Mock

I understood that you were agreeing with the concepts, not necessarily each specific detail.

I think community colleges should be free to those without financial means and who have good grades in high school + are willing to do work/study (and I like the idea of it being paid-for by the high risk speculative transaction tax). For those would-be students who don't meet one or both of those criteria, it should be more affordable.

As for health care, a private health care system and a public health care system (accessible by all citizens) can co-exist, in my opinion. That's what I would like to see pursued.

I believe Hillary Clinton would be in a much less strong position going into the general against Donald Trump had Bernie and his supporters not woken her up in regards to trade agreements, wages, and higher education. Sanders should keep pushing his message and platform for as long as he damned well pleases and as long as the Democratic process allows, as far as I'm concerned.

I don't give a lick if Hillary Clinton and the DNC feel entitled and inconvenienced by Bernie Sanders. In my opinion, he's already benefitted them even more than they'll admit, and he'll help them after the convention by (at minimum) continuing to rally against what he views as the dangerous philosophies and character of Donald Trump.

In 1992 I made minimum wage which was $4.25 per hour and I never got free college tuition so I don't have a real bleeding heart when it comes to that. I would pay taxes on a universal health care system though, were the only country who likes to make insurance companies rich while getting screwed up the ass.

Shit I meant 1994, as if that doesn't already make me sound old enough. I never did have to walk 10 miles barefooted in the snow to school though. I always caught a ride. And with shoes on.

In the early eighties made $6 an hour to hump 230 pound double sheets of drywall with a helper up four to five flights of emergency exit stairwells, you had to bend them around corners. A new guy would literally kill you to work with. I was a beast and my nickname was destructo.

By the way, this is what young male citizens did for the first few years to get a work ethic and prove yourself, then go on to better and more lucrative jobs. Now the young only have subway to work at as the illegals took my backbreaking job and made it a career.

(06-26-2016, 06:13 PM)sally Wrote: [ -> ]In 1992 I made minimum wage which was $4.25 per hour and I never got free college tuition so I don't have a real bleeding heart when it comes to that. I would pay taxes on a universal health care system though, were the only country who likes to make insurance companies rich while getting screwed up the ass.

Shit I meant 1994, as if that doesn't already make me sound old enough. I never did have to walk 10 miles barefooted in the snow to school though. I always caught a ride. And with shoes on.

It doesn't have anything to do with bleeding hearts, you grouchy old bitch. It has to do with what one desires for the next generations, and it has to do with economic reality.

Your minimum wage back in the 90s equates to the current federal minimum wage today, after inflation adjustment. That means there's been no increase or improvement in standard of living for lower-income workers in the U.S. for over two decades.

So, if your perspective is 'fuck em', my young adult children can afford to buy a couple of boxes of beer per week just like I did, I understand why you feel the way you do and that's cool. Not everyone feels that way though.

Some parents have worked hard to build a better future for their children and expect them to be as independent as you and I were. They don't have the desire or means to employ and support their adult children. Those such parents might find it concerning that their adult children are working and yet not able to afford what's considered 'essential' today (mobile phones, laptops...) and living in the family home until they're in their late 20s and beyond.

And, aside from the stagnant minimum wage, ...there's the fact that adults today work harder for less pay and fewer benefits in step-up middle income jobs than you and I did. Plus, it's more difficult for them to find such jobs today without getting an expensive college or trade degree (which is the equivalent of a high school diploma in our day).



Also, unemployment numbers look less concerning on paper today than they really are because so many people have simply stopped looking for jobs because they can't find them or can't afford to live independently on the wages/salaries in many parts of the country.

Meanwhile, the richest 10% of Americans have seen their real incomes increase over the same period, as have Congresspersons.

Is the sky falling? Not yet, in my opinion. But, is the American economy moving in the wrong direction and the standard of living for all but the top 10 percent declining? You bet.

That concerns me. A lot of factors contribute to the standard of living decreasing from one generation to the next. One of them is a system and policies designed to make the rich richer at the expense of the growing lower income population and shrinking middle income population. It needs to be addressed sooner than later if America is to continue being an economic leader and prosperous nation.

Stats ref: http://www.allgov.com/news/where-is-the-...ews=857465

The problem with tuition is not that people want a free ride, it's that colleges have become greedy predatory scams virtually unregulated by law. Every part of college is designed to squeeze maximum money from students, and what they deliver is shit. I won't provide links tonight but the adjunct system has led to absolute garbage education at astronomical prices. For often useless degrees. That does not deserve to continue.

(06-26-2016, 10:47 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-26-2016, 06:13 PM)sally Wrote: [ -> ]In 1992 I made minimum wage which was $4.25 per hour and I never got free college tuition so I don't have a real bleeding heart when it comes to that. I would pay taxes on a universal health care system though, were the only country who likes to make insurance companies rich while getting screwed up the ass.

Shit I meant 1994, as if that doesn't already make me sound old enough. I never did have to walk 10 miles barefooted in the snow to school though. I always caught a ride. And with shoes on.

It doesn't have anything to do with bleeding hearts, you grouchy old bitch. It has to do with what one desires for the next generations, and it has to do with economic reality.

Your minimum wage back in the 90s equates to the current federal minimum wage today, after inflation adjustment. That means there's been no increase or improvement in standard of living for lower-income workers in the U.S. for over two decades.

