sold to Iraq.  Thanks to the US, Iraq had chemical weapons to gas people with.  Hell, the US even directly sold Iraq poisons and chemicals that were used to make weapons.

Have you not read about the countless places we have given fresh water, food and many other essentials to survive? Why not look outside of the middle east like Bosnia, Korea, and many other samples.

Sure, the US military is used to provide aid some times.  That doesn't negate the damage they do.

What about Georgia? when Russia invaded?

The US military didn't take an active role to end that conflict.

What about the Berlin wall that we helped push to end?

This wasn't achieved through military strength either.

What about the soviet campaign we stopped and the countless countries that were let free to govern themselves?

Which soviet campaign are you referring to?

You can point out the mistakes we have made because of course there will be some, but why don't we compare it to the horrors the other countries we have stopped have done?

Sorry, but you will not solve the world issues with hugs and love, there will always be dictators and other evils that need to be kept in check or stomped out.

Sorry, but you will not solve the world issues with waterboarding and illegal detention facilities.

Right now the US is responsible for evils that need to be kept in check and stomped out.  See: Guantanamo Bay.  I'm not sure I buy your argument that horrors committed by the US should be overlooked because occasionally you do good.  Could you elaborate as to why this is so?

[2lazy2retire]

Wow! Really? because all you did was bust on the military and say it was killing 10s of thousands of innocents which is completely false!

Actually, it's demonstrably true that the US has killed tens of thousands of innocent people:

http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/afghan
http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi
http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani

Good to know you support Communism, Fascism, ISIS, and many other human rights violators all over the world :)

The US is a well known human rights violator.  See: Guantanamo Bay for example.  ISIS is effectively a US creation, caused by removing the leadership of Iraq and then taking off before stabilizing the area.  They could not have come to power without that US assistance.

Ironically, the country you're so proud of is responsible for half of the hyperbolic 'bad things' on the list you provided.

I love how all your guys samples are just the middle east which has been a hell hole for centuries. Either way, we have protect millions over there from genocide. Have you all not read about the nerve gases previous Iraqi leader released on the Kurds? Have you not read about the countless places we have given fresh water, food and many other essentials to survive? Why not look outside of the middle east like Bosnia, Korea, and many other samples. What about Georgia? when Russia invaded? What about the Berlin wall that we helped push to end? What about the soviet campaign we stopped and the countless countries that were let free to govern themselves? You can point out the mistakes we have made because of course there will be some, but why don't we compare it to the horrors the other countries we have stopped have done? Sorry, but you will not solve the world issues with hugs and love, there will always be dictators and other evils that need to be kept in check or stomped out.

" middle east which has been a hell hole for centuries" -  please elaborate

The reason the middle east is used in examples may have something to do with it been current in the news along with the fact that the population in general has much more access to the real truth and are no longer dependent on the the spoon fed propaganda of the main media outlets.
The big difference as I see it is that the current conflicts are hitting closer to home, gone are days that you could meddle in foreign Goverments and kill brown people somewhere over there in the desert all the while secure in the knowledge that the homeland was safe. The recent attacks in the west although miniscule compared to what the US have unleashed overseas has brought a new fear,  this type of fear is obvious when you see the likes of Trump having so much support in the current election, suddenly you know what its like to be powerless.

Yes, "HELL HOLE", Most of those countries have been fighting for centuries, they have factions that believe in opposite ideas and resort to violence all the time. Just google, conflicts in middle east over the years, you will find your answer without me overloading this post with links. I am not even talking about the threats toward us recently, which are actually very small compared to other issues, but to ignore them as not a threat at all, yeah that is a mistake. Look at Desert Storm, look at the invasions on Israel further back, ect.. Also, why do liberal keep calling people that worry about safety as fear mongers? It is not right to worry about security and the safety of ones country anymore?

"Most of those countries have been fighting for centuries"

 most of these countries did not exist until after WW1 , and were divided as in other places so as to ensure continued conflict - "divide and rule" - reap what you sow.

"people that worry about safety as fear mongers?"

I'm not judging people for been concerned for their safety, I'm just highlighting the hypocrisy which is prevalent in the US when it comes to death overseas compared to back home. We constantly her about 3000 deaths on 9/11 but little of the 300,000 + who have died in Iraq since, is a life lost overseas any less traumatizing for remaining family members that a US loss back home?

[Killerbrandt]

Wow! Really? because all you did was bust on the military and say it was killing 10s of thousands of innocents which is completely false!

Actually, it's demonstrably true that the US has killed tens of thousands of innocent people:

http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/afghan
http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi
http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/pakistani

Good to know you support Communism, Fascism, ISIS, and many other human rights violators all over the world :)

The US is a well known human rights violator.  See: Guantanamo Bay for example.  ISIS is effectively a US creation, caused by removing the leadership of Iraq and then taking off before stabilizing the area.  They could not have come to power without that US assistance.

Ironically, the country you're so proud of is responsible for half of the hyperbolic 'bad things' on the list you provided.

I love how all your guys samples are just the middle east which has been a hell hole for centuries.

All my examples were recent US military actions.  If you want I could dig out 10s of thousands of civilian deaths from older US actions in Korea or Vietnam.  My point still stands, which is that your claim was demonstrably false.

Either way, we have protect millions over there from genocide.

Please, provide proof of this.  I don't even need proof that millions of people were protected from genocide . . . I'd be happy even with proof that the middle east is better off due to American intervention.

Ironically, what advocate for in the middle east is exactly what you're arguing against in your own country . . . government intervention and someone taking control away from the people for their own good.

