US primaries: Sanders challenges Clinton to debate on home turf

[Boon Mee]

Hillary would rather eat glass than debate Bernie. She knows full well Bernie's policies resonate with the electorate. The last thing she wants to do is give Bernie's policies airtime. When Bernie gets the opportunity to explain the issues and his solutions to those issues Hillary loses ground. General election Polls show Bernie is way in front against Trump. The more Bernie gets his message out the more the American People get a glimpse of the real world outside of America and how better more affordable systems for Health, Education and Democracy can be put in place. A Government working for the People not just for the the greed of the wealthy elite, Corporate America and Wall Street.

Feel the Bern - A Future To Believe In

"Government working for the People not just for the the greed of the wealthy elite, Corporate America and Wall Street."

"For the people??? You mean like letting the joint get overrun by Muslim opportunists who will soon rule Europe? Lying to people saying that somehow things like the NHS can survive this onslaught of laggards?

For the people? You want Bernie, you take him to Europe where he belongs, please.

Cheers.

You feeling The Bern NeverSure? lol

I understand, change frightens some people.

The tax burdon under a Socialist/Communist such as Sanders is what fightens folks.

[boomerangutang]

Change? with Bernie? ... Bernie has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected. The change people on the Left are afraid of is Trump ....

I was going to say 'no, the people on the left don't fear the change that Trump will bring.' because I don't like to frame my life around fear ...of anything or anyone. But after reading your statement a 2nd time, I see that maybe it's true. The type of change that Trump will bring is unknown, ....even to Trump himself. There are vast tracts of issues he doesn't know much about, ....well, to be fair, not much more than a reactionary redneck would know. He flip flops like a leaf in the wind, depending on what his minders tell him, minutes after he leaves a stage of unscripted answers to tough questions.

We've had 7+ years of an articulate, gentlemanly, soft-spoken president, so yes, if Trump get voted in, it will bring change. But everyone except an American-hater should be spooked by the unknown change that might be. Will it be mostly a bumbling presidency with his minders telling him what to think/say, or will it be the blustering bully presidency of continually alienating people? America = china shop. Trump = untethered bull let loose therein.

[boomerangutang]

The tax burdon under a Socialist/Communist such as Sanders is what fightens folks.

Only the top 1%, and only if they think that tens of millions of dollars/year is not enough to get things paid for in their lives.

[up2u2]

The tax burdon under a Socialist/Communist such as Sanders is what fightens folks.

That's a good example of why Hillary will be very reluctant to debate Bernie and give him the opportunity to address this type of Right Wing propaganda. I don't think all the 'tax burden', 'Socialist/Communist' drivel is really getting all that much traction with the electorate these days. It really has been a monumental effort by Bernie and his ability as a communicator and educator of the electorate that has him polling double digits against Trump in a general election. The last thing Hillary or the Republicans want is more airtime for Bernie. Hillary really cannot afford to step any further to the Left to compete with Bernie because she really is at the point her establishment Corporate America and Wall Street backers start to get a little nervous.

Maybe best stick to copy and pasting Right Wing propaganda memes Boon Mee this particular topic involves strategic thinking. Bernie puts out the challenge because he knows if he can get Hillary into the ring he wins. Hillary knows if Bernie gets her up against the turnbuckle she comes out the loser and Bernie takes the chocolates. Bernie just steps up to the crease and plays a straight bat, Hillary has to step in to bat and start flicking them sideways and over the wicket keeper, to the viewer it becomes as obvious as a one legged Duck she isn't being up front.

[chuckd]

The tax burdon under a Socialist/Communist such as Sanders is what fightens folks.

Only the top 1%, and only if they think that tens of millions of dollars/year is not enough to get things paid for in their lives.

Where are you coming up with the nonsense you post as facts?

I crunched some numbers and came up with the following...

On a static basis, the plan would lead to 10.56 percent lower after-tax income for all taxpayers and 17.91 percent lower after-tax income for the top 1 percent. When accounting for reduced GDP, after-tax incomes of all taxpayers would fall by at least 12.84 percent.

In short, nearly every level of income will have less available cash after taxes for the next decade if good old Bern's wish list on spending and generating tax revenue is realized.

Actually, I didn't really crunch the numbers. I just said that because it was a claim made by a liberal some days ago only to be found out that he really lifted it verbatim from a source without providing the link.

Lest I be accused of plagiarism, the following link picks Bernie's tax plan to pieces, along with the statement made by the quoted poster.

Read it and weep, all you socialists.: http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-bernie-sanders-s-tax-plan

Edited April 1, 2016 by chuckd

[JDGRUEN]

Change? with Bernie? ... Bernie has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected. The change people on the Left are afraid of is Trump ....

I was going to say 'no, the people on the left don't fear the change that Trump will bring.' because I don't like to frame my life around fear ...of anything or anyone. But after reading your statement a 2nd time, I see that maybe it's true. The type of change that Trump will bring is unknown, ....even to Trump himself. There are vast tracts of issues he doesn't know much about, ....well, to be fair, not much more than a reactionary redneck would know. He flip flops like a leaf in the wind, depending on what his minders tell him, minutes after he leaves a stage of unscripted answers to tough questions.

We've had 7+ years of an articulate, gentlemanly, soft-spoken president, so yes, if Trump get voted in, it will bring change. But everyone except an American-hater should be spooked by the unknown change that might be. Will it be mostly a bumbling presidency with his minders telling him what to think/say, or will it be the blustering bully presidency of continually alienating people? America = china shop. Trump = untethered bull let loose therein.

OH GAWD .... such namby pamby glop ...soft-spoken .... Anti-American TRAITOR is a better description of Hussain Obama... You cannot possibly have any understanding of the feelings of 60-70 million Americans ... what you utter is joke...

[NeverSure]

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that governments can't support people but rather people have to support the government?

Why is it so hard to understand that the government has no money unless it first takes it from the people?

Why is it so hard to understand that governments are inefficient and they spill much of the money they have before it can ever benefit any people?

Why is it so hard to understand that governments are busy with programs that are expensive, and that the people disapprove of? (Money to Brussels from Europe perhaps or money for military all over the world from the US perhaps?)

Why is it so hard for people to understand that the elite in all governments are looking out for themselves while trying to convince the sheeple that they are looking out for them?

Why is it so hard for people to understand why taxes and prices on consumer items are so much lower in the US than they are in "socially advanced" countries?

Why do our friends in the "advanced" UK not see that their national debt is about the same as that of the US but is growing faster as a percentage of GDP? Why are Europeans not concerned about the rampant printing of money in the Eurozone to pay the bills? (The Eurozone can just print money to pay bills but the US and UK can't - they by their own laws have to borrow it.)

