Less than 20% of Americans say they're living the American Dream

[Fugus]

spoiler vote? Explain, yes, I plan to pick apart your entire plan. Are you saying multiple parties dont run now? There is public funding of elections, do you not know this?

'remove all coporate, union or PAC funding'... how do you legally plan to do this?
'ban any company, union or otherwise to try and encourage their members or employees to donate to any member.'.. how do you legally plan to do this?

If you don't know what a spoiler vote is, you know nothing John Snow.

I told you what I would do, I would make the elections either completely publicly funded or any funding only came from individuals not companies or other group. You can pass bills that mandate that.


AFK.

[Taso]

What about lowering taxes on the rich like Trump wants to do. Is that better than Bernie's plan?

Trudeau's liberals went further left than the NDP in the election.

Yes it’s more logical but it’s more then that he’s attempting to rally congress into cutting coperate tax rate to 15%. The 15% maybe hard to sell but a 25% may do the job from current 35%. That should allow for more foreign investment and encourage general growth. Also it would encourage more people to donate to charity. Now sanders idea are not based on logic you can tax the wealthy and Wallstreet but again he will see that he has to go after the middle class which would drastically destroy his popularity.

[Seranthor]

If you don't know what a spoiler vote is, you know nothing John Snow.

I told you what I would do, I would make the elections either completely publicly funded or any funding only came from individuals not companies or other group. You can pass bills that mandate that.


AFK.

Flesh it out... dont handwave away the questions... answer them...

You do know where laws come from, right? So help us out, how do you plan to pass bills that mandate what you want... Come on... tell us... I want to believe.

[Fugus]

Flesh it out... dont handwave away the questions... answer them...

You do know where laws come from, right? So help us out, how do you plan to pass bills that mandate what you want... Come on... tell us... I want to believe.

Man, if you don't know how ranked voting works, you have examples all around the place. You vote which candidates you want by order of preference. How it goes from there varies depending on which method of ranked voting you use.

If you don't know what a spoiler vote is, then you know next to nothing about how the system is setup. A spoiler vote is where a 3rd party comes in and poaches votes from another of the big 2 candidates so that the person you wanted least gets in instead. Honestly could flesh that out more, but if you don't know what this is, you honestly are talking in the wrong section of the forums entirely.

As far as banning companies from donating money. It basically comes down to the fact that companies aren't people and money isn't speech. It will probably take some work to get those corrected given current supreme court cases trying to claim otherwise but once those are corrected in law, you legally ban them from donation to campaigns.

You really don't need me to walk your hands through any further than that.

As to HOW I pass those bills, there is the hard part because the people who have the power to pass those bills are the exact same people who benefit from things as they are and lose power if they allow for viable 3rd parties and lose lots of money if they banned the current bribery that is known as lobbying and donations.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes it’s more logical but it’s more then that he’s attempting to rally congress into cutting coperate tax rate to 15%. The 15% maybe hard to sell but a 25% may do the job from current 35%. That should allow for more foreign investment and encourage general growth. Also it would encourage more people to donate to charity. Now sanders idea are not based on logic you can tax the wealthy and Wallstreet but again he will see that he has to go after the middle class which would drastically destroy his popularity.

Cutting taxes doesn't create jobs and the loopholes we have already have us with an effective corporate tax rate is about 12.6% with a surprising number paying zero in taxes and even getting refunds out of our tax money. Cutting that tax rate further is stupidity unless I was rich and trying to sell out the nation for myself.

And Sanders ideas were of actual sound logic from the stuff I had read. The hard part is getting the Wealthy and Wallstreet to actually do their jobs and pay their taxes, but that is no reason not to try. Especially as they are clamping down on them and their tax evasions internationally as well.

But if you think cutting taxes does anything beyond a short term bump at best with a longer term decline given how low they already pay off deductions and loopholes, I have a bridge to sell you.

[Seranthor]

Man, if you don't know how ranked voting works, you have examples all around the place. You vote which candidates you want by order of preference. How it goes from there varies depending on which method of ranked voting you use.

If you don't know what a spoiler vote is, then you know next to nothing about how the system is setup. A spoiler vote is where a 3rd party comes in and poaches votes from another of the big 2 candidates so that the person you wanted least gets in instead. Honestly could flesh that out more, but if you don't know what this is, you honestly are talking in the wrong section of the forums entirely.

As far as banning companies from donating money. It basically comes down to the fact that companies aren't people and money isn't speech. It will probably take some work to get those corrected given current supreme court cases trying to claim otherwise but once those are corrected in law, you legally ban them from donation to campaigns.

You really don't need me to walk your hands through any further than that.