Have you all not read about the nerve gases previous Iraqi leader released on the Kurds?

Have you forgotten who was funding Saddam in the 80s when he gassed the Kurds?  It was Ronald Regan.  Under Regan, the US lifted bans on pesticides and poisons sold to Iraq.  Thanks to the US, Iraq had chemical weapons to gas people with.  Hell, the US even directly sold Iraq poisons and chemicals that were used to make weapons.

Have you not read about the countless places we have given fresh water, food and many other essentials to survive? Why not look outside of the middle east like Bosnia, Korea, and many other samples.

Sure, the US military is used to provide aid some times.  That doesn't negate the damage they do.

What about Georgia? when Russia invaded?

The US military didn't take an active role to end that conflict.

What about the Berlin wall that we helped push to end?

This wasn't achieved through military strength either.

What about the soviet campaign we stopped and the countless countries that were let free to govern themselves?

Which soviet campaign are you referring to?

You can point out the mistakes we have made because of course there will be some, but why don't we compare it to the horrors the other countries we have stopped have done?

Sorry, but you will not solve the world issues with hugs and love, there will always be dictators and other evils that need to be kept in check or stomped out.

Sorry, but you will not solve the world issues with waterboarding and illegal detention facilities.

Right now the US is responsible for evils that need to be kept in check and stomped out.  See: Guantanamo Bay.  I'm not sure I buy your argument that horrors committed by the US should be overlooked because occasionally you do good.  Could you elaborate as to why this is so?

Lets agree to disagree on the military topic because this could go on forever in a thread that is not about US Military and I opened a door that I should not have on this threat. We will never agree with the Good or bad of the military. (this a request for a mutual ending of the topic for now)

[Killerbrandt]

why do you have to rob me from my goals?

sincere question: at what tax rate does it become robbery?  is there a tax rate that is low enough that you aren't being robbed?

I should ask you, when is it enough? What is the stopping point for you?

[iris lily]

Rand Paul suspended his campaign on February 3rd.

Looks like my tradition of scribbling Ron or Rand's name will continue this election.

Dude,  i love you.

[GuitarStv]

why do you have to rob me from my goals?

sincere question: at what tax rate does it become robbery?  is there a tax rate that is low enough that you aren't being robbed?

I should ask you, when is it enough? What is the stopping point for you?

I can't speak for phwadsworth, but personally the stopping point would be when there is enough money to fund the programs necessary to live in a first world country.

[Killerbrandt]

why do you have to rob me from my goals?

sincere question: at what tax rate does it become robbery?  is there a tax rate that is low enough that you aren't being robbed?

I should ask you, when is it enough? What is the stopping point for you?

I can't speak for phwadsworth, but personally the stopping point would be when there is enough money to fund the programs necessary to live in a first world country.

That is a good answer and that is where the debate happens. I just want a balance overall, I don't like full blown Healthcare and Education, because personally I think the individual should have some more responsibility in the game without putting it on others as much. However, I am not ignorant enough to want NO taxes, how the hell will we support the basics, the government is not overall bad and could help a ton, if done the right way. That is why Sanders scares me with his extreme plans and Trump scares me with his extreme plans. I personally saw Rand Paul as my balance, but unfortunately he is out of the race. I hope this makes sense, I'm wearing thin on debating, I don't see what's wrong with balance in the middle.

[2lazy2retire]

why do you have to rob me from my goals?

sincere question: at what tax rate does it become robbery?  is there a tax rate that is low enough that you aren't being robbed?

I should ask you, when is it enough? What is the stopping point for you?

I can't speak for phwadsworth, but personally the stopping point would be when there is enough money to fund the programs necessary to live in a first world country.

That is a good answer and that is where the debate happens. I just want a balance overall, I don't like full blown Healthcare and Education, because personally I think the individual should have some more responsibility in the game without putting it on others as much. However, I am not ignorant enough to want NO taxes, how the hell will we support the basics, the government is not overall bad and could help a ton, if done the right way. That is why Sanders scares me with his extreme plans and Trump scares me with his extreme plans. I personally saw Rand Paul as my balance, but unfortunately he is out of the race. I hope this makes sense, I'm wearing thin on debating, I don't see what's wrong with balance in the middle.

Agrees we need to end military debate and now thinks we need balance on social issues - Killerbrandt - have you just
skinned up ;)?

[Killerbrandt]

why do you have to rob me from my goals?

sincere question: at what tax rate does it become robbery?  is there a tax rate that is low enough that you aren't being robbed?

I should ask you, when is it enough? What is the stopping point for you?

I can't speak for phwadsworth, but personally the stopping point would be when there is enough money to fund the programs necessary to live in a first world country.

That is a good answer and that is where the debate happens. I just want a balance overall, I don't like full blown Healthcare and Education, because personally I think the individual should have some more responsibility in the game without putting it on others as much. However, I am not ignorant enough to want NO taxes, how the hell will we support the basics, the government is not overall bad and could help a ton, if done the right way. That is why Sanders scares me with his extreme plans and Trump scares me with his extreme plans. I personally saw Rand Paul as my balance, but unfortunately he is out of the race. I hope this makes sense, I'm wearing thin on debating, I don't see what's wrong with balance in the middle.

Agrees we need to end military debate and now thinks we need balance on social issues - Killerbrandt - have you just
skinned up ;)?

Hahaha I have always believed in a balance from the start. I am just getting exhausted hahaha

Here is what I believe.