When did we get the stupid idea to turn the control of our lives and our safety over to our governments when it's so obvious that they are stupid and getting worse? Why can we not see that Europe will crash under the burden of its current immigration and economic policies instead of just cheering it on?

Americans are going to sit back and watch Europe crash while listening to Europeans tell them that they are "better than". Europe is crashing and should lecture no one.

Cheers.

[willyumiii]

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that governments can't support people but rather people have to support the government?

Why is it so hard to understand that the government has no money unless it first takes it from the people?

Why is it so hard to understand that governments are inefficient and they spill much of the money they have before it can ever benefit any people?

Why is it so hard to understand that governments are busy with programs that are expensive, and that the people disapprove of? (Money to Brussels from Europe perhaps or money for military all over the world from the US perhaps?)

Why is it so hard for people to understand that the elite in all governments are looking out for themselves while trying to convince the sheeple that they are looking out for them?

Why is it so hard for people to understand why taxes and prices on consumer items are so much lower in the US than they are in "socially advanced" countries?

Why do our friends in the "advanced" UK not see that their national debt is about the same as that of the US but is growing faster as a percentage of GDP? Why are Europeans not concerned about the rampant printing of money in the Eurozone to pay the bills? (The Eurozone can just print money to pay bills but the US and UK can't - they by their own laws have to borrow it.)

When did we get the stupid idea to turn the control of our lives and our safety over to our governments when it's so obvious that they are stupid and getting worse? Why can we not see that Europe will crash under the burden of its current immigration and economic policies instead of just cheering it on?

Americans are going to sit back and watch Europe crash while listening to Europeans tell them that they are "better than". Europe is crashing and should lecture no one.

Cheers.

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that people supporting and helping other people in need is not a bad thing to do?

[boomerangutang]

Why is it so hard for people to understand why taxes and prices on consumer items are so much lower in the US than they are in "socially advanced" countries?

Trump keeps saying, "the US has the highest taxes in the world" I've known he was dead wrong, but now NS, a Trump supporter, confirms that Trump was wrong about that.

As for "....consumer items are so much lower in the US than they are in "socially advanced" countries?"

Yes, for some items that's true, but for pharmaceutical (and medical) items, US prices are highest. Can you guess why? Here's a hint: Big Pharma are very generous contributors to political campaigns.

Note: Conservatives make a lot of noise about not wanting government interfering with peoples' lives, but the same conservatives are adamant about government interfering with women's reproductive issues. It's like Republicans want to build a wall around every woman's womb and control what goes in and comes out of it.

Conservatives also want to keep criminalizing pot and hemp farming. How does that fit with "keeping big government from controlling peoples' lives and livelihood?"

[NeverSure]

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that governments can't support people but rather people have to support the government?

Why is it so hard to understand that the government has no money unless it first takes it from the people?

Why is it so hard to understand that governments are inefficient and they spill much of the money they have before it can ever benefit any people?

Why is it so hard to understand that governments are busy with programs that are expensive, and that the people disapprove of? (Money to Brussels from Europe perhaps or money for military all over the world from the US perhaps?)

Why is it so hard for people to understand that the elite in all governments are looking out for themselves while trying to convince the sheeple that they are looking out for them?

Why is it so hard for people to understand why taxes and prices on consumer items are so much lower in the US than they are in "socially advanced" countries?

Why do our friends in the "advanced" UK not see that their national debt is about the same as that of the US but is growing faster as a percentage of GDP? Why are Europeans not concerned about the rampant printing of money in the Eurozone to pay the bills? (The Eurozone can just print money to pay bills but the US and UK can't - they by their own laws have to borrow it.)

When did we get the stupid idea to turn the control of our lives and our safety over to our governments when it's so obvious that they are stupid and getting worse? Why can we not see that Europe will crash under the burden of its current immigration and economic policies instead of just cheering it on?

Americans are going to sit back and watch Europe crash while listening to Europeans tell them that they are "better than". Europe is crashing and should lecture no one.

Cheers.

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that people supporting and helping other people in need is not a bad thing to do?

Is that all you get out of that? Nothing about being forced to pay taxes to a government that will spill half of it before it reaches any people? Nothing about taxes being wasted in Brussels? Nothing about out of control governments who give you back a tiny portion of what you pay after literally living in castles?

Hatred for fat cat corporations but not for fat cat politicians?

You can keep any government that forces you into involuntary servitude to others whether they be the fat cat politicians or the people who will. not. work. Then these governments let in millions of immigrants who are there for the "benefits" that have to be stolen from the taxpayers. Your socialism will break because invaders come in for the freebies that even the native citizens can't get.

And you like all of that?

Cheers.

[samran]

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that governments can't support people but rather people have to support the government?

Why is it so hard to understand that the government has no money unless it first takes it from the people?

Why is it so hard to understand that governments are inefficient and they spill much of the money they have before it can ever benefit any people?

Why is it so hard to understand that governments are busy with programs that are expensive, and that the people disapprove of? (Money to Brussels from Europe perhaps or money for military all over the world from the US perhaps?)

Why is it so hard for people to understand that the elite in all governments are looking out for themselves while trying to convince the sheeple that they are looking out for them?

Why is it so hard for people to understand why taxes and prices on consumer items are so much lower in the US than they are in "socially advanced" countries?

Why do our friends in the "advanced" UK not see that their national debt is about the same as that of the US but is growing faster as a percentage of GDP? Why are Europeans not concerned about the rampant printing of money in the Eurozone to pay the bills? (The Eurozone can just print money to pay bills but the US and UK can't - they by their own laws have to borrow it.)

When did we get the stupid idea to turn the control of our lives and our safety over to our governments when it's so obvious that they are stupid and getting worse? Why can we not see that Europe will crash under the burden of its current immigration and economic policies instead of just cheering it on?

Americans are going to sit back and watch Europe crash while listening to Europeans tell them that they are "better than". Europe is crashing and should lecture no one.

Cheers.

I bet you like your medicare coverage and artificially capped premiums.

I bet you like your social security

I bet you like your interstates

I bet you like the roads that are built to your farm

I bet you like your army, navy and airforce

I bet you like your postal service

I bet you like your public schools

For all your talk about economic responsibilty, why don't you complain paying twice as much for medical care than the rest of the world and getting worse outcomes?

I don't hear you complaining that real wage growth workers has lagged behind other countries, creating a working poor - forever expected to produce higher rates of productivity but this productivity increase not reflected in the pay packet of average workers.

It is actually the rest of the world watching the U.S. crash as it is now reaping what it has sown for the last three decades, race to the bottom politics and destitute economic policy where lowering taxes and defunding government passes for serious economic debate.

