2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDemocratic Race Stabilizes
In national polling, Clinton lost ground all summer, and hit a low of around 40 percent support among Democratic primary voters. Since October, however, she's been regaining ground and has now spent the last month in the range between 54 and 58 percent. Individual polls (rather than a poll-of-polls average) for the past month have fluctuated between 50 and 60 percent support. This is not an insurmountable lead -- she could very well fall back again if she stumbles badly on the campaign trail. But, at this point, it certainly is a daunting lead for the other candidates in the field.
Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders seems to have hit a ceiling, in the low-to-mid 30s. He also has bettered his poll numbers since the summer, but he didn't benefit as much as Clinton from Joe Biden declining to run. Both Clinton and Sanders got a big upward bounce as the Biden fans divided themselves up, but Clinton pulled in more of them than Bernie. And Clinton, even discounting the Biden spike, has been steadily gaining ground since the summer, while Bernie's only upward movement came as a result of the Biden announcement -- his poll numbers have been otherwise pretty flat. Bernie's been regularly polling in the range between 30 and 35 percent, but showing no real movement upwards of late....
So, in the rosiest of scenarios for Sanders, he closely loses Iowa, wins New Hampshire, pulls a surprise victory in Nevada, but then loses badly in South Carolina. That's an even split, two states each. This is exactly what Sanders would need to be considered a valid contender by voters nationally. The prospect of a real alternative to Clinton would be safer for many voters to consider, if Sanders already has some solid victories under his belt....
In conclusion, there is absolutely no path to the nomination for Martin O'Malley. There is a path to victory for Bernie Sanders, but it is a narrow one which must be perfectly trod. But the wide, wide road to the nomination really does belong to Hillary Clinton at this point. She has pulled out of her summer slump, she's campaigning a lot better and she's a lot more accommodating to the media these days. She is hitting her stride, in other words. Being a Clinton, though, means there will always be scandalmongers out there trying to take her down, and it's always possible that one of these will stick in a way all the ginned-up "scandals" this year have not. Hillary Clinton could, in other words, somehow beat Hillary Clinton. But barring some self-immolation of one sort or another, the safe bet right now is that Hillary Clinton will be the 2016 Democratic nominee.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/democratic-race-stabilize_b_8764976.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)
R B Garr
(16,972 posts)People saw he is.not ready for prime time.
"Clinton...steadily gaining ground'.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)so no one is walking away with *all* the delegates in any of those states.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)If North Carolina is close, it will mean a great deal.
Gothmog
(145,481 posts)
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Huffington Post is part of the mainstream media, who has everything to lose if Hillary is not nominated.
So they post this kind of story. What with biased polls, and such, sure, it looks as if Clinton will be the nominee, but if we had better polls that took ALL voters into account, not just "likely" voters who voted in past elections, we would have a lead for Sanders, as he is doing very well with the young crowd.
I take this with a grain of salt, as I do any post from the mainstream media.
Waiting to be silenced by the Hillbots here now.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)that anyone who doesn't conform to your world view is wrong.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)on what I intend to say. I said what I meant, not what you mean, as well as many of your ilk do.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)But please: keep pretending we don't exist. I'm sure that your world view is right...
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)And the "mainstream media" was obsessed with keeping Obama in power, right?
I do find it interesting you say "If Hillary is not nominated" the MSM loses everything. Does that mean they need her to win the general election as opposed to a Republican? Curious what you mean.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)But Clinton IS the best Republican running.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Abortion rights, SCOTUS, women's rights, gay rights, healthcare, climate change, social safety net, social security, education, college.....just like a Rep? Like I said, assinine sentiment.
Chitown Kev
(2,197 posts)whereas (in 2008) it was split between Obama and Edwards and Obama's ground game pulled it off.
I don't see Bernie getting within ten points of Clinton in Iowa, at this point.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Chitown Kev
(2,197 posts)you speak the truth...
Bernie has never had a lead in Iowa, really (with the exception of a couple of late August polls). In fact, other than the height of his popularity in the late summer, he's never even been close. in Iowa.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Chitown Kev
(2,197 posts)late summer polls that will show Sanders with a lead in Iowa.
Clinton has maintained a lead there; Iowa is not in flux as it was in 2008.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)...according to the latest Iowa poll.
So, there's that.
The peak Iowa caucus season hasn't even begun in Iowa. So much can happen in Iowa in the last 4 weeks before the caucuses.