Military needs a lot of fixes in it, I fully support a strong defense though. However, lots of the budget can be fixed in my opinion, like 'Use it or Lose it" that policy is a piece of SHIT!

I believe there needs to be taxes, but needs to be handled better, government is naturally bad a keeping promises of raising taxes to fund one project and then moving it to another.

Also, I think there needs to be a balance in education, healthcare, ect.., not extremes of either end, the individual still needs to be involved in the factor.

A good example of balance that I believe. Rand Paul debated one time on security issues for the nation, the others tried to slam him saying he didn't want security, but actually he just wanted them to follow the judicial system to do it. (You keep the security, but also keep our freedoms.)

Also, I'm wearing down because as you can tell I am not the best at writing, my skills lie in numbers and it's hard debating with a site that is largely liberal thinking hahaha. However, it is too much fun seeing others opinions, that is why I keep going! haha :)

[phwadsworth]

why do you have to rob me from my goals?

sincere question: at what tax rate does it become robbery?  is there a tax rate that is low enough that you aren't being robbed?

I should ask you, when is it enough? What is the stopping point for you?

I'm not sure, which is why I haven't made any declaratory statements about it. 

But, since you asked I would measure it in a few ways.  First, when enough funds are raised so that no one in the USA has to declare bankruptcy for medical bills, especially emergency medical bills, I would say that taxes may be high enough.  This is not a finite number, since tons of reform needs to be done for this to happen, not just throwing money at the problem.  I'm really not sure about a total net tax rate for everyone, but I would feel comfortable having high marginal tax rate for people making personal income in the several million dollars range, let's call it 60% for this discussion.  I could support this because I don't think there's a benefit to society having individuals earn $100's of millions.  If a company can afford that pay package they should be encouraged to put it to business investment or dividends instead of pay for a few individuals.  On that note, I am opposed to payroll taxes for businesses, I think that tax burden should fall on individuals based upon their income, not on businesses for hiring new people.
back on topic:  I currently pay about 30% in income taxes to support the system that keeps me safe and allows me to do business in a safe and regulated way.  This seems fair, but it's not the whole picture because it doesn't include sales tax, tolls, registrations, etc....all those other taxes that aren't at all progressive.  I think this puts an undue and overlooked tax burden on people making less than about $150k/year.  I would prefer that our tax plan would keep this system more progressive, for instance maybe reducing all those sales/etc taxes&fees and ramping up marginal rates so that our true tax burden looks more like the fed tax rate does on paper.  Namely, I would support a significant (5-10% ?) raise in income tax (state and fed combined) if it were matched with a similar reduction in sales taxes and other non-progressive rates.  This is why I generally support Bernie's plan, he doesn't change taxes on anyone earning less than $250k.


Your turn.

[JordanOfGilead]

why do you have to rob me from my goals?

sincere question: at what tax rate does it become robbery?  is there a tax rate that is low enough that you aren't being robbed?

I should ask you, when is it enough? What is the stopping point for you?

I can't speak for phwadsworth, but personally the stopping point would be when there is enough money to fund the programs necessary to live in a first world country.

That is a good answer and that is where the debate happens. I just want a balance overall, I don't like full blown Healthcare and Education, because personally I think the individual should have some more responsibility in the game without putting it on others as much. However, I am not ignorant enough to want NO taxes, how the hell will we support the basics, the government is not overall bad and could help a ton, if done the right way. That is why Sanders scares me with his extreme plans and Trump scares me with his extreme plans. I personally saw Rand Paul as my balance, but unfortunately he is out of the race. I hope this makes sense, I'm wearing thin on debating, I don't see what's wrong with balance in the middle.

-cough- It'sNotTooLateToBringKasichIntoTheRace -cough-

[Killerbrandt]

why do you have to rob me from my goals?

sincere question: at what tax rate does it become robbery?  is there a tax rate that is low enough that you aren't being robbed?

I should ask you, when is it enough? What is the stopping point for you?

I can't speak for phwadsworth, but personally the stopping point would be when there is enough money to fund the programs necessary to live in a first world country.

That is a good answer and that is where the debate happens. I just want a balance overall, I don't like full blown Healthcare and Education, because personally I think the individual should have some more responsibility in the game without putting it on others as much. However, I am not ignorant enough to want NO taxes, how the hell will we support the basics, the government is not overall bad and could help a ton, if done the right way. That is why Sanders scares me with his extreme plans and Trump scares me with his extreme plans. I personally saw Rand Paul as my balance, but unfortunately he is out of the race. I hope this makes sense, I'm wearing thin on debating, I don't see what's wrong with balance in the middle.

-cough- It'sNotTooLateToBringKasichIntoTheRace -cough-

HAHAHA!! Actually, in the first debate with the democrats, I liked him a lot!!! Is he actually in it still?

[phwadsworth]

others tried to slam him saying he didn't want security, but actually he just wanted them to follow the judicial system to do it. (You keep the security, but also keep our freedoms.)

This is a huge one!  A major reason I support Bernie is he has been against the Patriot Act from the beginning.  Warrantless wire tapping of citizens is wrong, and Bernie believes in protecting that freedom.  Our government should provide for, not spy on, its citizens.
I am disappointed, however, that he will not promise to end extra-judicial killings of US citizens abroad.

[Killerbrandt]

others tried to slam him saying he didn't want security, but actually he just wanted them to follow the judicial system to do it. (You keep the security, but also keep our freedoms.)

This is a huge one!  A major reason I support Bernie is he has been against the Patriot Act from the beginning.  Warrantless wire tapping of citizens is wrong, and Bernie believes in protecting that freedom.  Our government should provide for, not spy on, it's citizens.
I am disappointed, however, that he will not promise to end extra-judicial killings of US citizens abroad.