[NeverSure]

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that governments can't support people but rather people have to support the government?

Why is it so hard to understand that the government has no money unless it first takes it from the people?

Why is it so hard to understand that governments are inefficient and they spill much of the money they have before it can ever benefit any people?

Why is it so hard to understand that governments are busy with programs that are expensive, and that the people disapprove of? (Money to Brussels from Europe perhaps or money for military all over the world from the US perhaps?)

Why is it so hard for people to understand that the elite in all governments are looking out for themselves while trying to convince the sheeple that they are looking out for them?

Why is it so hard for people to understand why taxes and prices on consumer items are so much lower in the US than they are in "socially advanced" countries?

Why do our friends in the "advanced" UK not see that their national debt is about the same as that of the US but is growing faster as a percentage of GDP? Why are Europeans not concerned about the rampant printing of money in the Eurozone to pay the bills? (The Eurozone can just print money to pay bills but the US and UK can't - they by their own laws have to borrow it.)

When did we get the stupid idea to turn the control of our lives and our safety over to our governments when it's so obvious that they are stupid and getting worse? Why can we not see that Europe will crash under the burden of its current immigration and economic policies instead of just cheering it on?

Americans are going to sit back and watch Europe crash while listening to Europeans tell them that they are "better than". Europe is crashing and should lecture no one.

Cheers.

I bet you like your medicare coverage and artificially capped premiums.

I bet you like your social security

I bet you like your interstates

I bet you like the roads that are built to your farm

I bet you like your army, navy and airforce

I bet you like your postal service

I bet you like your public schools

For all your talk about economic responsibilty, why don't you complain paying twice as much for medical care than the rest of the world and getting worse outcomes?

I don't hear you complaining that real wage growth workers has lagged behind other countries, creating a working poor - forever expected to produce higher rates of productivity but this productivity increase not reflected in the pay packet of average workers.

It is actually the rest of the world watching the U.S. crash as it is now reaping what it has sown for the last three decades, race to the bottom politics and destitute economic policy where lowering taxes and defunding government passes for serious economic debate.

Did you notice that you didn't address a single one of my points? Is that because you can't actually deny any of my bullet points? Why don't you answer them, one at a time?

Then you go off on a tangent about what government is really for and why people have a government in the first place before it gets out of hand. People first establish a government for basic protection and services i.e. fire, police, military, schools, roads etc. Those are all legitimate functions of government.

My belief for the reason that wages are stagnant is that jobs have been outsourced to China and Mexico and taken by cheap and illegal labor from Mexico. That is a failure of government to protect its own people.

I paid premiums into both my SS and Medicare accounts all of my working life in a contract with the US government for retirement. However yes I would give them up if the government would stop all of the things that really are socialism. I don't need them.

"Having government get and keep the hell out of my way is the essence of freedom". Only cowards look to a government to support them if they are healthy and capable of supporting themselves.

Cheers.

[NeverSure]

[sirineou]

20copy.jpg

Nonsense

[keemapoot]

There are two things in this.

1) Ignore the mass of rightwhinge well financed media, starting with Faux where all of it starts but remember to ignore all of 'em.

2) Pay attention to the retractions in a small print of anonymous source reports by the Washington Post and the New York Times. These particular two of the MSM are currently doing a huffing and puffing backtracking from their previous and erroneous reports on the emails.

Bernie Sanders has wisely dismissed the emails thing completely and entirely, from his first day of campaigning.

Bernie keenly knows it goes nowhere, that the emails stuff is a dead end period. It is not and won't ever be a viable argument to nominate him over HRC, cause the whole email thing is bogus. Bernie senses very accurately that if he associates his candidacy with the emails hype he has nothing. There's no there there.

It's not only inside the Democratic party. The big stink originates with the spy agencies and their IG's, working with Republican senators whose staffs do the slanted anonymous leaking to the far right media, and, in the process, did manage to sucker in the WP and the NYT (before Bernie entered the race). HRC has a serious competition now so the WP and NYT are in a full retreat, leaving only the whacko right media to run with the tortured leaks.

NBC News today quoted its own anonymous sources (why not??) saying FBI has perhaps 12 agents on the case, not the 147 (exactly) Faux was the first to claim among the whingenut media.

A former FBI official, also speaking anonymously, says many in the law enforcement community view the large estimates of people assigned to the case as completely improbable.

"147 was such a ridiculous number," said the source, adding that 50 also sounded unrealistic for this kind of inquiry. "You need an act of terrorism to get 50 agents working on something," said the former FBI official.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fed-source-about-12-fbi-agents-working-clinton-email-inquiry-n548026

The two best lawyers in the country are on the case: Bill and Hillary. They beat the Republicans in the Senate on the House Impeachment Resolutions and they did it decisively.

Nothing came of Whitewater or Ben Ghazi.

HRC has a team of crackerjack lawyers advising her. Each of 'em no doubt has his/her own law partners, associates, professional and personal lawyer friends as an additional resource.

With all due respect to Justice Department lawyers who must meet high standards across the board, cause it really is tough for a lawyer to get hired into DoJ, the government lawyers live in their big building in Washington where the walls inside are lined with law books. The HRC lawyers live in the real world.

Hillary Clinton is a former SecState, US Senator twice elected, First Lady (also of Arkansas), and a serious candidate for Potus in this quadrennial election year. Accordingly, it might not be appropriate for an FBI agent(s) or supervising agent to interview her, as she has agreed to do with FBI.

Reports are that Director Jas. Comey is himself directing this inquiry as a part of his each and every day at the office. All of us can wait to see who at the FBI is designated to interview HRC. Director of FBI would do right to appoint himself to pose the questions and to receive the answers from Mrs. Clinton. It would be hard to expect otherwise.

Interesting that FBI Director Comey was nominated by Obama, but is a Republican who served as Deputy Attorney General (and briefly AG) under George W.

It's interesting to note the parallels and contrasts with that other former SecState Kissinger, and his relationship with the FBI, who basically put himself at the FBI's disposal offering his services on many occasions and nurtured a close relationship.

That's always a wise policy in Washington, because you never know when the FBI will turn their investigative and machinery on you.

Comey is a wild card for Hilary. He is a highly experienced Prosecutor, and has that mentality. He seems to have integrity and not swayed by political affiliation? Will be very interesting to see how he comes out on this matter.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/261582-fbi-chief-is-wild-card-for-clinton

FBI Director James Comey got his first government job in 1996 as an investigator of the Clintons by the Republican controlled Senate Whitewater Committee. The committee finally gave it up, ran up the white flag after finding nothing but all the same wrote a political diatribe of a report. Comey wrote a part of the political diatribe report.