As to HOW I pass those bills, there is the hard part because the people who have the power to pass those bills are the exact same people who benefit from things as they are and lose power if they allow for viable 3rd parties and lose lots of person money if they banned the current bribery that is known as lobbying and donations.

I know how many things work... Given your already demonstrated lack of knowledge, its only reasonable to ask these questions... I mean if you dont want people to understand what you are peddling then its probably not really a viable solution after all. I can hurl barbs with you all night, but I would rather you answer the questions so folks can actually have the necessary information to properly vet your plan. Surely that is your desire, to have people support your plan, yes?

Seems that your largest hurdles are going to be the Supreme Court, the US Senate, and the US House of Representatives.

How are you planning to sway those 3 bodies?

[Fugus]

I know how many things work... Given your already demonstrated lack of knowledge, its only reasonable to ask these questions... I mean if you dont want people to understand what you are peddling then its probably not really a viable solution after all. I can hurl barbs with you all night, but I would rather you answer the questions so folks can actually have the necessary information to properly vet your plan. Surely that is your desire, to have people support your plan, yes?

If you know how they work, then you shouldn't be asking such basic questions.

And your statement that you know is kinda called into question when you suggest people start 3rd parties as viable options given the system and how it is setup.

You can pretend to know all you want, but your statements already show otherwise. So far you have me for making a mistake on the number of parties we have had in the nation. You honestly made a mistake that assumes you have no clue about how the entire process works to begin with unless you are intentionally talking about people trying something that you know won't realistically work and hasn't worked in over a century and the few times they took hold before that they only lasted a few decades at best before they were gone.

Now, enjoy pretending you know stuff while asking others to hold your hand =)

[Varitok]

I pay half as much to rent my place as it would be to mortgage something similar. Plus, I don't have to fix a damn thing.

But you'll never actually stop paying. You're not making an investment in your future. In 5-10 years you could have paid off half your house in that time. Rent is just a sink.

[Seranthor]

If you know how they work, then you shouldn't be asking such basic questions.

And your statement that you know is kinda called into question when you suggest people start 3rd parties as viable options given the system and how it is setup.

You can pretend to know all you want, but your statements already show otherwise. So far you have me for making a mistake on the number of parties we have had in the nation. You honestly made a mistake that assumes you have no clue about how the entire process works to begin with unless you are intentionally talking about people trying something that you know won't realistically work and hasn't worked in over a century and the few times they took hold before that they only lasted a few decades at best before they were gone.

Now, enjoy pretending you know stuff while asking others to hold your hand =)

If you are so fucking arrogant that you cant take the time to explain it then no one going to give you a chance in hell to lobby them to support you and you are going to need at least 218 members of Congress, 50 senators, and 5 supreme court justices just to change Citizens United, you are going to need even more support for your constitutional amendment that you are going to need to do away with the Electoral College (yes, you'll have to shelve that if your plan is going to work) .

So in short, your plan was fucked before you thought of it.

[Fugus]

If you are so fucking arrogant that you cant take the time to explain it then no one going to give you a chance in hell to lobby them to support you and you are going to need at least 218 members of Congress, 50 senators, and 5 supreme court justices just to change Citizens United, you are going to need even more support for your constitutional amendment that you are going to need to do away with the Electoral College (yes, you'll have to shelve that if your plan is going to work) .

So in short, your plan was fucked before you thought of it.

No, not arrogant, just not holding your hand.

I already mentioned what you just said in post 213

As to HOW I pass those bills, there is the hard part because the people who have the power to pass those bills are the exact same people who benefit from things as they are and lose power if they allow for viable 3rd parties and lose lots of money if they banned the current bribery that is known as lobbying and donations.

You on the other hand demonstrated you know little to nothing about the system when you said were basically saying that the voters should start a 3rd party as though that were a viable option instead of voting within the parties elections. Any who knows how the system works knows the only real chance a candidate has within the system is if they run within the big 2 parties.

The Democrats did prove they are willing to cheat to get what they want and they have no rules as they have no problems or legal punishments for breaking them though (Unless the court cases are resumed as I have read they can reapply for them with the how the judge ruled).


To tell people that they need to go start a 3rd party knowing how the system is setup is either ignorance on your part or you intentionally trying to screw stuff up.

At this point, it would probably take a convention of states though because by hook or by crook, they don't want to listen to their voters.

[kendro1200]

The national average for that job is 103k usd per year. Mind telling me how you are unable to save up to buy your own home? Do you really need that 3k usd apartment? This seems more like a problem with you than society.