Yeah, I noticed Bernie and Rand were teaming up on a lot of issues. Honestly, I would vote Bernie if it wasn't for those two things, Healthcare and Education, he keeps pushing. I do agree they desperately need fixing, but I just don't like his plans on doing that. I keep reading up on Kasich now, he really is a good balance also! Ugh, why don't these balance guys grow more traction hahaha

[Killerbrandt]

why do you have to rob me from my goals?

sincere question: at what tax rate does it become robbery?  is there a tax rate that is low enough that you aren't being robbed?

I should ask you, when is it enough? What is the stopping point for you?

I'm not sure, which is why I haven't made any declaratory statements about it. 

But, since you asked I would measure it in a few ways.  First, when enough funds are raised so that no one in the USA has to declare bankruptcy for medical bills, especially emergency medical bills, I would say that taxes may be high enough.  This is not a finite number, since tons of reform needs to be done for this to happen, not just throwing money at the problem.  I'm really not sure about a total net tax rate for everyone, but I would feel comfortable having high marginal tax rate for people making personal income in the several million dollars range, let's call it 60% for this discussion.  I could support this because I don't think there's a benefit to society having individuals earn $100's of millions.  If a company can afford that pay package they should be encouraged to put it to business investment or dividends instead of pay for a few individuals.  On that note, I am opposed to payroll taxes for businesses, I think that tax burden should fall on individuals based upon their income, not on businesses for hiring new people.
back on topic:  I currently pay about 30% in income taxes to support the system that keeps me safe and allows me to do business in a safe and regulated way.  This seems fair, but it's not the whole picture because it doesn't include sales tax, tolls, registrations, etc....all those other taxes that aren't at all progressive.  I think this puts an undue and overlooked tax burden on people making less than about $150k/year.  I would prefer that our tax plan would keep this system more progressive, for instance maybe reducing all those sales/etc taxes&fees and ramping up marginal rates so that our true tax burden looks more like the fed tax rate does on paper.  Namely, I would support a significant (5-10% ?) raise in income tax (state and fed combined) if it were matched with a similar reduction in sales taxes and other non-progressive rates.  This is why I generally support Bernie's plan, he doesn't change taxes on anyone earning less than $250k.


Your turn.

Hahaha Actually, I agree with this for the most part. You won me with the business side hahaha that is balance! However, let me add that I am actually more for Income tax rates also, but not the capital gains tax rates.

[phwadsworth]

Why not just write a $20,000 check to a charity or a scholarship fund instead of forcing everyone else to pay for "free shit for everyone"

1) Because I believe that the systems these taxes would support are not "charity", they are basic functions of a democratic government, hence the cost should be borne by all.  I believe it's wrong to let one's countrymen go bankrupt from medical bills.  Humans have moved beyond the "it takes a village" social structure, but our obligations to other humans have not changed.
2) I already do write checks, for things that are actually charities, i.e. things that I don't expect everyone to support and not everyone will benefit from.  Also, because I think I've been incredibly lucky in this nation, above and beyond others, so I should share above and beyond my tax rate too.
3) Because my incremental donation is a drop in the bucket, and would be futile if others didn't join.  "Don't take my kindness for weakness (of mind)".  We all reap the benefits of a safe, healthy, educated work force and neighbors....so, we all need to pay for that.
3) Because none of this is actually "free" and it's not "shit" either.  Directly or indirectly were all bearing these costs already, just the outcomes are poor.  Making it an across the board tax brings these costs into the daylight and allows us a chance to address how broken the system is.  When I lose an employee because he has to go take care of an uninsured mother with health issues, that costs me and my community.  This cost isn't scored on the political charts, but it's very real.  When we all chip in we can bear this cost more easily and prevent an able working man from losing his job.

[Killerbrandt]

others tried to slam him saying he didn't want security, but actually he just wanted them to follow the judicial system to do it. (You keep the security, but also keep our freedoms.)

This is a huge one!  A major reason I support Bernie is he has been against the Patriot Act from the beginning.  Warrantless wire tapping of citizens is wrong, and Bernie believes in protecting that freedom.  Our government should provide for, not spy on, its citizens.
I am disappointed, however, that he will not promise to end extra-judicial killings of US citizens abroad.

From the looks of it, we are pretty much on the same page. I appears you are not necessarily for full blown Healthcare and education, but enough so people stop going bankrupt over medical issues and people will be able to afford an education without going into deep debt. Your tax ideas are pretty good, but I believe in a more balance tax, like a flat tax or more equal type way, but your way to balance what you mentioned about business satisfies me a lot on that issue. But overall, we need to tax enough and cut costs enough to support the ideas we mentioned and to definitely get this nation out of debt and a deficit.

[phwadsworth]

From the looks of it, we are pretty much on the same page. I appears you are not necessarily for full blown Healthcare and education, but enough so people stop going bankrupt over medical issues and people will be able to afford an education without going into deep debt. Your tax ideas are pretty good, but I believe in a more balance tax, like a flat tax or more equal type way, but your way to balance what you mentioned about business satisfies me a lot on that issue. But overall, we need to tax enough and cut costs enough to support the ideas we mentioned and to definitely get this nation out of debt and a deficit.

so, is there a line when "robbery" begins?  I'm really curious why you call Bernie's plan "robbery", but (I think you imply that) not our current tax rates.

For the record, I don't think any tax rate is robbery, even 100%.  Only graft and embezzlement are robbery.