In 2002 Comey was a GW Bush appointed prosecutor in Manhattan where he investigated Bill Clinton's pardon of Mark Rich and where the office investigated Clinton's pardon of 172 others, finding nothing. Perhaps Comey had begun to catch on that where there's Clinton smoke there's an anti-Clinton fire. Here's the long and the short of this investigation, quoted from the Time magazine of yesterday.....

Despite evidence that several pardon recipients, including Rich, had connections to donations to Bill Clinton’s presidential library and Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, Comey found no criminal wrongdoing. He was careful not to let the investigation be used for political purposes by either party. When pressed for details in one case, he said, “I can’t really go into it because it was an investigation that didn’t result in charges. That may be a frustrating answer, but that’s the one I’m compelled to give.”

http://time.com/4276988/jim-comey-hillary-clinton/

Comey in 2006 agreed to testify before Congress to publicly provide information that led to the resignation of his arch foe who won out in their competition to become Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, a former GW Bush White House counsel well known for providing numerous legal opinions on anything Bush and his Dick Cheney wanted to justify.

Most of Comey's investigations in government have been of the Clintons. And they've led to nothing. Comey is not the flatfoot cop his father was. Comey is ambitious yes, and he's also a learner with a more cautious approach in his more senior positions. It is he who is now high and mighty and a stationary target of whomever.

Comey has not advised former SecState Hillary Clinton she is under investigation, nor has Comey advised her lawyers of any such thing. The FBI Director James Comey has not advised HRC she is a target, meaning under investigation. She is not and neither and nether.

The Time article yesterday concludes.....

Comey’s recommendation to [Attorney General Loretta] Lynch, when it comes, could include a description of the evidence; what laws, if any, might have been violated; and how confident he is in the results of the probe, the sources familiar with the investigation tell TIME. “If the evidence is there, it’s there. If it leads to something inconclusive, or nothing, he’s not going to recommend filing charges.”

It is indeed appropriate that the FBI Director do the interview of former SecState Hillary Clinton who'd also been a twice elected US senator from New York state, First Lady of the USA and of Arkansas while Bill had been governor (12 years). Which ever decisions Comey may make in the coming months, it is he who would need to take the inevitable heat for it from whichever side gets the huge slam of its impact.

If the spy bureaucracies and their IG's win in their purposes, then they can move right in to rule the country directly by silent coup. If they lose, then they'll have to sell themselves to Moscow, Beijing, Tehran cause they won't have much left to do where they are now.

Looks like all roads lead to the FBI right now on the Clinton case:

State Department Halts Its Clinton Email Investigation, Defers to FBI

The FBI is expected to interview Clinton's closest aides and the presidential candidate may also be part of its investigation. It's not clear when the investigation will be completed. The FBI has not formally named Clinton as a target and she has not been accused of any crimes.

Right now, FBI Director Comey looks to be the most powerful man in America. His determination on this issue could turn the election, both in Bernie's favor and possibly in the favor of the GOP.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/state-department-halts-clinton-email-investigation-defers-fbi/story?id=38083129

Interesting analysis of the Clinton FBI legal strategy here;

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-fbi-strategy-emails-221435

Edited April 1, 2016 by keemapoot

[Boon Mee]

One only has to look at the failed track record of Socialism. Take Venezuela for example - the most recent mega-failure, eh? Runs out of toilet paper? Electricity for only parts of the day?

As Lady Thatcher most aptly stated: Socialism is a fine form of government until you run out of other peoples money.

Sanders will turn America into another Greece - bet on it.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Boon Mee

[NeverSure]

20copy.jpg

Nonsense

Brilliant argument on the facts. I give you a 10/10.

[willyumiii]

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that governments can't support people but rather people have to support the government?

Why is it so hard to understand that the government has no money unless it first takes it from the people?

Why is it so hard to understand that governments are inefficient and they spill much of the money they have before it can ever benefit any people?

Why is it so hard to understand that governments are busy with programs that are expensive, and that the people disapprove of? (Money to Brussels from Europe perhaps or money for military all over the world from the US perhaps?)

Why is it so hard for people to understand that the elite in all governments are looking out for themselves while trying to convince the sheeple that they are looking out for them?

Why is it so hard for people to understand why taxes and prices on consumer items are so much lower in the US than they are in "socially advanced" countries?

Why do our friends in the "advanced" UK not see that their national debt is about the same as that of the US but is growing faster as a percentage of GDP? Why are Europeans not concerned about the rampant printing of money in the Eurozone to pay the bills? (The Eurozone can just print money to pay bills but the US and UK can't - they by their own laws have to borrow it.)

When did we get the stupid idea to turn the control of our lives and our safety over to our governments when it's so obvious that they are stupid and getting worse? Why can we not see that Europe will crash under the burden of its current immigration and economic policies instead of just cheering it on?

Americans are going to sit back and watch Europe crash while listening to Europeans tell them that they are "better than". Europe is crashing and should lecture no one.

Cheers.

I bet you like your medicare coverage and artificially capped premiums.

I bet you like your social security

I bet you like your interstates

I bet you like the roads that are built to your farm

I bet you like your army, navy and airforce

I bet you like your postal service

I bet you like your public schools

For all your talk about economic responsibilty, why don't you complain paying twice as much for medical care than the rest of the world and getting worse outcomes?

I don't hear you complaining that real wage growth workers has lagged behind other countries, creating a working poor - forever expected to produce higher rates of productivity but this productivity increase not reflected in the pay packet of average workers.

It is actually the rest of the world watching the U.S. crash as it is now reaping what it has sown for the last three decades, race to the bottom politics and destitute economic policy where lowering taxes and defunding government passes for serious economic debate.

Did you notice that you didn't address a single one of my points? Is that because you can't actually deny any of my bullet points? Why don't you answer them, one at a time?

Then you go off on a tangent about what government is really for and why people have a government in the first place before it gets out of hand. People first establish a government for basic protection and services i.e. fire, police, military, schools, roads etc. Those are all legitimate functions of government.

My belief for the reason that wages are stagnant is that jobs have been outsourced to China and Mexico and taken by cheap and illegal labor from Mexico. That is a failure of government to protect its own people.

I paid premiums into both my SS and Medicare accounts all of my working life in a contract with the US government for retirement. However yes I would give them up if the government would stop all of the things that really are socialism. I don't need them.

"Having government get and keep the hell out of my way is the essence of freedom". Only cowards look to a government to support them if they are healthy and capable of supporting themselves.

Cheers.

" if they are healthy and capable of supporting themselves."