I live in Iowa. Barring this past week, it's been very quiet here on the Democratic side. Very few Dem events/rallies. The candidates have been in other states.
So there has been a lull. The caucuses are a month later than they were in 2008. My guess is that activity will increase in Iowa after the next Dem debate and then ramp up to defcon 4 throughout Jan.
If Sanders fills stadiums like he was doing during the summer and generates enthusiasm in Iowa like he did in the early summer, I think that he could easily get his poll numbers back to when he was ahead of Hillary.
Sanders had 1500 supporters at an event in Waterloo, Iowa last weekend. This wasn't even a large venue or hall--just a high school. It was standing room only and many were turned away. If Bernie continue to attract crowds like that, the optics will be incredible for him.
Hillary had an event in Waterloo as well. 300 attended.
George II
(67,782 posts)....are not winner-take-all states. In fact, I don't believe any states are winner-take-all anymore (only the republicans have those)
So, if things go as they are now, Clinton will win Iowa by about 15%-20%, so she'll get roughly 20 delegates to Sanders' 14. And even if Sanders were to "win" New Hampshire, it's a hollow victory. Last I looked there are only 21 delegates elected, so if Sanders wins say 53-47 or somewhere around that, he'll win 11 delegates to 10 for Clinton - a net margin of ONE delegate.
As for the other two, currently Clinton has a roughly 3-1 advantage over Sanders in South Carolina (69-21) and a 2-1 advantage over Sanders in Nevada (52-26)
So, as far as elected delegates, in those four states Clinton would win about 80 delegates to Sanders' 40, even with a win in New Hampshire.
And then we always have the ubiquitous Super Delegates. At last count, Clinton has a little more than 400 and Sanders has 2.
Barring any major developments this nomination should be wrapped up on Super Tuesday.
The only caveat is that in New Hampshire (and I think Iowa) some delegates are also awarded by the breakdown of the votes in various counties, but these numbers won't vary much from those presented.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)but it underplays Hillary's record level of endorsements, dominating union support, and the new wave of immigration reformers in the Sunbelt.
Bernie has more than an uphill climb at this time.
Hillary will win Iowa, Nevada, and SC. After that, Bernie will be lucky to avoid the biggest primary landslide in history.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Clinton is not well supported by many of the rank and file. I can say that for at least my union which is HUGE. That would be AFSCME.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)We conduct surveys of our members, interviews with chapter leaders, and go to lots of chapter meetings. We analyze policy, and see candidates when they are here.
There's NO QUESTION. Hillary is by far and away the favored candidate in all five of our affiliated unions (all education). Bernie is a distance second or even third.
If your union leaders (that you elected), don't have polls and analysis I'd be very surprised. All the Bernie supporters who claimed they were the "majority" here are just going by what they think or some email list or a subgroup making loud claims.
Our members can vote for whomever they want, but our union leaders are very much interested in what's best for the members - and the leaders are nothing more than members who stepped forward and won elections. That's why they endorse some candidates over others.
My chapter represents 1500, and that's a small chapter in Florida.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)They do not conduct surveys, the same people have been elected to local offices for more than twenty years. When someone "new" like me (that would be about 15 years ago) comes in and wants to run, they simply state that this new person lacks the experience to be a union leader. Even though I have more organizing skills in my left little toe than the entire local committee, they still thought that I was inexperienced. I even have volunteered to publish a newsletter for the local chapter several times over the years. When I call the district office, I am told that I will get called back. When I call back after not getting a call for a while, I get the same thing.
And my local union members wonder why the union is not that effective.
And my chapter is only about 2500 folks.
These days I can't even get petitions to run for office in time to get them filled. It is totally insane here.
I am glad that I only have two years until I can retire and be done with these people.
They are not union leaders, they are shills.
And I do not believe that Bernie is third. No way, no how!
Sancho
(9,070 posts)here in Florida, unions are under attack, but our membership is up because of the crazy government.
We send surveys to all members. It's not hard.
We have open chapter meetings every two weeks. We call for nominations for officers every year. All members can vote for whomever they want.
Bernie is not popular in the sunbelt as far as I can tell.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)In case you haven't noticed.
Bernie is not popular in the bible belt, because he is unknown there. Once people find out about him, he immediately gains popularity.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)They don't like some of his proposals.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)I don't believe that ANY of Bernie's proposals are disliked. Perhaps they don't have all the information.