[Killerbrandt]

From the looks of it, we are pretty much on the same page. I appears you are not necessarily for full blown Healthcare and education, but enough so people stop going bankrupt over medical issues and people will be able to afford an education without going into deep debt. Your tax ideas are pretty good, but I believe in a more balance tax, like a flat tax or more equal type way, but your way to balance what you mentioned about business satisfies me a lot on that issue. But overall, we need to tax enough and cut costs enough to support the ideas we mentioned and to definitely get this nation out of debt and a deficit.

so, is there a line when "robbery" begins?  I'm really curious why you call Bernie's plan "robbery", but (I think you imply that) not our current tax rates.

Yeah, I don't think current rates or slight income only increases is complete robbery. It is his attacking of the financial market is what gets me. Trying to suck money from peoples retirements and the main financial vehicle for individuals to become financially free is criminal to me. Especially since there is an already inherent risk with investing and that money being taxed already once before it was put in (exception of tax advantage funds).

[JordanOfGilead]

others tried to slam him saying he didn't want security, but actually he just wanted them to follow the judicial system to do it. (You keep the security, but also keep our freedoms.)

This is a huge one!  A major reason I support Bernie is he has been against the Patriot Act from the beginning.  Warrantless wire tapping of citizens is wrong, and Bernie believes in protecting that freedom.  Our government should provide for, not spy on, it's citizens.
I am disappointed, however, that he will not promise to end extra-judicial killings of US citizens abroad.

Yeah, I noticed Bernie and Rand were teaming up on a lot of issues. Honestly, I would vote Bernie if it wasn't for those two things, Healthcare and Education, he keeps pushing. I do agree they desperately need fixing, but I just don't like his plans on doing that. I keep reading up on Kasich now, he really is a good balance also! Ugh, why don't these balance guys grow more traction hahaha

Because extremists get ratings, so extremists are what's covered by the media and therefore extremists are what the majority of ignorant Americans are exposed to.

[2lazy2retire]

others tried to slam him saying he didn't want security, but actually he just wanted them to follow the judicial system to do it. (You keep the security, but also keep our freedoms.)

This is a huge one!  A major reason I support Bernie is he has been against the Patriot Act from the beginning.  Warrantless wire tapping of citizens is wrong, and Bernie believes in protecting that freedom.  Our government should provide for, not spy on, it's citizens.
I am disappointed, however, that he will not promise to end extra-judicial killings of US citizens abroad.

Yeah, I noticed Bernie and Rand were teaming up on a lot of issues. Honestly, I would vote Bernie if it wasn't for those two things, Healthcare and Education, he keeps pushing. I do agree they desperately need fixing, but I just don't like his plans on doing that. I keep reading up on Kasich now, he really is a good balance also! Ugh, why don't these balance guys grow more traction hahaha

The free tuition for all public uni's is a step too far, he should instead focus on the con that is student loans, in the UK for example where they have been increasing fees in recent years  alongside an excellent loan system which is paid back from future income only when the burrower is earning enough - also the interest rate is properly controlled ( this year (0.9%). This could then apply top both public and private colleges - with the amount of cheap money around this seems a no brainer.

[Killerbrandt]

others tried to slam him saying he didn't want security, but actually he just wanted them to follow the judicial system to do it. (You keep the security, but also keep our freedoms.)

This is a huge one!  A major reason I support Bernie is he has been against the Patriot Act from the beginning.  Warrantless wire tapping of citizens is wrong, and Bernie believes in protecting that freedom.  Our government should provide for, not spy on, it's citizens.
I am disappointed, however, that he will not promise to end extra-judicial killings of US citizens abroad.

Yeah, I noticed Bernie and Rand were teaming up on a lot of issues. Honestly, I would vote Bernie if it wasn't for those two things, Healthcare and Education, he keeps pushing. I do agree they desperately need fixing, but I just don't like his plans on doing that. I keep reading up on Kasich now, he really is a good balance also! Ugh, why don't these balance guys grow more traction hahaha

Because extremists get ratings, so extremists are what's covered by the media and therefore extremists are what the majority of ignorant Americans are exposed to.

UGH! Unfortunately that is too true! and ridiculous!

[Killerbrandt]

others tried to slam him saying he didn't want security, but actually he just wanted them to follow the judicial system to do it. (You keep the security, but also keep our freedoms.)

This is a huge one!  A major reason I support Bernie is he has been against the Patriot Act from the beginning.  Warrantless wire tapping of citizens is wrong, and Bernie believes in protecting that freedom.  Our government should provide for, not spy on, it's citizens.
I am disappointed, however, that he will not promise to end extra-judicial killings of US citizens abroad.

Yeah, I noticed Bernie and Rand were teaming up on a lot of issues. Honestly, I would vote Bernie if it wasn't for those two things, Healthcare and Education, he keeps pushing. I do agree they desperately need fixing, but I just don't like his plans on doing that. I keep reading up on Kasich now, he really is a good balance also! Ugh, why don't these balance guys grow more traction hahaha

The free tuition for all public uni's is a step too far, he should instead focus on the con that is student loans, in the UK for example where they have been increasing fees in recent years  alongside an excellent loan system which is paid back from future income only when the burrower is earning enough - also the interest rate is properly controlled ( this year (0.9%). This could then apply top both public and private colleges - with the amount of cheap money around this seems a no brainer.

^THIS!! I WANT THIS!!!

[JordanOfGilead]

others tried to slam him saying he didn't want security, but actually he just wanted them to follow the judicial system to do it. (You keep the security, but also keep our freedoms.)