Through no fault of their own, many are not capable.

I agree that there is a good deal of abuse in the system that needs to be controlled better.

But what about those who truly are not capable?

What do suggest is done with them?

A) Let them die?

B)Lock them up?

C)Execute them?

D) Ship them out of the country and build a wall to keep them out?

E) Adopt a system that pays workers a livable wage so they can better support themselves?

F) Continue to assist them as we have since the days of FDR?

Edited April 2, 2016 by willyumiii

[sirineou]

One only has to look at the failed track record of Socialism. Take Venezuela for example - the most recent mega-failure, eh? Runs out of toilet paper? Electricity for only parts of the day?

As Lady Thatcher most aptly stated: Socialism is a fine form of government until you run out of other peoples money.

Sanders will turn America into another Greece - bet on it.

Instead of looking at the failures of socialism, why not look at the successes

It was the new deal that brought the US out of the great depression, and it was capitalism that got as in the Great depression and in the current one.

By the way, it was not socialism that got Greece in trouble, it was the Capitalist plutocrats.and now are trying to socialize the debt by making every pensioner pay it.

[sirineou]

20copy.jpg

Nonsense

Brilliant argument on the facts. I give you a 10/10.

If you dont want to hear it you should not post nonsense

Pick a social program that Sanders is proposing and let's talk about it. Show me how it is bad for the country.

Pick a program, any program

but don't post ridiculous cartoons and then complain when people call you on them.

any more than a one word reply would had given it way more credit that it deserves

Edited April 2, 2016 by sirineou

[samran]

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that governments can't support people but rather people have to support the government?

Why is it so hard to understand that the government has no money unless it first takes it from the people?

Why is it so hard to understand that governments are inefficient and they spill much of the money they have before it can ever benefit any people?

Why is it so hard to understand that governments are busy with programs that are expensive, and that the people disapprove of? (Money to Brussels from Europe perhaps or money for military all over the world from the US perhaps?)

Why is it so hard for people to understand that the elite in all governments are looking out for themselves while trying to convince the sheeple that they are looking out for them?

Why is it so hard for people to understand why taxes and prices on consumer items are so much lower in the US than they are in "socially advanced" countries?

Why do our friends in the "advanced" UK not see that their national debt is about the same as that of the US but is growing faster as a percentage of GDP? Why are Europeans not concerned about the rampant printing of money in the Eurozone to pay the bills? (The Eurozone can just print money to pay bills but the US and UK can't - they by their own laws have to borrow it.)

When did we get the stupid idea to turn the control of our lives and our safety over to our governments when it's so obvious that they are stupid and getting worse? Why can we not see that Europe will crash under the burden of its current immigration and economic policies instead of just cheering it on?

Americans are going to sit back and watch Europe crash while listening to Europeans tell them that they are "better than". Europe is crashing and should lecture no one.

Cheers.

I bet you like your medicare coverage and artificially capped premiums.

I bet you like your social security

I bet you like your interstates

I bet you like the roads that are built to your farm

I bet you like your army, navy and airforce

I bet you like your postal service

I bet you like your public schools

For all your talk about economic responsibilty, why don't you complain paying twice as much for medical care than the rest of the world and getting worse outcomes?

I don't hear you complaining that real wage growth workers has lagged behind other countries, creating a working poor - forever expected to produce higher rates of productivity but this productivity increase not reflected in the pay packet of average workers.

It is actually the rest of the world watching the U.S. crash as it is now reaping what it has sown for the last three decades, race to the bottom politics and destitute economic policy where lowering taxes and defunding government passes for serious economic debate.

Did you notice that you didn't address a single one of my points? Is that because you can't actually deny any of my bullet points? Why don't you answer them, one at a time?

Then you go off on a tangent about what government is really for and why people have a government in the first place before it gets out of hand. People first establish a government for basic protection and services i.e. fire, police, military, schools, roads etc. Those are all legitimate functions of government.

My belief for the reason that wages are stagnant is that jobs have been outsourced to China and Mexico and taken by cheap and illegal labor from Mexico. That is a failure of government to protect its own people.

I paid premiums into both my SS and Medicare accounts all of my working life in a contract with the US government for retirement. However yes I would give them up if the government would stop all of the things that really are socialism. I don't need them.

"Having government get and keep the hell out of my way is the essence of freedom". Only cowards look to a government to support them if they are healthy and capable of supporting themselves.

Cheers.

Only if they can support themselves - that's your central premise and that is fine if you want to believe it. Yet many people can't through no fault of their own.

But if you follow the ethos of self dependency, then i have no sympathy for you for whinging about Mexican and chinese workers. Id say, fine, roll your sleeves up and find something to do that doesn't compete with chinese or Mexican inports. Only a small percentage of any economy competes in traded goods, there is a whole non traded sector (service professionals etc). You aren't competing with a chinese worker when you are repairing someone's car or selling them a coffee - go work there.

Id say, you've been too lazy to reskill yourself.

But yet here you are whinging about it - blaming someone else. I've never understood how that happens if you are supposed to be a rugged individualist..

And the real reason wages have been stagnant isn't because of the Chinese and Mexicans. Sure, they are great bogey men for the feeble minded to scream at.

US GDP has grown, profits have grown. Productivity has grown. What hasn't grown is the share of these profits to US workers. I quote a former australian treasurer here : U.S. real wages for the Middle class have grown 4% since 1990. Not 4% per year, but 4% in total. Australian real wages have grown 40% over the same period. Yes you are feeling the pinch while over the same period of time, facing the same challenges, our middle class are 40% richer in real terms than they were 25 years ago.

We've had the same stiff competition from China and SE Asia in manufacturing. This isn't unique to the US, no matter how special and unique you like to think of your selves.

What is the difference?

Profit sharing.

Not some socialist tax redistribution (our percentage tax take of GDP is on par or lower than you). It is allowing workers to share in those profits via a strong insistence such things as a minimum wages and industry conditions which reflects these gains in productivity produced by the workers themselves. And you can do this without raising inflationary expectations, which in Australia have been low since the early 1990s.

It isn't rocket science, but the right in the us continually object to any semblance of allowing the higher productivity of U.S. workers to be reflected in their basic minimum wage.

So yes, it is the rest of the western world, not laughing, but shaking our heads in frustration at the US. We aren't blowing our middle class up. You guys certainly have.

Edited April 2, 2016 by samran

[keemapoot]

^Excellent illustration Samran - Profit Sharing. A singular key to success for great entrepreneurs and what Silicon Valley, and the great American tech boom was founded on.

A very solid republican capitalist concept to be honest. What's good for worker productivity is good for the shareholder.

