First democrat debate

[sportage]

Hey...
Body language makes and breaks a candidate.
You don't know that?

I grantee you. THAT is what people will remember....

 

[chowderhead]

Hey...
Body language makes and breaks a candidate.
You don't know that?

I grantee you. THAT is what people will remember....

yeah, I agree. Most people watching the debate live are probably tapping away on the phones or tablets to be fully listening. Also, the vast majority of people will only get the snippets that their news or facebook, etc gives them. So the damn email response will be what most people will see which was the moment of the night. The unflattering reaction shots will probably be spliced into commercial attack ads in the fall by the Republicans (Democrats will probably use the low five hand slap with Trump/Jeb! from their debate.

15.3 million watched last night which isn't bad. This sets a record for Democratic primary debates.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

All I remember from him is climate change.. over and over and over again even when everyone was on a different topic.

Isn't that everything about every debate though?

How can I turn this topic that I know nothing about how to resolve and turn into something else I have been talking about or boasting about.

As much as I don't mind Bernie and his agenda, he twisted every topic into "The top 1%" discussion. It's a relevant point, but it's by far not the biggest issue we have to deal with. But like I said, at least Bernie isn't afraid to say precisely how he planned to accomplish it.

Billary on the other hand, basically says the rich need to pay more... except she doesn't specify HOW they will pay more - which is how you know it's bullshit. Modified income tax brackets? Higher tax on investments? Get rid of deductions? Simplify the tax code? Go to their banks and steal all their money? Higher corporate taxes? Have the bottom 60% pay more than 1% of taxes?

Nope... just going to be magic lady in the sky that makes money appear in your pockets.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sure, we need a population boost, but not at the cost of pauperizing everybody else.

Gawd. Always look in the wrong direction. It's not poor people or immigrants dragging down the middle class but rich people beating us down.

It's basic divide & conquer propaganda coming from the financial elite whose wealth & incomes have grown explosively over the last 35 years at the expense of everybody else.

 

[LegendKiller]

Dividing who? Us from illegals?


Let me ask you something, if you have too many workers for the jobs you have, what happens to wages?


I also guess you didn't see my entire post above, which was ignored by most partisans.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

That's because in our vicious cycle there can be no economic plan except managing the collapse of our country. Our Middle Class needs its purchasing power restored to the 1950-1970s.

Well then we need to take a long hard look at our tax structure.

 

[OutHouse]

The people should not feel guilty for demanding the wealth that they fairly earned.

thre is so much wrong with that moronic statement i have no idea how to address it other than the eye roll.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Great, we can either take the best of the worst, or look to tap better populations.


Here is a key difference. Let us make the decision rather than letting them come over practically unfettered.

so we pick and choose who can come in the country? based on what criteria? jesus you trumplestiltskin supporters are brilliant.

 

[LegendKiller]

so we pick and choose who can come in the country? based on what criteria? jesus you trumplestiltskin supporters are brilliant.

How did we do it before? How do we limit it so as not to overwhelm the job market?

 

[Jhhnn]

Isn't that everything about every debate though?

How can I turn this topic that I know nothing about how to resolve and turn into something else I have been talking about or boasting about.

As much as I don't mind Bernie and his agenda, he twisted every topic into "The top 1%" discussion. It's a relevant point, but it's by far not the biggest issue we have to deal with. But like I said, at least Bernie isn't afraid to say precisely how he planned to accomplish it.

Billary on the other hand, basically says the rich need to pay more... except she doesn't specify HOW they will pay more - which is how you know it's bullshit. Modified income tax brackets? Higher tax on investments? Get rid of deductions? Simplify the tax code? Go to their banks and steal all their money? Higher corporate taxes? Have the bottom 60% pay more than 1% of taxes?

Nope... just going to be magic lady in the sky that makes money appear in your pockets.

That's just sad. Take a look around. The rich will only pay more when they agree to pay more. What that might be remains to be seen & negotiated seeing as how they have Repubs cornered by their own rhetoric & the teatards primed, ready & well financed to primary out any who step out of line.

 

[theeedude]

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

How did we do it before? How do we limit it so as not to overwhelm the job market?

Maybe, just maybe, we put the onus on the businesses that are actively hiring undocumented workers. Fine them into submission for seeking out and taking advantage of cheap labor.

 

[LegendKiller]

Maybe, just maybe, we put the onus on the businesses that are actively hiring undocumented workers. Fine them into submission for seeking out and taking advantage of cheap labor.

Sure, I am 100% for that. But you probably need both methods. Why? Because they think they have rights to jobs and voting. Why? Because they are continually told that.

 

[bozack]

I can't believe the stark contrast between the two parties AND MORE SO the candidates party vs party.
The republicans are SOOOOO negative.
They hate laws and the US constitution as our concept of freedom.
.....

Talk about absorbing that which you want to believe or associate with...yikes....

If anything I found this debate to be highly negative and overly focused on the Republicans ...the dems worked extra hard to spin and fake folks out with this BS image of a common focus and unity of the party but like I said they eventually will have to stop stroking each other and draw some lines in the sand if one of them wants to stand out.

The good for them is that currently there are only two people in this race on their side, the others were just a joke to make it look like more of a contest.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Let me ask you something, if you have too many workers for the jobs you have, what happens to wages?

This is simply economic reality. We are probably always going to have more people than jobs for unskilled labor. It doesn't matter if we get rid of the immigrants or not. The numbers of unskilled labor jobs are shrinking much faster than our unskilled labor pool.

For wages it does not matter much how many more unskilled laborers there are than jobs for them to work, as long as there are more. That is one of the primary reasons we need a minimum wage.