This is a huge one!  A major reason I support Bernie is he has been against the Patriot Act from the beginning.  Warrantless wire tapping of citizens is wrong, and Bernie believes in protecting that freedom.  Our government should provide for, not spy on, it's citizens.
I am disappointed, however, that he will not promise to end extra-judicial killings of US citizens abroad.

Yeah, I noticed Bernie and Rand were teaming up on a lot of issues. Honestly, I would vote Bernie if it wasn't for those two things, Healthcare and Education, he keeps pushing. I do agree they desperately need fixing, but I just don't like his plans on doing that. I keep reading up on Kasich now, he really is a good balance also! Ugh, why don't these balance guys grow more traction hahaha

The free tuition for all public uni's is a step too far, he should instead focus on the con that is student loans, in the UK for example where they have been increasing fees in recent years  alongside an excellent loan system which is paid back from future income only when the burrower is earning enough - also the interest rate is properly controlled ( this year (0.9%). This could then apply top both public and private colleges - with the amount of cheap money around this seems a no brainer.

^THIS!! I WANT THIS!!!

Jesus, I'm paying back my student loans at nearly 6% ...

[phwadsworth]

Yeah, I don't think current rates or slight income only increases is complete robbery. It is his attacking of the financial market is what gets me. Trying to suck money from peoples retirements and the main financial vehicle for individuals to become financially free is criminal to me. Especially since there is an already inherent risk with investing and that money being taxed already once before it was put in (exception of tax advantage funds).

And that's where we split.  While I agree that attacking our very successful financial system is not good, I will take any amount of that over a candidate that promises to kill/deport more people.  I will easily give up hits to our economy to support a leader that will not make attacks against marriage rights, freedom of speech and religion, immigration rights, and the general human right to not be killed by a foreign government when you're not a combatant.  There just isn't enough money in the world to make anything more important.  Hence there isn't a single Republican in the race that I can support, even if their financial plans are sound....and I can't support Hillary either.

[Killerbrandt]

others tried to slam him saying he didn't want security, but actually he just wanted them to follow the judicial system to do it. (You keep the security, but also keep our freedoms.)

This is a huge one!  A major reason I support Bernie is he has been against the Patriot Act from the beginning.  Warrantless wire tapping of citizens is wrong, and Bernie believes in protecting that freedom.  Our government should provide for, not spy on, it's citizens.
I am disappointed, however, that he will not promise to end extra-judicial killings of US citizens abroad.

Yeah, I noticed Bernie and Rand were teaming up on a lot of issues. Honestly, I would vote Bernie if it wasn't for those two things, Healthcare and Education, he keeps pushing. I do agree they desperately need fixing, but I just don't like his plans on doing that. I keep reading up on Kasich now, he really is a good balance also! Ugh, why don't these balance guys grow more traction hahaha

The free tuition for all public uni's is a step too far, he should instead focus on the con that is student loans, in the UK for example where they have been increasing fees in recent years  alongside an excellent loan system which is paid back from future income only when the burrower is earning enough - also the interest rate is properly controlled ( this year (0.9%). This could then apply top both public and private colleges - with the amount of cheap money around this seems a no brainer.

^THIS!! I WANT THIS!!!

Jesus, I'm paying back my student loans at nearly 6% ...

Exactly, that rate is ridiculous. My friends and I were talking about making it so that when a student graduates the rate would decrease significantly and adjust to the rate of income one is making.

[cheapass]

The free tuition for all public uni's is a step too far, he should instead focus on the con that is student loans, in the UK for example where they have been increasing fees in recent years  alongside an excellent loan system which is paid back from future income only when the burrower is earning enough - also the interest rate is properly controlled ( this year (0.9%). This could then apply top both public and private colleges - with the amount of cheap money around this seems a no brainer.

There is someone on the other side of the table, the lender. Why would they loan money to someone at .9% that doesn't have any assets behind it to repo in case of default? Especially if they can loan it to someone for a house at 3.6% or a car at 5%...The reason student loans have a higher rate is that they are unsecured debt - they can't go take away your degree if you don't pay.

[cheapass]

Yeah, I don't think current rates or slight income only increases is complete robbery. It is his attacking of the financial market is what gets me. Trying to suck money from peoples retirements and the main financial vehicle for individuals to become financially free is criminal to me. Especially since there is an already inherent risk with investing and that money being taxed already once before it was put in (exception of tax advantage funds).

And that's where we split.  While I agree that attacking our very successful financial system is not good, I will take any amount of that over a candidate that promises to kill/deport more people.  I will easily give up hits to our economy to support a leader that will not make attacks against marriage rights, freedom of speech and religion, immigration rights, and the general human right to not be killed by a foreign government when you're not a combatant.  There just isn't enough money in the world to make anything more important.  Hence there isn't a single Republican in the race that I can support, even if their financial plans are sound....and I can't support Hillary either.

There is a 3rd party that seems to support all of your views - Libertarian. Check it out.

[JordanOfGilead]

Hence there isn't a single Republican in the race that I can support, even if their financial plans are sound....

-cough- exceptKasich -cough-

[2lazy2retire]

The free tuition for all public uni's is a step too far, he should instead focus on the con that is student loans, in the UK for example where they have been increasing fees in recent years  alongside an excellent loan system which is paid back from future income only when the burrower is earning enough - also the interest rate is properly controlled ( this year (0.9%). This could then apply top both public and private colleges - with the amount of cheap money around this seems a no brainer.