Edited April 2, 2016 by keemapoot

[samran]

^Excellent illustration Samran - Profit Sharing. A singular key to success for great entrepreneurs and what Silicon Valley, and the great American tech boom was founded on.

A very solid republican capitalist concept to be honest. What's good for worker productivity is good for the shareholder.

I consider myself pretty conservative economically. I mean I run my own business and haven't received a regular paycheque since 2009, so I am your basic run of the mill capitalist.

But I still see a valid role for government, particularly where there is a need to defend the rights of workers who don't have the bargaining power against a much larger employer. Not that they carte blanch take away money from the employer and redistribute it, but a governemt which says to industry -'look our basic minimum wage safely net will be reflective of overall economic profit growth' and which doesn't spike inflationary expectations. Anything above that, is between the employer and the employee.

Unfortunately, people like neversure just don't beleive in government at all. It is a legitiamte world view so long as you are consistent in it, and accept everything that comes with that. Which essentially means a laissez faire economy with no government intervention in anything at all. Even protecting your workers from Mexican labour.

Edited April 2, 2016 by samran

[Publicus]

I suppose Sanders only chance is if HRC gets into legal trouble within the next few months. Possible but not probable.

Taking into consideration that both Hilary and Bill are Yale educated lawyers (most selective and top ranked law school in the US in most lists), (Bill being that plus a Georgetown Rhodes scholar educated at Oxford and later a law professor); and that Bill ran a White House counsel and staff of around 50 lawyers for 8 years, as well as having and army of hundreds of additional top lawyers at his and Hilary's service, I would say it's a foregone conclusion that this highly intelligent legal brain-trust have already "gamed" this issue far, far in advance.

My guess is that they are setting Hilary up to take a "civil penalty" hit sometime before the general election, admit to oversight and error, but nowhere near rising to criminality, have Hilary be humble and seek public forgiveness, say her penance, and then get on to the business of the general election.

Probably game, set, match to be honest -in spite of all the (conservative) legal experts on this forum convinced of her criminal culpability.

There are two things in this.

1) Ignore the mass of rightwhinge well financed media, starting with Faux where all of it starts but remember to ignore all of 'em.

2) Pay attention to the retractions in a small print of anonymous source reports by the Washington Post and the New York Times. These particular two of the MSM are currently doing a huffing and puffing backtracking from their previous and erroneous reports on the emails.

Bernie Sanders has wisely dismissed the emails thing completely and entirely, from his first day of campaigning.

Bernie keenly knows it goes nowhere, that the emails stuff is a dead end period. It is not and won't ever be a viable argument to nominate him over HRC, cause the whole email thing is bogus. Bernie senses very accurately that if he associates his candidacy with the emails hype he has nothing. There's no there there.

It's not only inside the Democratic party. The big stink originates with the spy agencies and their IG's, working with Republican senators whose staffs do the slanted anonymous leaking to the far right media, and, in the process, did manage to sucker in the WP and the NYT (before Bernie entered the race). HRC has a serious competition now so the WP and NYT are in a full retreat, leaving only the whacko right media to run with the tortured leaks.

NBC News today quoted its own anonymous sources (why not??) saying FBI has perhaps 12 agents on the case, not the 147 (exactly) Faux was the first to claim among the whingenut media.

A former FBI official, also speaking anonymously, says many in the law enforcement community view the large estimates of people assigned to the case as completely improbable.

"147 was such a ridiculous number," said the source, adding that 50 also sounded unrealistic for this kind of inquiry. "You need an act of terrorism to get 50 agents working on something," said the former FBI official.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fed-source-about-12-fbi-agents-working-clinton-email-inquiry-n548026

The two best lawyers in the country are on the case: Bill and Hillary. They beat the Republicans in the Senate on the House Impeachment Resolutions and they did it decisively.

Nothing came of Whitewater or Ben Ghazi.

HRC has a team of crackerjack lawyers advising her. Each of 'em no doubt has his/her own law partners, associates, professional and personal lawyer friends as an additional resource.

With all due respect to Justice Department lawyers who must meet high standards across the board, cause it really is tough for a lawyer to get hired into DoJ, the government lawyers live in their big building in Washington where the walls inside are lined with law books. The HRC lawyers live in the real world.

Hillary Clinton is a former SecState, US Senator twice elected, First Lady (also of Arkansas), and a serious candidate for Potus in this quadrennial election year. Accordingly, it might not be appropriate for an FBI agent(s) or supervising agent to interview her, as she has agreed to do with FBI.

Reports are that Director Jas. Comey is himself directing this inquiry as a part of his each and every day at the office. All of us can wait to see who at the FBI is designated to interview HRC. Director of FBI would do right to appoint himself to pose the questions and to receive the answers from Mrs. Clinton. It would be hard to expect otherwise.

Are you really sure that Bernie thinks the investigation will go nowhere or is that an assumption? That's not a rhetorical question. I am really not sure. During an early debate when pressed about this, I recall that Bernie basically thinks, as I understood it, he should stay out of it and let the process take its course. That's not the same as what you have stated. So, has Bernie stated something stronger than that since that debate?

Also, Hillary may be exonerated, but I don't think this issue comes only from her right-wing critics (I normally roll my eyes when I hear of yet another Clinton "scandal."). It's not just about the emails; it's also about the server. Again, maybe she will be exonerated or the FBI will conclude that there was but a minor transgression; nevertheless, common sense dictates that you have to suspect that she found a possible loophole that allowed her to decide on her own which emails to delete (is she hiding anything?) and also there's a security risk issue. I don't know what the investigation's conclusion may or should be, but there seems to me to be good grounds to at least investigate especially considering the sensitivity of the communications.

I think you have accused the DOJ of living in some kind of ivory tower, unlike the Clintons. Please do correct me if I misunderstood. Yes, there's no doubt that the Clintons are very smart and savvy people. However, I personally cannot make the sweeping conclusion that you have seemed to have made of the many members of the DOJ.

Finally, I was never an investigator or a prosecutor and I am, of course, not privy to how the investigation is being handled. So, I am not about to tell or even suggest to the FBI when and who they should interview. Perhaps they have very good reasons for their actions that they cannot at this time reveal.

And again, I can understand being sensitive about a Clinton "scandal." I don't blame you for that. I think some of those critics had gotten out of hand.

Bernie is nominally a political independent who in his real politics is a Democrat.

Bernie is moreover the antithesis of a Republican.

In the Senate Bernie caucuses with the Democratic party, i.e., conferences and votes with it. So in turn, the Senate Democratic leadership with the consent of the D senators assigns Bernie seats on committees. Until the 2014 midterm election when R's took majority control, Bernie had risen to become chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee, where he'd led the Democratic members in steering the committee in all respects.

