lol that's it? how's it wrong tho? 

you reachin


it gave a pass to the dems (unrightfully) but what it said about the gop was pretty accurate. there are different reasons why the gop and democratic party are equally dogshit, but this definitely isn't untrue. Trump is only possible bc of the current state of the GOP

So youre saying democrats arent obstructionist?

I think they absolutely are. Hillary Clinton's support being a prime example of this. 

But, their platform has absolutely shifted (not changed) over the past 30 years in a way that the GOP's really hasn't. 

not really fair to compare sanders to cruz or trump imo

sanders has probably the cleanest voting record for the policies he supports of any person who has ever run for president. doesn't matter if you agree with his policies or ideas, that's a fact. 

i still maintain that we'd be better without political parties 

There is a monstrous difference between trump and bernie. when bernie preaches about new ideas and policies, he can answer how he would ideally put them in place. Even if it's dumb af (like the 15 dollar minimum wage or transitioning to free college), he has thought out plans and methodology to achieve what he says. Trump says "i'll make mexico pay for the wall" or "you don't understand business". 

I'm moderate leaning liberal without a huge dog in the race. if you can't tell a difference between sanders and pretty much everybody who is currently running (besides maybe kasich) then i think that's just you being biased. 

cruz is definitely ideologically consistent, but for how long? not long at all


what bernie preaches now is what he voted for / fought for in the 70s. it doesn't even matter if you support him morally or ideologically, that is something worth respect

Isn't that basically what I said? There is a difference in their rhetoric, there isn't a difference in their policies (EDIT not necesarily policies, but how they pander I guess). Especially considering that while bernie explains how he will implement something, it's often a lie to pander to his base like his healthcare plan which is underfunded by at minimum a trillion a year but supposedly saves most people 5k a year.

That both Bernie and Trump are anti immigration. I'm very pro immigration, but that's not really the point.

R.I.P. uncle Teddy

As I noted a page or two ago I'm a casual politics follower during presidential years. Would be interested in your thoughts on this page, and how unrealistic Sanders' proposals are from a cost POV:

berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/

Follow-up (if/when you have time): How would you mold Sanders into a realistic candidate, while still preserving the basic tenets of his ideology/policy proposals?

Thanks for the paper on single payer, I'll check it out.

The only pro-immigration candidate left is Shillary, mormon.

How do you feel about this? How did you feel watching the farce of the last democratic debate where they shamelessly pandered to perceived Hispanic voters by presenting a Guatemalan woman crying about her deported husband (just a pure coincidence amirite)


I'm referring to this incident btw



just look at that tailor-made question for Hillary. "Would you stop deportations and reunite families?"

Realistic as in electable, or realistic as in what he can actually get done if he had complete freedom?

First off, his taxes way underfund his plans because he doesn't assume people will change their behavior when he raises taxes. So he assumes people will work just as much when taxed at 60% (or whatever it was) as when the tax rates were much lower. They won't though. 

So if you just want to look at that, then his choices are A raise taxes by a very very large amount on the middle class, and don't get elected because most of the middle class will end up paying much more in his system, or B lower his sights. To what that is, I do not know. 

He uses a stock transaction tax to pay for college too, and I think he has the same problem. He assumes people won't change their behavior on this too I believe. Beyond that, disincentivizing investment can be very bad. It would mostly affect the high speed stock trading, so what effect it would have exactly, I'm not 100% certain, but it would certainly make that sector of the economy completely obsolete which is probably not a good thing (although not really a huge deal tbh)

I don't see how he could expand social security in the long term. It's a system that was based on having a much large % of people in the workforce than we will in the future to pay for a small % of retirees. Theoretically, you could just raise taxes a ton, but it's once again not politically viable. It really just needs to be cut.


He could probably get an infrastructure program through, although 1 trillion dollars is massive.

Realistic in terms of feasible. I don't think the success of his candidacy (for better or for worse) hinges on how realistic his plans are. This primary looks like it's come down strictly to demographics (outside of the deep south, where he didn't actively campaign). How he could've improved his chances of being elected is another conversation entirely.

1) Taxes underfunding his plans based on not adjusting for behaviors - I'll have to look into that.

2) I believe he's noted that taxes on the middle class would be more than offset by the healthcare savings. Is this true, partially true, or incorrect?

3) From the document linked on that page, it notes with FTT rates of 50 basis points for stocks, 15 basis points for bonds, 0.5 basis points for derivatives, as well as a 50 percent fall in market trading volume, it would generated $350B in revenue. Do you think it would disincentivize investment beyond that 50 percent fall?

4) He noted that in order to expand social security, he'd remove the payroll tax cap. I believe the marginal tax rates for the highest income brackets awhile back, but is that less feasible based on how different the US is as a whole now than 30 or so years ago (which I believe is when it last was uncapped, could be wrong)?

If you have time, would be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on the infrastructure program. In addition:

1) I don't see it linked on that specific page, but I believe he'd proposed a Carbon Tax awhile back. Maybe this is what it currently is? Used to be $20 per ton (and that document claims it would generate $300B over ten years).

2) These are more adventurous, but how reasonable are his proposals to reinstate Glass-Steagall, and enforce that "too-big-to-fail" plan to break up large investment banks?

3) Getting to the bottom line, how much of this is possible without the cooperation of Congress/Senate? Would he be able to use executive actions to further any of his goals, or would he be severely handcuffed?

4) Lastly he's noted that his litmus test for nominating Supreme Court Justices would be that they'd be willing to overturn the Citizens United decision. Would he have any issue getting such justices through?

Thanks again. No hurry, whenever you have time.

I can't get a read on Dresta. I usually skim over his posts, but he types quite a lot, and even if he's bullshitting, at least he's passionate up to put up the act.

You guys probably have a better feel for fit than I do, but if there's going to be legitimate political (or religious/philosophical/economic) discussion here (which there seems to be potential for), it would be interesting to see how he'd do in this type of environment.

I don't think he's a troll, because there seems to be someone on RealGM with the same username, who also looks like a Heat fan. If you did decide to invite him, might be best to contact him through there (not sure if he would spill the beans on the site on ISH though, don't see why he would, but don't follow his posts closely enough).

KevinNYC (who seems to be FillJackson now?) might be interesting too.

I'm afraid Ill forget Tom Is Dead, but I do have a lot of econ studies I've read that show that bringing in low skill immigrants actually help the average person economically, not just people who hire them. Ill try to remember to post them later.