After all, all of Bernie's proposals are also Clinton's proposals. Only Hillary made them after Bernie did.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)Our union analysis hates Bernie's Robin Hood tax - it takes money out of the retirement of public employees (many union members). Frankly, attacks on Wall Street and breaking up banks won't help union funds. Regulation of non-bank and international money is more important. Hillary is way ahead of Bernie on those issues.
Our immigrant population don't care about Bernie's minimum wage proposal (doesn't apply to the undocumented anyway). They want a path to citizenship, amnesty, tuition equity, and protection from family deportations. Bernie either doesn't mention these or has not been in favor - because he protects states rights. Hillary was the first (decades ago) to propose a path to citizenship. Hillary includes social justice and women's rights in her immigration policies. Even last weekend she proposed new policies on immigration:
http://americasvoice.org/blog/family-of-immigrant-new-yorkers-meets-with-hillary-clinton-at-national-immigration-conference/
Our many, many international businesses like parts of the TPP. No one likes monetary manipulation or protection of large corporations, but some trade agreements are vital to the health of new small businesses. That's why Hillary has said she opposes the TPP in part, but Bernie throws out the whole thing.
There are many examples. Unions who look closely have almost all concluded that Hillary's policy proposals are better.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)that unions who are heavily invested in Wall Street like Hillary, because her proposals benefit Wall Street?
Isn't Hillary for the TPP and TPIP? These are totally anti-union. I would throw the whole thing out, with both of them because they are crafted not unlike NAFTA. I suppose that you like NAFTA too.
How does the Robin Hood tax take money out of retirement?
Bernie has been for a path toward citizenship for more than thirty years.
If you look closely, you will see that each and every one of Clinton's progressive proposals were made AFTER Bernie made them. In many cases DECADES after Bernie proposed them.
Just sayin'.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)Unions aren't invested in Wall Street at all, but state retirement funds and major employers are invested - which provides the benefits and retirement of many American workers. If you want to throw out American capitalism, you may want to move to Yeman or some third world country.
Hillary is for the parts of the TPP that help American jobs, and she is against the parts (like money manipulation) that should be changed.
The Robin Hood tax takes money out of the pockets of public employees and union-negotiated retirements. I've posted the links to this many times, and plenty of others have analyzed it.
Actually, Hillary was in Florida calling for a path to citizenship decades before Bernie was on the horizon. He still waffles with talk about "visa reform", but he doesn't have a comprehensive plan. Read them for yourself. The record is easy to find.
It's a waste of time to provide evidence (again) as I have many times in the past. You can spout stuff that is not true, but it doesn't fool people who saw Hillary on Univision 15 or 20 years ago talking about immigration. If I provide the links and proof, will you agree to change your mind and support Hillary? Let me know.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)They only hear what they want to hear, and never hear the big picture.
Bernie was for immigration reform when he was Mayor of Burlington, for cryin' out loud.
There are no parts of the TPP or TPIP that will help American jobs.
The Robin Hood tax takes money from the rich, not the middle class.
And I never got a ballot to vote for who I would endorse for president from my union AFSCME, and they are endorsing Clinton.
People who know Bernie's record for the PAST HALF CENTURY know, people who listen to the corporate news, and believe them, hear what they want.
I also just heard from a reliable source within a different union, that the endorsement for Clinton was done WITHOUT rank and file making ANY decision as to who they wanted. It was done by union management.
So say whatever you will, I hope that you can comfortably eat crow when Bernie is elected. He is the only one who can beat ANY Republican candidate. ANY candidate.
Oh, and if you think that Clinton owes nothing to Wall Street, after accepting the massive donations that she got from them, I have a bridge for sale for you, very cheap.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)You continue to spout rumors and personal stories with no basis in fact.
You don't have any evidence. Bernie is STILL not for a path to citizenship (not "immigration reform" which is code words for "I'm not going to do anything".) Yes, there are some parts of the TPP that international, small businesses would like to see. You just don't have a clue what trade agreements are in effect now, or what difference they make.
Yes, the Robin Hood tax is easily avoided by the rich, and it will take money out of the pockets of average American workers. I'll include the short version below...if you want evidence of the other issues just let me know.
I really don't care what your "reliable" source is...I've seen the results of hundreds of surveys.
Again, if you want to believe that snake oil will cure your problems then fine.