Cost of living is absurd in a lot of places where those high tech jobs are centralized. Take San Jose and suburbs near it in the "bay area" a three bedroom two bath house goes for 1.5 million. The "average" is inflated to help meet for the cost of living in those areas. Take 10 miles outside of San Diego, the "cheaper and smaller" city of California and a two bed one bath pre-fab cardboard house still costs 700k+. A salary of 45k is effectively the living wage in that area when single bed apartments outside of the city with an hour commute in cost 1.5k a month. The housing market has gone entirely out of control and needs to get shut down hard.

[Torrasque]

I prefer the urban lifestyle out of the that and the Rural/subrural. I've lived both and and not only do I make 20x in the city, but I can micromanage costs and upkeep easier as well.

[Granyala]

"I think all of these factors are tied together into a broader problem of people not feeling like they have control of their financial future,"

People don't "feel" like that.
Ultimately people do not HAVE control. In an overcrowded work environment with dozens of appropriate applicants per position it often comes down to luck whether you get a good and stable job or not.

That is pretty much the exact opposite of "having control over your financial future".

[Seranthor]

*snip*

You aren't going to get your constitutional amendment to make your plan even remotely viable. It's a dead plan. Blather and snipe all you want... your plan has zero chance of becoming reality.

[Fugus]

People don't "feel" like that.
Ultimately people do not HAVE control. In an overcrowded work environment with dozens of appropriate applicants per position it often comes down to luck whether you get a good and stable job or not.

That is pretty much the exact opposite of "having control over your financial future".

Yep, sounds about right.

Back before an injury took me out of the work force. Applied at the lock hospital for the person that did the laundry when people died or checked out of the rooms. I interviews with about 12 other people. I applied to drive trucks for Fritolay, I was one of about 12 people that had that day to interview for that 1 position and they said they had 2 more days of interviews before they were done. All for that 1 drivers position. When I took the postal exam there was about 60 people in that room.

- - - Updated - - -

You aren't going to get your constitutional amendment to make your plan even remotely viable. It's a dead plan. Blather and snipe all you want... your plan has zero chance of becoming reality.

Didn't say I was trying to make it a reality. I said that is what it would take for YOUR suggestion to go make a 3rd party ever became a viable suggestion.

You have been spending this time fighting against the only suggestion that made your suggestion a viable one. Basically, it came down to you just admitting that YOUR suggestion of going 3rd party has a zero chance of becoming a reality which is exactly what you were suggesting.

[Seranthor]

Didn't say I was trying to make it a reality. I said that is what it would take for YOUR suggestion to go make a 3rd party ever became a viable suggestion.

You have been spending this time fighting against the only suggestion that made your suggestion a viable one. Basically, it came down to you just admitting that YOUR suggestion of going 3rd party has a zero chance of becoming a reality which is exactly what you were suggesting.

Or, you know they could come up with a kick ass message and electrify voters like that old socialist whats his name did last time around. He could have actually had a chance last time if he hadn't tried hitching his wagon to the Dems. He would have easily drawn enough people away from the Trump-Clinton dumpster fire to win. But he made the choice not to travel that path.

[Fugus]

Or, you know they could come up with a kick ass message and electrify voters like that old socialist whats his name did last time around. He could have actually had a chance last time if he hadn't tried hitching his wagon to the Dems. He would have easily drawn enough people away from the Trump-Clinton dumpster fire to win. But he made the choice not to travel that path.

No, he wouldn't have. He would have been labeled a spoiler vote and got less attention than Jill Stein. He wouldn't drawn enough people from Trump to win and would more than likely draw votes from Clinton instead. He would have been running and got next to no votes because no one would have known who he was because he wasn't one of the big 2 and at best, he would have poached votes and been labeled a spoiler.

Under the current system, you either roll as a Democrat, roll as a Republican, or you just admit you aren't really running beyond a statement with no intentions of actually winning.

The only way you are going to run as a 3rd party and stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning is if you come in with MASSIVE name recognition and enough funding to handle the media yourself. Because you have to come out strong enough out the gate to get on the ballot for every or almost every state if you hope to stand a chance. Democrats and Republicans automatically get their names on every ballots, 3rd parties do not.

If Sanders had ran like that, he just would have poached votes from Clinton and would have been seen as the spoiler vote that let Trump win if he even got known enough to end up on the ballots in most states. He came in virtually unknown without the self funding to become known.

[Glorious Leader]

Or, you know they could come up with a kick ass message and electrify voters like that old socialist whats his name did last time around. He could have actually had a chance last time if he hadn't tried hitching his wagon to the Dems. He would have easily drawn enough people away from the Trump-Clinton dumpster fire to win. But he made the choice not to travel that path.

Ask Ralph Nader how that worked out last time

[Seranthor]

No, he wouldn't have. He would have been labeled a spoiler vote and got less attention than Jill Stein. He wouldn't drawn enough people from Trump to win and would more than likely draw votes from Clinton instead. He would have been running and got next to no votes because no one would have known who he was because he wasn't one of the big 2 and at best, he would have poached votes and been labeled a spoiler.