If Bernie were elected he'd positively need to load his cabinet with Democrats, throw in a few odd Republicans and another Independent or two from the Great Lakes States or other commie pinko prevert havens.

Strategically and tactically, Bernie cannot afford to get on the emails bandwagon. It's a rightwing whackjob scheme and operation against Hillary Clinton that Bernie cannot afford to get anywhere near. For Bernie to dabble in It would cost Bernie big time in his campaign. It would soil him among his true supporters.

Bernie would lose Democratic voter and Institutional acceptance, tolerance, credibility. He'd create a huge distraction from his one theme campaign message (Bernie doesn't even want to talk about foreign policy or anything foreign except trade treaties or agreements). He says virtually nothing pertaining to national security. A few words against ISIS blurp blurp.

Further, Bernie would attract the disingenuous who laughably claim political neutrality, i.e., rejection of either party while they simultaneously pretend balance by commending Bernie the rational man and Donald Trump the ignoramous. Bernie would become a powerful magnet to the loose nail Clinton haters, mysogonists, racists, anarchists and nihilists that we see each and every day at work in the society and under our own noses.

Bernie stays out of it because he too could be accused of fueling a rightwing superpatriot silent coup d'etat by the flatfoot spook bureaucracies and their IG's operating in cahoots with Republican senators and their staffs.

Bernie's been around the block a few times and then some, so since becoming a big hit one man and one theme show he's continuing to run with it and more power to him. Bernie got his campaign off on the right foot and he hasn't looked back since. In January Bernie will be back in the Senate to welcome a bus full of newly elected Democratic US Senators.

[CWMcMurray]

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that governments can't support people but rather people have to support the government?

Why is it so hard to understand that the government has no money unless it first takes it from the people?

Why is it so hard to understand that governments are inefficient and they spill much of the money they have before it can ever benefit any people?

Why is it so hard to understand that governments are busy with programs that are expensive, and that the people disapprove of? (Money to Brussels from Europe perhaps or money for military all over the world from the US perhaps?)

Why is it so hard for people to understand that the elite in all governments are looking out for themselves while trying to convince the sheeple that they are looking out for them?

Why is it so hard for people to understand why taxes and prices on consumer items are so much lower in the US than they are in "socially advanced" countries?

Why do our friends in the "advanced" UK not see that their national debt is about the same as that of the US but is growing faster as a percentage of GDP? Why are Europeans not concerned about the rampant printing of money in the Eurozone to pay the bills? (The Eurozone can just print money to pay bills but the US and UK can't - they by their own laws have to borrow it.)

When did we get the stupid idea to turn the control of our lives and our safety over to our governments when it's so obvious that they are stupid and getting worse? Why can we not see that Europe will crash under the burden of its current immigration and economic policies instead of just cheering it on?

Americans are going to sit back and watch Europe crash while listening to Europeans tell them that they are "better than". Europe is crashing and should lecture no one.

Cheers.

I bet you like your medicare coverage and artificially capped premiums.

I bet you like your social security

I bet you like your interstates

I bet you like the roads that are built to your farm

I bet you like your army, navy and airforce

I bet you like your postal service

I bet you like your public schools

For all your talk about economic responsibilty, why don't you complain paying twice as much for medical care than the rest of the world and getting worse outcomes?

I don't hear you complaining that real wage growth workers has lagged behind other countries, creating a working poor - forever expected to produce higher rates of productivity but this productivity increase not reflected in the pay packet of average workers.

It is actually the rest of the world watching the U.S. crash as it is now reaping what it has sown for the last three decades, race to the bottom politics and destitute economic policy where lowering taxes and defunding government passes for serious economic debate.

Did you notice that you didn't address a single one of my points? Is that because you can't actually deny any of my bullet points? Why don't you answer them, one at a time?

Then you go off on a tangent about what government is really for and why people have a government in the first place before it gets out of hand. People first establish a government for basic protection and services i.e. fire, police, military, schools, roads etc. Those are all legitimate functions of government.

My belief for the reason that wages are stagnant is that jobs have been outsourced to China and Mexico and taken by cheap and illegal labor from Mexico. That is a failure of government to protect its own people.

I paid premiums into both my SS and Medicare accounts all of my working life in a contract with the US government for retirement. However yes I would give them up if the government would stop all of the things that really are socialism. I don't need them.

"Having government get and keep the hell out of my way is the essence of freedom". Only cowards look to a government to support them if they are healthy and capable of supporting themselves.

Cheers.

Only if they can support themselves - that's your central premise and that is fine if you want to believe it. Yet many people can't through no fault of their own.

But if you follow the ethos of self dependency, then i have no sympathy for you for whinging about Mexican and chinese workers. Id say, fine, roll your sleeves up and find something to do that doesn't compete with chinese or Mexican inports. Only a small percentage of any economy competes in traded goods, there is a whole non traded sector (service professionals etc). You aren't competing with a chinese worker when you are repairing someone's car or selling them a coffee - go work there.

Id say, you've been too lazy to reskill yourself.

But yet here you are whinging about it - blaming someone else. I've never understood how that happens if you are supposed to be a rugged individualist..

And the real reason wages have been stagnant isn't because of the Chinese and Mexicans. Sure, they are great bogey men for the feeble minded to scream at.

US GDP has grown, profits have grown. Productivity has grown. What hasn't grown is the share of these profits to US workers. I quote a former australian treasurer here : U.S. real wages for the Middle class have grown 4% since 1990. Not 4% per year, but 4% in total. Australian real wages have grown 40% over the same period. Yes you are feeling the pinch while over the same period of time, facing the same challenges, our middle class are 40% richer in real terms than they were 25 years ago.

We've had the same stiff competition from China and SE Asia in manufacturing. This isn't unique to the US, no matter how special and unique you like to think of your selves.

What is the difference?

Profit sharing.

Not some socialist tax redistribution (our percentage tax take of GDP is on par or lower than you). It is allowing workers to share in those profits via a strong insistence such things as a minimum wages and industry conditions which reflects these gains in productivity produced by the workers themselves. And you can do this without raising inflationary expectations, which in Australia have been low since the early 1990s.

It isn't rocket science, but the right in the us continually object to any semblance of allowing the higher productivity of U.S. workers to be reflected in their basic minimum wage.

So yes, it is the rest of the western world, not laughing, but shaking our heads in frustration at the US. We aren't blowing our middle class up. You guys certainly have.

Good post...