 

[trenchfoot]

That's just sad. Take a look around. The rich will only pay more when they agree to pay more. What that might be remains to be seen & negotiated seeing as how they have Repubs cornered by their own rhetoric & the teatards primed, ready & well financed to primary out any who step out of line.

More and more, the Tea Party appears to have been manipulated by the very rich into becoming their personal suicide squad and enforcers of those policies that advance their agenda.

 

[Blackjack200]

This is simply economic reality. We are probably always going to have more people than jobs for unskilled labor. It doesn't matter if we get rid of the immigrants or not. The numbers of unskilled labor jobs are shrinking much faster than our unskilled labor pool.

For wages it does not matter much how many more unskilled laborers there are than jobs for them to work, as long as there are more. That is one of the primary reasons we need a minimum wage.

It may be that we will always have more people than jobs for unskilled labor, but there is no structural reason in our economy that every able bodied person who is willing to work cannot either be working or in training for work.

We clearly have millions of people who want to work, and we have lots of things that need to get done (infrastructure, etc.). That these two things exist simultaneously represents a failure of public policy. The question is, in what way is public policy failing? There are a lot of people that say it is failing because taxes are too high, there is too much government regulation, and if we lower taxes and remove as much government as possible, private industry will thrive and hire the people that want to work. That experiment is being tried in Kansas.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Because student loans and relatively affordable public colleges don't exist?

A) Education level is not just degree, but also the institution where you got that degree, and B) Stafford loans are not that big actually. For undergrad they are anywhere from 3500 to 5500 per year and cap out at 23,000 total. That is nowhere near enough to cover the cost of education even at inexpensive state school. For curiosity sake I looked up the rates for University of Illinois, the base rate for residents is $12,036 per year. The Stafford loans for the freshman year only cover about 1/4th of that, and that's before all the fees, books, transportation and living expenses. Anything more and the student either needs significant savings of his own, or he needs to work full time while going to college, which frankly is essentially impossible due to time and logistics constraints, or he needs his parents to co-sign private loans. The situation is even worse with private/ivy league colleges where you need to either be in the top 0.001% to get a full rider or you can't attend since no one will give you loan that high.

So no, the "relatively affordable public colleges" and "student loans" is an incredibly dishonest argument designed to underestimate the severity of the problem. The amount of money your family has absolutely does determine the quality of education that you can get in this country. That is not the way it should be. The school admissions should be based on how smart the student is, not on how much money he can pay into the system.

 

[LegendKiller]

This is simply economic reality. We are probably always going to have more people than jobs for unskilled labor. It doesn't matter if we get rid of the immigrants or not. The numbers of unskilled labor jobs are shrinking much faster than our unskilled labor pool.

For wages it does not matter much how many more unskilled laborers there are than jobs for them to work, as long as there are more. That is one of the primary reasons we need a minimum wage.

So let's just say "fuck it" and add millions of people for no reason. Just let them come in, take the jobs, just because.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sure, I am 100% for that. But you probably need both methods. Why? Because they think they have rights to jobs and voting. Why? Because they are continually told that.

Strawman on a strawman, particularly the whole bit about voting.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Because student loans and relatively affordable public colleges don't exist?

The name of your school is very important and those schools cost a lot more.

 

[trenchfoot]

It may be that we will always have more people than jobs for unskilled labor, but there is no structural reason in our economy that every able bodied person who is willing to work cannot either be working or in training for work.

We clearly have millions of people who want to work, and we have lots of things that need to get done (infrastructure, etc.). That these two things exist simultaneously represents a failure of public policy. The question is, in what way is public policy failing? There are a lot of people that say it is failing because taxes are too high, there is too much government regulation, and if we lower taxes and remove as much government as possible, private industry will thrive and hire the people that want to work. That experiment is being tried in Kansas.

The problem with that experiment is that the stated goal of that experiment, like so many other Repub controlled states espouse, does not actually jive with the truth nor the end results. Unfailingly, what happens is the rich get richer off the backs of the middle class and the poor. There is no other discernible result other than the fact that the blatant transfer of wealth to the very rich has necessitated the inevitable cutback of public services to the middle class and the poor. And that's something that to me, was the whole point and actual goal of it all.

 

[ivwshane]

Haven't heard many conservatives opposing roads. And more like instead of putting away $300/month for 18 years, you'll send Uncle Sam $300/month for 80 years (or however long you live). And I'm fine with the paid family leave, I needed to downsize a few positions anyway so thanks for making the decision which one to cut that much easier.

You haven't heard of conservatives opposing roads? Do you need them to specifically say they oppose roads or is the fact that no one in congress has attempted to address our current infrastructure problem a good sign they oppose roads? Or is blocking democrats infrastructure bill also a good indication of their opposition to roads.

Do you believe actions speak louder than words?

 

[ivwshane]

That would be an awful idea. People are living much longer and in return they are more productive even in their 60s. Let's bring down the age requirements for social security to 45. I'm sure the people who hate their jobs would love to see this.

I don't like relying on the government because they are going to turn around one day and they will begin to start slashing programs. They will say they don't have the money anymore, so this has to go and that has to go. Many people rely on the government for too much. In the end these people are going to get burned.

Do you think you just offered a compelling arguement against lowering the retirement age with that post? Do you understand how SS is paid for?
Try again, this time argue what's been said and don't exaggerate my position.

 

[glenn1]

You haven't heard of conservatives opposing roads? Do you need them to specifically say they oppose roads or is the fact that no one in congress has attempted to address our current infrastructure problem a good sign they oppose roads? Or is blocking democrats infrastructure bill also a good indication of their opposition to roads.

Do you believe actions speak louder than words?

You should ask this question of yourself then since it was Senate Democrats who held up passage of the long-term highway funding bill last go around. Maybe Harry Reid can give you an answer to it.