It really doesn't matter - because Bernie will never be President. Let's hear from you next November.
Bernie Sanders Robin Hood tax
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/
Fully Paid for by Imposing a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street. This legislation is offset by
imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge funds, and other speculators of
0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee on bonds, and a 0.005%
fee on derivatives. It has been estimated that this provision could raise hundreds of billions a year
which could be used not only to make tuition free at public colleges and universities in this country,
it could also be used to create millions of jobs and rebuild the middle class of this country.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/31/why-free-college-is-really-expensive.html
Why Free College is Really Expensive
Everyone knew Bernie Sanders would propose a tax on Wall Street. But spending that money on college tuition is a cynical handout to the upper-middle class.
Even Sanders himself, however, lists the Robin Hood tax as an afterthought; after all, if you raise a Robin Hood tax you can do a long list of things with the money you get from it (including cutting other taxes, or spending on other initiatives). The emphasis from Sanders’ statements is where the money will go: paying for tuition for public colleges.
The first problem with Sanders’ proposal is that a national tuition subsidy will be counterproductive even on its own terms. The proposal will cut the economic legs out from underneath innovations such as open online courses, which may be on the cusp of delivering low-cost, high-quality college education for all. Organizations trying to deliver radical new models will now have to compete against a $70 billion subsidy for the old system.
Additionally, directing that much guaranteed money into a system is a sure-fire way to accelerate cost inflation. The state may pick up the tab for tuition, but students will still have to pay for ancillary services (such as room, board, textbooks, etc.), and those services will go up in price. These costs are not trivial; for instance, although Sweden has abolished college tuition, students graduate with more debt than students in the United Kingdom, and only slightly less than students in the US. Through economic incompetence, Sanders’ proposal might hit the jackpot of reducing college quality while also increasing cost.
Economically bad policy design from Sanders is not surprising. After all, the man is a self-declared Socialist. His appeal was not policy wonkery; as a protest candidate, Sanders (we hoped) would at least identify the right issues, even if his solutions were unworkable. In this case, Sanders has pointed out the wrong problem.
------------------------
https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/36vmm8/what_are_some_legitimate_arguments_against_bernie/
[–]DeadMonkey321 50 points 12 days ago*
Apparently (according to a tax lawyer who was running around one of the earlier threads), there was no exception for 401k's, meaning that every time the mutual funds in your retirement fund rebalance, which should be a few times a year, you're paying a tax and losing money from your retirement.
Edit: just used the calculator found here to calculate the costs of 0.5% over 40 years assuming you were investing just $5500/year (the max allowable to an IRA). Using these assumptions, this tax would cost you, the average investor, $157,000 over the 40 years you're investing. This is money that I'm sure you'd prefer going towards your retirement.
Note: this isn't 100% accurate as I'm treating this as an addition to the expense ratio which isn't totally correct, but it's a ballpark figure to give the tax some context
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/29/1388484/-Bernie-Sanders-big-idea-has-a-math-problem#
--------------------------
Bernie Sanders' big idea has a math problem
The tax Bernie Sanders is talking about is pretty much like a sales tax on certain financial market transactions. I don't know the exact rate Bernie included in his bill, but the Robin Hood Tax group calls for a rate of 0.5%, or one-tenth the average state sales tax. Given that the total value of transactions in the stock, commodity and various other financial markets numbers in the trillions of dollars annually, the idea that this tax could generate enough to pay for sending young Americans to college would seem reasonable.
For example, such a tax on the $550+ billion spent on stock buybacks by the S&P 500 in 2014 would yield $2.75 billion in taxes. That's just shy of 2% of the total needed and stock buybacks are about the least productive use of corporate funds: American companies are substituting these buybacks for investments in their companies that might produce real growth instead of an illusion. Of course, they do increase the value of executive bonuses and stock options...
But wait! That's a huge chunk of change being taxed to yield only a tiny percentage of the amount Bernie Sanders thinks the market would generate.
The truth is that in order for a financial transaction tax to generate $300 billion at a 0.5% rate, the total amount of taxable financial transactions would have to be $60 trillion. Even at the average sales tax rate of 5%, the amount of taxable transactions has to be $6 trillion annually.
Just to generate enough to pay for public college tuition, the taxable amount has to be at least $29.2 trillion. And that's if nobody comes up with schemes to legally (or not) avoid the tax.