There is someone on the other side of the table, the lender. Why would they loan money to someone at .9% that doesn't have any assets behind it to repo in case of default? Especially if they can loan it to someone for a house at 3.6% or a car at 5%...The reason student loans have a higher rate is that they are unsecured debt - they can't go take away your degree if you don't pay.

The other side of the table is the federal goverment :)

[Killerbrandt]

Yeah, I don't think current rates or slight income only increases is complete robbery. It is his attacking of the financial market is what gets me. Trying to suck money from peoples retirements and the main financial vehicle for individuals to become financially free is criminal to me. Especially since there is an already inherent risk with investing and that money being taxed already once before it was put in (exception of tax advantage funds).

And that's where we split.  While I agree that attacking our very successful financial system is not good, I will take any amount of that over a candidate that promises to kill/deport more people.  I will easily give up hits to our economy to support a leader that will not make attacks against marriage rights, freedom of speech and religion, immigration rights, and the general human right to not be killed by a foreign government when you're not a combatant.  There just isn't enough money in the world to make anything more important.  Hence there isn't a single Republican in the race that I can support, even if their financial plans are sound....and I can't support Hillary either.

I can support your opinion on those and those topics are very important to me also. I am just more on the financial side of issues because without our economy, we as a nation could not support or help others as easily if we are dead broke. The more we can reduce the debt and deficit, the better we will be for helping those issues on a larger level. This is just my opinion.

[cheapass]

The other side of the table is the federal goverment :)

Ah, the government is willing to take more risks with other people's money than private lenders are willing to with their own money. Got it.

[iris lily]

Why not just write a $20,000 check to a charity or a scholarship fund instead of forcing everyone else to pay for "free shit for everyone"

1) Because I believe ...

What you believe doesn't give you the right to dictate my financial obligations.

Use of the word "believe" isnt a good arguement  for bigger government.

[Killerbrandt]

The free tuition for all public uni's is a step too far, he should instead focus on the con that is student loans, in the UK for example where they have been increasing fees in recent years  alongside an excellent loan system which is paid back from future income only when the burrower is earning enough - also the interest rate is properly controlled ( this year (0.9%). This could then apply top both public and private colleges - with the amount of cheap money around this seems a no brainer.

There is someone on the other side of the table, the lender. Why would they loan money to someone at .9% that doesn't have any assets behind it to repo in case of default? Especially if they can loan it to someone for a house at 3.6% or a car at 5%...The reason student loans have a higher rate is that they are unsecured debt - they can't go take away your degree if you don't pay.

The other side of the table is the federal goverment :)

That is true, the government is already handling a lot of the loans and student loans are already blocked from bankruptcy, so even if a private lender decreased the interest to say 2 percent, they would be safe from losing it all because it is still locked to the individual.

[2lazy2retire]

The other side of the table is the federal goverment :)

Ah, the government is willing to take more risks with other people's money than private lenders are willing to with their own money. Got it.

Well currently they are happy to make more with other peoples money than private lenders on student loans  - do you get that also

[Killerbrandt]

The other side of the table is the federal goverment :)

Ah, the government is willing to take more risks with other people's money than private lenders are willing to with their own money. Got it.

Well adjusting the loan program I believe is still better than full blown free education. This can be a good balance of the individual still taking responsibility and helping them financially a bit. This also wouldn't have to involve huge tax increase in all areas. There can still be more discussion on how this loan adjustment would work.

[2lazy2retire]

The other side of the table is the federal goverment :)

Ah, the government is willing to take more risks with other people's money than private lenders are willing to with their own money. Got it.

You could call it QE4 - those students would ensure the money goes back into the economy :)

[Jack]

others tried to slam him saying he didn't want security, but actually he just wanted them to follow the judicial system to do it. (You keep the security, but also keep our freedoms.)

This is a huge one!  A major reason I support Bernie is he has been against the Patriot Act from the beginning.  Warrantless wire tapping of citizens is wrong, and Bernie believes in protecting that freedom.  Our government should provide for, not spy on, it's citizens.
I am disappointed, however, that he will not promise to end extra-judicial killings of US citizens abroad.

Yeah, I noticed Bernie and Rand were teaming up on a lot of issues. Honestly, I would vote Bernie if it wasn't for those two things, Healthcare and Education, he keeps pushing. I do agree they desperately need fixing, but I just don't like his plans on doing that. I keep reading up on Kasich now, he really is a good balance also! Ugh, why don't these balance guys grow more traction hahaha

The free tuition for all public uni's is a step too far, he should instead focus on the con that is student loans, in the UK for example where they have been increasing fees in recent years  alongside an excellent loan system which is paid back from future income only when the burrower is earning enough - also the interest rate is properly controlled ( this year (0.9%). This could then apply top both public and private colleges - with the amount of cheap money around this seems a no brainer.

^THIS!! I WANT THIS!!!

Then vote for Sanders. The "free tuition" thing simply isn't going to happen -- it'll never get through Congress. However, if reasonable student loan rates is what you actually want to accomplish, then using "free tuition" as a starting position in the negotiation is a good tactic.

As a bonus, we'd end up with someone who actually gives a shit about the Fourth Amendment, and Sanders is the only candidate with "traction" who meets that criteria.

[Killerbrandt]

others tried to slam him saying he didn't want security, but actually he just wanted them to follow the judicial system to do it. (You keep the security, but also keep our freedoms.)

This is a huge one!  A major reason I support Bernie is he has been against the Patriot Act from the beginning.  Warrantless wire tapping of citizens is wrong, and Bernie believes in protecting that freedom.  Our government should provide for, not spy on, it's citizens.
I am disappointed, however, that he will not promise to end extra-judicial killings of US citizens abroad.