Under the current system, you either roll as a Democrat, roll as a Republican, or you just admit you aren't really running beyond a statement with no intentions of actually winning.

The only way you are going to run as a 3rd party and stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning is if you come in with MASSIVE name recognition and enough funding to handle the media yourself. Because you have to come out strong enough out the gate to get on the ballot for every or almost every state if you hope to stand a chance. Democrats and Republicans automatically get their names on every ballots, 3rd parties do not.

If Sanders had ran like that, he just would have poached votes from Clinton and would have been seen as the spoiler vote that let Trump win if he even got known enough to end up on the ballots in most states. He came in virtually unknown without the self funding to become known.

Name like Ross Perot or John Anderson eh? As I recall Perot got more than 18% of the popular vote in 92. Maybe I'm wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Ask Ralph Nader how that worked out last time

Nader never had a message that resonated with enough folks. How many times has he run now? 5, 6?

[Taso]

Man, if you don't know how ranked voting works, you have examples all around the place. You vote which candidates you want by order of preference. How it goes from there varies depending on which method of ranked voting you use.

If you don't know what a spoiler vote is, then you know next to nothing about how the system is setup. A spoiler vote is where a 3rd party comes in and poaches votes from another of the big 2 candidates so that the person you wanted least gets in instead. Honestly could flesh that out more, but if you don't know what this is, you honestly are talking in the wrong section of the forums entirely.

As far as banning companies from donating money. It basically comes down to the fact that companies aren't people and money isn't speech. It will probably take some work to get those corrected given current supreme court cases trying to claim otherwise but once those are corrected in law, you legally ban them from donation to campaigns.

You really don't need me to walk your hands through any further than that.

As to HOW I pass those bills, there is the hard part because the people who have the power to pass those bills are the exact same people who benefit from things as they are and lose power if they allow for viable 3rd parties and lose lots of money if they banned the current bribery that is known as lobbying and donations.

- - - Updated - - -



Cutting taxes doesn't create jobs and the loopholes we have already have us with an effective corporate tax rate is about 12.6% with a surprising number paying zero in taxes and even getting refunds out of our tax money. Cutting that tax rate further is stupidity unless I was rich and trying to sell out the nation for myself.

And Sanders ideas were of actual sound logic from the stuff I had read. The hard part is getting the Wealthy and Wallstreet to actually do their jobs and pay their taxes, but that is no reason not to try. Especially as they are clamping down on them and their tax evasions internationally as well.

But if you think cutting taxes does anything beyond a short term bump at best with a longer term decline given how low they already pay off deductions and loopholes, I have a bridge to sell you.

Let me explain it like this I rather people keep their money then pay the goverment for things we can do locally. I say we have the oppurtunity to try something different if we could elect fdr for 4terms on ideas that were down right absurd for the time and possiby could have destroyed this country why cant we try the tax cut theory. All that tax cuts do is shrink the goverment and im not saying foreign investment would open job oppurtunity all I am saying is we become competitive by cutting coperate rates. A job is something you have to work at and learn the skill. Obviously not everyone will find a job it happens and sometimes it sad but lets face it how far do you go before you abandon your values to take care of people you really dont know?
The more I dig into the actual roles of goverment and economics the more I realize that somethings are better off with the states and local groups doing the job while the fed does its job in insuring our saftey(physical and cyber threats) and ensure that our commerace prospers in the realm of Free trade and inflation/deflation. Like the federal reserve/central bank.
I dont like sanders because he is absurd. Taxing will not gurantee stability long term wise. It just makes the goverment bigger. Getting wallstreet and the 1% to pay taxes at 50-65% for healthcare and college will issue a national debt somwehere around $2-15 trillion dollars. So if you want a clinton era budget you wont get it with him. Another thing is you cant gurantee jobs through a college degree. All it does is make you look legit or well slightly more legit. Factors like work experince and a general desire to just work may be taken into account.
1. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowl...-is-a-bad-idea

[Fugus]

Name like Ross Perot or John Anderson eh? As I recall Perot got more than 18% of the popular vote in 92. Maybe I'm wrong.

No, you aren't wrong. He got around that much but that translated to zero electoral college votes. And he was rich and spent over 60 million of his own money to do it, something like 90 million in todays money.

And after spending over 100 million dollars to get 18% of the popular vote and no electoral college votes, it was considered the best 3rd party showing since 1912.

You aren't wrong, he got 18%. But even then, it took that much to still lose.

How many 3rd party candidates do you know can come in spending 100 million of their own cash freely plus any other public funding they might get.