-----------------
http://chronicle.com/article/Bernie-Sanderss-Charming/231387?cid=megamenu
http://www.sbafla.com/fsb/
The State Board of Administration (SBA) was created by the Florida Constitution and is governed by a three-member Board of Trustees (Trustees), comprised of the Governor as Chair, the Chief Financial Officer and the Attorney General.
The Trustees, in concert with legislative directives, have ultimate oversight. They delegate authority to the Executive Director/Chief Investment Officer to carry out the strategic direction in the day-to-day financial investments and operations of the agency. The Executive Director/CIO manages approximately 190 professional investment and administrative support staff.
The SBA is required to invest assets and discharge its duties in accordance with Florida law and in compliance with fiduciary standards of care. Under state law, the SBA and its staff are obliged to:
Make sound investment management decisions that are solely in the interest of investment clients.
Make investment decisions from the perspective of subject-matter experts acting under the highest standards of professionalism and care, not merely as well-intentioned persons acting in good faith.
http://chronicle.com/article/Bernie-Sanderss-Charming/231387?cid=megamenu
July 6, 2015 Bernie Sanders's Charming, Perfectly Awful Plan to Save Higher Education By Kevin Carey
Bernie Sanders, the self-described socialist senator, Internet hero, and apparent front-runner in the race for second place in the 2016 Democratic presidential campaign, has ideas about higher-education reform. Like the man himself, they are bold, charmingly utopian, kind of weird, and most important for how they might eventually move the boundaries of mainstream political culture.
Sanders wants every student in America to be able to attend a public college or university without paying tuition. Legislation he proposed to that effect a few weeks ago includes a reasonably plausible mechanism of multibillion-dollar federal subsidies and new regulation of state spending. The current Congress, it is safe to say, will not soon be passing such a bill.
But in trying to define a new fiscal federalism for American higher education, Sanders has sparked a conversation that is likely to expand. Without something like the Sanders plan, the disgraceful dismantling of public higher education, underway in many states, will certainly continue.
The no-tuition part of the Sanders plan attracted a great deal of attention, aided by canny headline writers who understand that "Bernie Sanders" is catnip for social media. Less discussed was the corollary part of the plan: In exchange for billions of new taxpayer dollars, the federal government would enforce a specific vision of what a high-quality college education means.
States would have to promise that, within five years, "not less than 75 percent of instruction at public institutions of higher education in the State is provided by tenured or tenure-track faculty." In addition, any funds left over after eliminating tuition could be used only for purposes such as "expanding academic course offerings to students," "increasing the number and percentage of full-time instructional faculty," providing faculty members with "supports" such as "professional development opportunities, office space, and shared governance in the institution." States would be prohibited from using the money for merit-based financial aid, "nonacademic facilities, such as student centers or stadiums," or "the salaries or benefits of school administrators."
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/07/08/Pros-and-Cons-Bernie-Sanders-50-Billion-Tax-Ide
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/2000287-Financial-Transaction-Taxes-in-Theory-and-Practice.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/07/22/bernie-sanders-doesnt-have-a-case-for-a-financial-transactions-tax-it-would-lose-money/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/opinion/the-case-for-a-tax-on-financial-transactions.html?_r=0
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)That the Robin Hood Tax is going to cost you a large amount of money.
The reality of it is, is that there already was a transaction tax on Wall Street. I know, I live in NY, where it was imposed by the State. It has been refunded to the banksters, and since been repealed by the Republicans when they were in power here.
It cost a minuscule amount compared to the profits made by these shylocks.
They really have you indoctrinated.
I feel very bad for you.
Would you like to buy a bridge for a few hundred dollars. Guaranteed profits.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)It's not hard for accountants to look at Bernie's plan and see what it costs. It's also been published in Forbes how the rich will avoid the tax.
The only one without facts is you.
The Robin Hood tax will cost many union employees money over a lifetime of work. If you studied it, talked to experts, and paid attention to facts you would be able to make a rational and objective choice.
I gave you a short version of the facts. That was on one of your issues. It's easy to give you the long version and include all the issues you rant about, but if you are sold on snake oil, then you get what you deserve.
Again, it doesn't matter because Bernie won't be President.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)that you have been well indoctrinated by the money class.
I have the facts. You have the opinions of those in the money class.
The amount that the Robin Hood tax costs is infinitesimal, when compared to the profits made in the markets.