Yeah, I noticed Bernie and Rand were teaming up on a lot of issues. Honestly, I would vote Bernie if it wasn't for those two things, Healthcare and Education, he keeps pushing. I do agree they desperately need fixing, but I just don't like his plans on doing that. I keep reading up on Kasich now, he really is a good balance also! Ugh, why don't these balance guys grow more traction hahaha

The free tuition for all public uni's is a step too far, he should instead focus on the con that is student loans, in the UK for example where they have been increasing fees in recent years  alongside an excellent loan system which is paid back from future income only when the burrower is earning enough - also the interest rate is properly controlled ( this year (0.9%). This could then apply top both public and private colleges - with the amount of cheap money around this seems a no brainer.

^THIS!! I WANT THIS!!!

Then vote for Sanders. The "free tuition" thing simply isn't going to happen -- it'll never get through Congress. However, if reasonable student loan rates is what you actually want to accomplish, then using "free tuition" as a starting position in the negotiation is a good tactic.

As a bonus, we'd end up with someone who actually gives a shit about the Fourth Amendment, and Sanders is the only candidate with "traction" who meets that criteria.

Im leaning more toward Kasich, but yeah that is true, the extreme starting point is a good negotiation tactic.

[phwadsworth]

What you believe doesn't give you the right to dictate my financial obligations.

Use of the word "believe" isnt a good arguement  for bigger government.

Actually, it does give me that right.  It's called my vote.  We all get our beliefs and we act on them with votes.  Your vote has an equal weight in dictating my financial obligations as mine does in dictating yours.

Now, whether it's not a good argument?   I was asked why I didn't do something, I answered why in the only way I can, with my opinions. Your belief is an equally good argument for smaller government as mine is for bigger.  Welcome to the club.

[Killerbrandt]

Really quick, I would like to announce I now have bristles on this blog! hahaha

[Jack]

Then vote for Sanders. The "free tuition" thing simply isn't going to happen -- it'll never get through Congress. However, if reasonable student loan rates is what you actually want to accomplish, then using "free tuition" as a starting position in the negotiation is a good tactic.

As a bonus, we'd end up with someone who actually gives a shit about the Fourth Amendment, and Sanders is the only candidate with "traction" who meets that criteria.

Im leaning more toward Kasich, but yeah that is true, the extreme starting point is a good negotiation tactic.

If Kasich makes it to the general election, then by all means, go for it! But that possibility seems a lot more likely for Sanders...

Moreover, having a President who respects civil rights is important enough that actually electing one at the cost of expensive fiscal policy is better than casting a futile write-in vote for one with cheaper fiscal policy and ending up with an authoritarian.

[PathtoFIRE]

I agree college tuition shouldn't be free. Quite the opposite, I suggest we pay students to learn.

[Killerbrandt]

Then vote for Sanders. The "free tuition" thing simply isn't going to happen -- it'll never get through Congress. However, if reasonable student loan rates is what you actually want to accomplish, then using "free tuition" as a starting position in the negotiation is a good tactic.

As a bonus, we'd end up with someone who actually gives a shit about the Fourth Amendment, and Sanders is the only candidate with "traction" who meets that criteria.

Im leaning more toward Kasich, but yeah that is true, the extreme starting point is a good negotiation tactic.

If Kasich makes it to the general election, then by all means, go for it! But that possibility seems a lot more likely for Sanders...

Moreover, having a President who respects civil rights is important enough that actually electing one at the cost of expensive fiscal policy is better than casting a futile write-in vote for one with cheaper fiscal policy and ending up with an authoritarian.

I would have to agree with this logic.

[2lazy2retire]

others tried to slam him saying he didn't want security, but actually he just wanted them to follow the judicial system to do it. (You keep the security, but also keep our freedoms.)

This is a huge one!  A major reason I support Bernie is he has been against the Patriot Act from the beginning.  Warrantless wire tapping of citizens is wrong, and Bernie believes in protecting that freedom.  Our government should provide for, not spy on, it's citizens.
I am disappointed, however, that he will not promise to end extra-judicial killings of US citizens abroad.

Yeah, I noticed Bernie and Rand were teaming up on a lot of issues. Honestly, I would vote Bernie if it wasn't for those two things, Healthcare and Education, he keeps pushing. I do agree they desperately need fixing, but I just don't like his plans on doing that. I keep reading up on Kasich now, he really is a good balance also! Ugh, why don't these balance guys grow more traction hahaha

The free tuition for all public uni's is a step too far, he should instead focus on the con that is student loans, in the UK for example where they have been increasing fees in recent years  alongside an excellent loan system which is paid back from future income only when the burrower is earning enough - also the interest rate is properly controlled ( this year (0.9%). This could then apply top both public and private colleges - with the amount of cheap money around this seems a no brainer.

^THIS!! I WANT THIS!!!

Then vote for Sanders. The "free tuition" thing simply isn't going to happen -- it'll never get through Congress. However, if reasonable student loan rates is what you actually want to accomplish, then using "free tuition" as a starting position in the negotiation is a good tactic.

As a bonus, we'd end up with someone who actually gives a shit about the Fourth Amendment, and Sanders is the only candidate with "traction" who meets that criteria.

Im leaning more toward Kasich, but yeah that is true, the extreme starting point is a good negotiation tactic.

Yes on negotiation tactic if you are in power but free stuff scares people - he may never get the chance to negotiate