Only thing I would add would be to also mention the very large number of Indians into the Australian work force

To cut off any argument about Australia not being the same because don't have Mexicans entering the work force willing to work for less

[boomerangutang]

One only has to look at the failed track record of Socialism. Take Venezuela for example - the most recent mega-failure, eh? Runs out of toilet paper? Electricity for only parts of the day?

As Lady Thatcher most aptly stated: Socialism is a fine form of government until you run out of other peoples money.

Sanders will turn America into another Greece - bet on it.

For starters, Bernie calls himself a Socialist-Democrat not a Socialist. But those are just labels. Look at what he actually says and what he's pushed for in his many years of public service (vs zero years of public service for Trump). And look at why the folks in his home state of Vermont like him so much. Any country's leaders can put any label on their government. Thailand calls itself democratic, as does China. N.Korea says it's 'self-sufficient' and calls itself PDK which stands for Peoples' Democracy of Korea. Try looking beyond the labels, and see what's really going on. Scandinavia calls itself socialist, and compare the sanity of living there with the craziness of living in the US, where everything is controlled by giant corporation like Koch Brothers. The two brothers add about 13 million bucks each day to their personal bank accounts.

Younger Americans, who aren't encumbered by the nightmares their parents had of the Cold War, are able to see clearly. That's why a great majority of them are rooting for Mr. Sanders.

[boomerangutang]

"Teach your children well, their father's hell, will slowly go by

And feed them on your dreams, they one they picked, the one they'll know by."

- Graham Nash

note: the other day I was in a truck with a Brit friend, his luk-krung son and his son's friend (who both speak English and Thai). The boys are early teens. The Brit was going on and on about how f'd up the world is. I wouldn't care if it was just he and I blabbing, but it felt uncomfortable for the boys to hear his rant. Though it's important to speak truth to youngsters, it's also important to not paint a picture of a horrible world going to hell in a hand-basket. Kids gotta have hope. Us older farts should be at least somewhat encouraging. give kids options. Encourage them to find ways to try and make things better; inventions, writing songs, growing plants, ....whatever.

Edited April 2, 2016 by boomerangutang

[simple1]

Only if they can support themselves - that's your central premise and that is fine if you want to believe it. Yet many people can't through no fault of their own.

But if you follow the ethos of self dependency, then i have no sympathy for you for whinging about Mexican and chinese workers. Id say, fine, roll your sleeves up and find something to do that doesn't compete with chinese or Mexican inports. Only a small percentage of any economy competes in traded goods, there is a whole non traded sector (service professionals etc). You aren't competing with a chinese worker when you are repairing someone's car or selling them a coffee - go work there.

Id say, you've been too lazy to reskill yourself.

But yet here you are whinging about it - blaming someone else. I've never understood how that happens if you are supposed to be a rugged individualist..

And the real reason wages have been stagnant isn't because of the Chinese and Mexicans. Sure, they are great bogey men for the feeble minded to scream at.

US GDP has grown, profits have grown. Productivity has grown. What hasn't grown is the share of these profits to US workers. I quote a former australian treasurer here : U.S. real wages for the Middle class have grown 4% since 1990. Not 4% per year, but 4% in total. Australian real wages have grown 40% over the same period. Yes you are feeling the pinch while over the same period of time, facing the same challenges, our middle class are 40% richer in real terms than they were 25 years ago.

We've had the same stiff competition from China and SE Asia in manufacturing. This isn't unique to the US, no matter how special and unique you like to think of your selves.

What is the difference?

Profit sharing.

Not some socialist tax redistribution (our percentage tax take of GDP is on par or lower than you). It is allowing workers to share in those profits via a strong insistence such things as a minimum wages and industry conditions which reflects these gains in productivity produced by the workers themselves. And you can do this without raising inflationary expectations, which in Australia have been low since the early 1990s.

It isn't rocket science, but the right in the us continually object to any semblance of allowing the higher productivity of U.S. workers to be reflected in their basic minimum wage.

So yes, it is the rest of the western world, not laughing, but shaking our heads in frustration at the US. We aren't blowing our middle class up. You guys certainly have.

Good post...

Only thing I would add would be to also mention the very large number of Indians into the Australian work force

To cut off any argument about Australia not being the same because don't have Mexicans entering the work force willing to work for less

Although it's off topic, there are instances of employer abuse, but on average 457 visa holders are proven to earn higher wages that Oz nationals by occupation. Indian migrants & other foreigners are in Oz on legally acquired visas, very different to approx 13 million Mexican illegals in the US. However, Oz has around 60k illegal migrants, of which around approx 5k+ are US nationals!

Edited April 2, 2016 by simple1

[up2u2]

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that governments can't support people but rather people have to support the government?

Why is it so hard to understand that the government has no money unless it first takes it from the people?

Why is it so hard to understand that governments are inefficient and they spill much of the money they have before it can ever benefit any people?

Why is it so hard to understand that governments are busy with programs that are expensive, and that the people disapprove of? (Money to Brussels from Europe perhaps or money for military all over the world from the US perhaps?)

Why is it so hard for people to understand that the elite in all governments are looking out for themselves while trying to convince the sheeple that they are looking out for them?

Why is it so hard for people to understand why taxes and prices on consumer items are so much lower in the US than they are in "socially advanced" countries?

Why do our friends in the "advanced" UK not see that their national debt is about the same as that of the US but is growing faster as a percentage of GDP? Why are Europeans not concerned about the rampant printing of money in the Eurozone to pay the bills? (The Eurozone can just print money to pay bills but the US and UK can't - they by their own laws have to borrow it.)

When did we get the stupid idea to turn the control of our lives and our safety over to our governments when it's so obvious that they are stupid and getting worse? Why can we not see that Europe will crash under the burden of its current immigration and economic policies instead of just cheering it on?

Americans are going to sit back and watch Europe crash while listening to Europeans tell them that they are "better than". Europe is crashing and should lecture no one.

Cheers.

The wealthy elite, Corporate America and the establishment media have been flogging this clap trap for nearly 30 years now. The American people simply are no longer buying it. You can huff and puff as much as you like NeverSure but the polls show your days are numbered.

[up2u2]

20copy.jpg

lol where do you get this stuff from NeverSure.

Mommy and Daddy go to work to pay for food stamps for people whose wages are so low they can't afford to eat and fight wars that can't be won, and subsidise Wall Street bail outs, and pay the tax that Corporate America moves offshore to avoid tax, and Corporate subsidies and pay off their trillion dollar student loan debt and pay half their salary to private health insurance companies that are ripping them off, and to pay the super profits of privatised jails to house the more than 3 million prisoners for profit.

All vital issues that Bernie wants to address and the very last thing Hillary and the Republicans want to discuss in an open forum. Best keep silent about all that.