I am not the one sold on snake oil. Others, on the other hand, have been sold the crap hook, line, and sinker, by the propaganda of the money class.
I am a member of the working class. I shall not be kowed by the money class.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)To be blunt, if a state fund (like Fl - I sent you the links) invests millions and millions every year for decades for retirement. Those funds are traded just like a high-powered investor. There are thousands of trades a day. That is the money our public employees depend on for retirement and benefits.
Each trade would be taxed by Bernie's plan. Each year, a few percent would be missing, and even 1 or 2 % fee would be millions compounded over 20-30 years of each employee. We can't say for sure, but each employee might lose thousands we estimate.
That would have to be made up by taking more from employee's pay checks, or else reducing employee's benefits. The retirement fund must be solvent.
It's simple, and accountants have confirmed that's the way it works.
Meanwhile, the millionaires would trade internationally, use capital gains tricks, and other ways to avoid the FTT.
It's clear that you have not studied the issue, and also that you do not understand Bernie's plan. It's also clear that you do not understand how retirement funds are managed for public employees.
You can rant all you want, but the facts are the facts. That is only ONE of Bernie's bad policies. There are others of course.
That's why unions who look at Bernie's plan don't like him.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)We can't say for sure, but each employee MIGHT lose thousands we ESTIMATE. They might not also, if their estimates are off.
I do know how public employee pensions work. I belong to one. Apparently Florida's are not managed very well, or their fund would not be running at a liability. Here in NY, I guess we have better account managers, because ours is growing. I do know that in many other states public employees are being taken off of a defined benefit plan and being put into a defined contribution plan. This way they don't have to manage the pensions. Also the accountants like this because it is more business for them. Perhaps they figure that you are going to lose money with the Robin Hood tax, because they have to get their cut first. I don't see this with our plan here in NY. We still have a defined benefit plan, an optional deferred compensation plan, and both work wonderfully. I know that there are also sometimes fees if one changes investments in the deferred compensation plan, which is one of the things that make the accountants and such money.
You can find all the reasons why you don't want to vote for Bernie, so I guess that when he is the candidate, you will be voting for another Bush, or a tRump, because Bernie's policies are so horrible. Truth of the matter is that he is the ONLY Democratic candidate who can beat ANY RepubliCON candidate. But don't let your facts get in the way of the truth.
I hope that you are aware that many independent voters as well as conservatives would never vote for Clinton. We have to be concerned with the general election, and nominate the person who is most electable.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)Wow are you wrong then...and Bernie's plan is bad for YOU!!!
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/pension/snapshot.htm
Strong 7.16% Performance
The Common Retirement Fund has a strong investment performance record. The Fund grew to a record high of $184.5 billion (audited value) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015.
As a long-term investor, the Fund has a robust diversification investment approach which capitalizes on market opportunities and weathers market ups and downs.
The Fund’s average five-year return is 10.17%, 10-year return is 7.12% and 20-year return is 8.69%.
Over the long-term, the Fund’s assumed rate of return to meet current and future retirement benefits is 7.5%.
Fact Sheet
Disclosure of Investments & Transactions
The State Comptroller releases monthly reports that disclose in detail investments and transactions, hiring of fund managers, and the involvement of placement agents.
Your fund invests with managers making trades every day. If you had an FTT of .1 (proposed by Bernie) and it never changed (unlikely), how many thousands of trade per day over 20-30 years would occur? What would be the compounded loss to such a fee. It would be millions!!!!
You would have to contribute more or reduce benefits to make up the difference!! Bernie is proposing to tax YOU!!!
Meanwhile, here's one expert economic opinion (there are many others):
http://publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/live/news/1001-a-call-for-free-college-tuition-a-policy-primer-on
Many, however, question the impacts that the transaction tax would have on the overall economy[20]. A financial transaction tax (FTT) like the “Robin Hood Tax” proposed by Sanders often decreases the value of assets. For example, models suggest that a 0.50% FTT, like the one suggested by Sanders, would reduce value on an asset held by 0.10 years by 62%[21]. Additionally, “[a] Congressional Research Service study estimated in the 1980s that the creation of a 0.5% tax on stock sales would reduce stock market values by between 9.3 and 14.6%”.[22] This FTT would decrease the overall value of the stock market, greatly impacting our economy as a whole.