So, if your perspective is 'fuck em', my young adult children can afford to buy a couple of boxes of beer per week just like I did, I understand why you feel the way you do and that's cool. Not everyone feels that way though.

Some parents have worked hard to build a better future for their children and expect them to be as independent as you and I were. They don't have the desire or means to employ and support their adult children. Those such parents might find it concerning that their adult children are working and yet not able to afford what's considered 'essential' today (mobile phones, laptops...) and living in the family home until they're in their late 20s and beyond.

If you and Bern want to collapse the economy that's on you two fucks. It won't work because people will work at Burger king instead of construction jobs if they're gonna make the same amount of money regardless. It's better flipping burgers than digging ditches, right? Construction companies and other businesses will have to pay $20 plus an hour to get a handful of useless employees before they find a good one. Not to mention all the overhead. Lots of people will go out of business. I say keep minimum wage down and the Mexicans in.

I already said I dont think the country is ready to incorporate Bernie's proposals and I wouldn't vote for him, sal. His platform is too aggressive, in my opinion, even though it would likely be implemented in steps over a 4 year period (assuming he could get anything through Congress). But, the problems he's voicing are real and, in my opinion, need to be addressed.

Bernie giving Clinton a run for her money and forcing her to move to a middle ground (between where Bernie stands and where Hillary was standing a year ago) has helped make her a stronger candidate, in my opinion. He did it without getting into the mud like virtually every other candidate did, and without taking donations from the very individuals and special interests he's protesting.

I disagree with the people suggesting that Bernie owes it to Clinton to shut up now, and that he should stop pushing her to adopt as much of his platform as he can. The Democratic process allows for him to keep going until the convention; he doesn't owe it to Hillary, her supporters, or the DNC to stop short and I dont think going all the way hurts Hillary's or the Dems' general election chances.

They're just doing what organized smear campaigns always do: create a buzzword to represent a "scandal" and repeat it endlessly until it loses all meaning. Most people don't bother to research or read more than headlines: the worst detractors of Hillary would be hard pressed to actually describe what Benghazi was. Aside from a bullshit fiction propaganda movie that is. But if enough talking head say "emails" or "Gabriel" enough times, the exceptionally stupid among us will begin to repeat "well, Benghazi and the emails prove she's corrupt" without having the slightest idea what they're talking about.

Also, just to clarify: by "among us" I mean the exceptionally stupid here at mock

Wish there was a like button !

I really don't want to vote for the Hill, and or not vote for the Don, I'm sulky!

I just realized my previous post accidentally auto corrected Benghazi with "Gabriel". Wouldn't it be funny if I created a whole new scandal for the right to bitch about just from a typo? "Oh yeah, Donovan? Well what about Gabriel? Huh? How do you explain THAT?"

(07-01-2016, 09:35 AM)Donovan Wrote: [ -> ]They're just doing what organized smear campaigns always do: create a buzzword to represent a "scandal" and repeat it endlessly until it loses all meaning. Most people don't bother to research or read more than headlines: the worst detractors of Hillary would be hard pressed to actually describe what Benghazi was. Aside from a bullshit fiction propaganda movie that is. But if enough talking head say "emails" or "Gabriel" enough times, the exceptionally stupid among us will begin to repeat "well, Benghazi and the emails prove she's corrupt" without having the slightest idea what they're talking about.

Also, just to clarify: by "among us" I mean the exceptionally stupid here at mock

Well.........I don't think I'm in the 'exceptionally stupid at Mock' club, which is good because one is the loneliest number and all....

But, you might think I'm unexceptionally stupid because I understand why some smart people care about the email server and Benghazi controversies.

In my opinion, there is a lot of transparent bullshit propaganda and idiotic conspiracy theory floating around in regards to the Clintons. I agree with you there.

But, I do consider the private email server set-up and the way Clinton minimized and misled the public for over a year (about having explicit permission and being one of many Secs of States who did the same) very bad judgment and off-putting. Without assuming her motivation for using a home-grown server was anything nefarious, it still lessens her credibility, for me.

As for Benghazi, it was tragic. And, yes, similar attacks and deaths to Americans have gone down in unstable regions with American diplomats and government workers (under almost all US Presidents and Secs of State). However, in my opinion, Clinton's initial response seemed to be more motivated by a need/desire to defend the Libya intervention that she and Obama advocated than anything else. That too was off-putting to me, though I don't hate the Clintons at all (and think the House Benghazi Committee wasted a lot of tax payer money and really jumped the shark for political reasons only).

Anyway, as is often the case, it's the immediate handling and responses to the controversies that rubbed me wrong.

Still........I'll be voting for Clinton. She and Bill Clinton have done some good things for the American people during their long political careers and I think Hillary is competent, though I find her quite flawed.

Trump is simply a career scammer who is wholly disingenuous and incompetent to lead the country or work with leaders of other countries effectively, in my opinion. The Trump Institute "get rich quick" scam is yet another blatant and shameful example of how Donald Trump doesn't care about lower and middle class Americans who are struggling to make a better life. I believe more such scams, backed up by solid evidence and/or video, will be surfacing over the next few months. It's clear, to me, Trump sees 'the little people' as pigeons whom he can scam for his own power/financial advantage.

Trump Institute: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/us/pol....html?_r=0