In the long run this decrease in market values would decrease GDP, as shown in a European Commision model in which a 0.1% FTT led to a 1.76% drop in GDP in the long run[23]. This suggests that Sanders’ “Robin Hood Tax” might not increase tax revenues at all in the long run, as the revenue generated by income and sales taxes would decrease more than the transaction tax would raise.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)You are in favor of kids going into debt up to their ears to get the education that they need I guess. This makes them REAL slaves to the banksters because of the fact that they cannot default on a college loan.
So glad that I found this out. Now I know that you are in favor of the 1%.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)Taking money from retirement to pay for college?
How about asking state governments (who control the purse strings for state universities) to pay more!!
That's Hillary's plan in a nutshell. Instead of tax breaks for those millionaires to buy yachts tax free, and build ball stadiums...well, those state governments will have to reduce the cost of tuition and make college affordable at public colleges.
'No family and no student should have to borrow to pay tuition at a public college or university.'
Hillary Clinton on Monday rolled out a sweeping higher education plan — a $350 billion proposal that would help millions pay for college and reduce interest rates for people with student loans.
The plan, which would change the way a large swath of Americans pay for college, borrows ideas from the left and the right and even expands a program enacted by her husband. It includes ideas already being discussed in Congress and for which groundwork has been laid by the Obama administration. The proposal, dubbed the New College Compact, is unlikely to win over many in the GOP because the $350 billion over 10 years would come from cutting tax deductions for the wealthiest Americans.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/hillary-clintons-350-billion-plan-to-kill-college-debt-121210#ixzz3uWEkbtHW
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)because it MIGHT effect your retirement, and you don't know how much.
You know my state already pays a lot, but that puts a burden on the middle class, because we all pay for it in higher taxes. SUNY is still expensive. Even the Community College.
Oh and you know those ball stadiums. They are more times than not built with taxpayer money.
Many countries in Europe have free or very inexpensive college. ANYONE can go to college in Germany for free! Why not tax the ultra rich, and their low taxed speculations? Heck City University of NY in NYC was free up until the 80s. We used to be able to do it here in NY until they took away the transaction tax.
So I guess I am beginning to understand your logic. We can raise the taxes as long as it is not raising taxes on the bankers, who are greatly funding Clinton's campaign, because there is a possibility that your retirement may get taxed a little. Got it.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)First, it has nothing to do with my retirement. All public employees (like YOU) depend on their contributions being invested. No one can predict the future earnings, but it's easy to see that Bernie's Robin Hood tax would reduce the value of that retirement fund. We know that Bernie's tax would affect retirement negatively - we just don't know the exact amount because it depends on the market and number of trades over 30 years of investment.
All state funds that promise employees retirement will either have to collect more from the employees or reduce benefits because of the tax. This is a FACT that you refuse to accept, but it's clear to all knowledgable investors and accountants. Accountants say it would cost YOU money, plus the rich would not have much trouble avoiding the FTT.
Other countries who tried those taxes (Sweden, France) found they were a bad idea.
Europeans don't "all go to college free". The European economies and education systems have many differences from the US system. The Chronicle of Higher Education has reported (I sent you an link) that the Robin Hood tax would be a bad idea in the US and listed a number of reasons.
Bernie's tax WOULD NOT RAISE TAXES ON THE BANKERS. They have lots of ways to avoid transactions taxes. Regular people would pay the tax though out of their retirement.
Meanwhile, Hillary's plan WOULD pay for taxes by cutting tax loopholes that millionaires have now. I sent you the link.
You are simply wrong, wrong, wrong...sorry.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)
xocet
(3,871 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)And when she does, she parrots Bernie.
jfern
(5,204 posts)
Alfresco
(1,698 posts)
Cha
(297,503 posts)I don't want to jinx anything.. so I don't really like to get into the whole prediction thing so far in advance.. I just hope she and her Team keep steadily climbing as we've seen like what they did last Summer.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Oh my, Bernie is finished! He has platued, he is done... LOL! Even the Bernie blackout has not stopped him from climbing.
I firmly believe you are in for a very rude deja vu come Super Tuesday.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)then she is non-viable.
After all, with her national numbers being where they are
(as we've had to read over and over and over posted by her various, um, "supporters"
,
then winning every single primary should be no problem at all for her.
If she can't beat a "self-declared socialist" in every single contest,
well, then how can we expect her to beat a Republican? Right?
RandySF
(59,108 posts)Tell that to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
